NationStates Jolt Archive

Impeaching Bush would restore a great deal of my faith in the US.
Your faith in the US needs to give up the ghost, because it isn't going to get any better.

*BUMP*ies
Point being, consideration of The Nazz's new info.

I could go on and destroy this entire arguement however, I can tell by the rest of this post that it would be pointless.



What does the International Olympic Committee have to do with this? You mean the ICC that we ARE NOT a party too.

- ICC, yes, pardon the mistake. However, this is purely a matter of attitude. I'm a moral person, and I believe in the declaration of human rights. No matter how many treates America hasn't signed, it does not change the fact that their administrations are criminals, guilty of violating the popular law(not sure what it's called in english, actually); and of course of the offenses I listed in my last post.


Wrong o buddy! Accidents do happen in war and we go to great pains to make sure civilians ARE NOT killed. If we didn't care, we would've just carpet bombed every city in Iraq! Guess what? That didn't happen. So this is a lie right here.

- It may be that you think great pains are taken, but either that's a lie; or U.S. forces are smitten by the worst luck in the universe. Two examples:

* the 14/1/2006, it was believed Ayman Al-Zawahiri(alledged al-Qaeda member) was in a village in Pakistan. Oblivious to the fact that Pakistani intelligence attached to the operations said they didn't know whether Al-Zawahiri was present, an airstrike was called by the U.S. air force; and missiles killed eight men, five women and five children, all civilians. That's not an accident, that's callous disregard for human life.

* the 14/6/2005, three civilians were shot dead with assault rifles in Iraq, as U.S. troops did not believe the chaffeur was slowing down at their checkpoint. However, he was in fact attempting to stop the car, and even though he had problems with the engine, the car was found to be in decellaration when the people were killed.


1) I know you are refering to Gitmo and despite popular belief, they do not fall under the Geneva conventions.

I was actually referring to Abu Ghraib, but I don't share the sadistic glee you take in the fact that your government violates the declaration of human rights. It's the first sign that a nation is declining into being a terrorist itself.

2) We do try to treat the Iraqi Army POWs in accordance with the Geneva Conventions because the DO FALL under those terms.

We, we, we... Are you a soldier? I don't think so. However, even if we ignore the Abu Ghraib scandal, I find it hard to believe that the political leadership of the occupation paid much attention to whether Iraqi POWs were treated fairly, at least before it got international media attention.

3) As for torture, sleep deprivation, loud music, and extreme temps are not torturous.

- They are, however, intensely uncomfortable, and have been proven to cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in subjects; and have been proven to do so in numerous, multilateral scientific research projects. If you got PTSD from the treatment those assholes gave you, would you care whether it was officially recognized as torture? No, no you wouldn't.



HAHAHAHA!! Now I know you are very ignorant and believing whatever the press feeds you. Oh brother.

This does nothing for your arguement except show that you have nothing intelligent to say. Now I know how angry opposition gets when points start to be struck and I was hoping you wouldn't be one of them. I guess I was wrong. Of course, both sides start to hurl insults when either side makes a point.

- Your childish behaviour says more about you than it does about me. In fact, it seems like you buy way too much into U.S. claims that human rights violations are acceptable in times of war.


We all have a life and if you believe that you live in a more intellecutual integritial world than me, then I suggest you rethink that because it is apparent that you are being fed and you are eating up, whatever your being told which is inaccurate.

- I try to make up my own mind, and I do not accept news from heavily biased sources. In fact, all that I write is my own opinion, and the fact that you seem to think that I'm som sort of partisan robot is laughable. You should try questioning your alledgedly free press and alledgedly democratic leaders more often, I think you'd like it.

- ICC, yes, pardon the mistake. However, this is purely a matter of attitude. I'm a moral person, and I believe in the declaration of human rights. No matter how many treates America hasn't signed, it does not change the fact that their administrations are criminals, guilty of violating the popular law(not sure what it's called in english, actually); and of course of the offenses I listed in my last post.

Ahh the Declaration of Human rights which is technically not a treaty but a declaration? As for the administration being criminal, if that is the case then all world leaders who have ordered troops into combat are criminals and should be brought up. Do you agree with that?

- It may be that you think great pains are taken, but either that's a lie; or U.S. forces are smitten by the worst luck in the universe. Two examples:

* the 14/1/2006, it was believed Ayman Al-Zawahiri(alledged al-Qaeda member) was in a village in Pakistan. Oblivious to the fact that Pakistani intelligence attached to the operations said they didn't know whether Al-Zawahiri was present, an airstrike was called by the U.S. air force; and missiles killed eight men, five women and five children, all civilians. That's not an accident, that's callous disregard for human life.

And according to the Pakistanis, terrorists were killed in the Airstrike.

* the 14/6/2005, three civilians were shot dead with assault rifles in Iraq, as U.S. troops did not believe the chaffeur was slowing down at their checkpoint. However, he was in fact attempting to stop the car, and even though he had problems with the engine, the car was found to be in decellaration when the people were killed.

So what's going to happen to the troops? Under the rules of engagement when it comes to check points, if they felt that they were not slowing down, they do have authority to fire.

I was actually referring to Abu Ghraib, but I don't share the sadistic glee you take in the fact that your government violates the declaration of human rights. It's the first sign that a nation is declining into being a terrorist itself.

Again, the declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty. All it is is a declaration. Everyone knows this.

We, we, we... Are you a soldier? I don't think so. However, even if we ignore the Abu Ghraib scandal, I find it hard to believe that the political leadership of the occupation paid much attention to whether Iraqi POWs were treated fairly, at least before it got international media attention.

Ahhh not being treated fairly. Guess what? When we hear of abuses, we put a stop to it and punish those that are responsible for it. So yes the government DOES care about international law in regards to POWs.

- They are, however, intensely uncomfortable, and have been proven to cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in subjects; and have been proven to do so in numerous, multilateral scientific research projects. If you got PTSD from the treatment those assholes gave you, would you care whether it was officially recognized as torture? No, no you wouldn't.

Your right, I wouldn't. Unless they do something that can be considered tortured then I would consider it torture.

- Your childish behaviour says more about you than it does about me. In fact, it seems like you buy way too much into U.S. claims that human rights violations are acceptable in times of war.

Actually no I don't believe it is unacceptable but if we go into human rights violations, then I could give you a very long list of human right violations that is done throughout the mideast and africa that would make your hair stand on end. Some of it even done by UN peacekeepers and staff.

- I try to make up my own mind, and I do not accept news from heavily biased sources. In fact, all that I write is my own opinion, and the fact that you seem to think that I'm som sort of partisan robot is laughable. You should try questioning your alledgedly free press and alledgedly democratic leaders more often, I think you'd like it.

I question them all the time. That is why i do not trust the press nor do I fully trust our leaders in the Executive and legislative branches of government.

Can't prove something that isn't true.
This is why people are complaining about the grounds that were given as justification for invading Iraq.

This is why people are complaining about the grounds that were given as justification for invading Iraq.
Seconded. *bows*

The declaration of human rights forms the basis of international law in regards to conflict. A short primer:

Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is a subset of international law, based on the Geneva Conventions, governing the conduct of military operations.

The purpose of LOAC is 1) to limit the effects of conflict, 2) protect non-combatants, 3) safeguard the rights of those injured, captured, shipwrecked, etc., 4) lessen the destructiveness of war, 5) make the behavior of warinng parties more predictable, and 6) make the establishment of peace easier.

LOAC applies to the conduct of military operations even when war has not been declared and when only one party is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

Armed conflict law consists of several principles, namely 1) humanity, 2) military necessity, 3) proportionality, 4) chivalry, 5) distinction.


So yeah, the declaration, while not a treaty in itself, forms the basis for the laws of conflict, also to America, regardless of whether it's a signatory to the Geneva conventions. Is this beginning to sink in yet?

And our discussion is about the U.S. - Of course I consider African and Eastern(and all other) nations who break human rights equally despicable.

With regards to all military officials being criminals, that is just how I feel. Like I said, I'm a moral person; and I can personally support only very, very few armed conflicts ever undertaken. The "war" in Iraq is of course not one such.

Also, Corneliu, you have yet to reply to the charge that white phospherous has been used against personnel - other than with numbskull insults, anyway.

The declaration of human rights forms the basis of international law in regards to conflict. A short primer:



So yeah, the declaration, while not a treaty in itself, forms the basis for the laws of conflict, also to America, regardless of whether it's a signatory to the Geneva conventions. Is this beginning to sink in yet?

And our discussion is about the U.S. - Of course I consider African and Eastern(and all other) nations who break human rights equally despicable.

With regards to all military officials being criminals, that is just how I feel. Like I said, I'm a moral person; and I can personally support only very, very few armed conflicts ever undertaken. The "war" in Iraq is of course not one such.

Also, Corneliu, you have yet to reply to the charge that white phospherous has been used against personnel - other than with numbskull insults, anyway.

1) The Declaration of Human Rights and the Law of Armed Conflict are 2 very seperate different things.

2) I take offense that all military officers are war criminals. My father happens to be an officer in the military. I know he's not a warcriminal.

3) As to white phospherous, I'm not going to get into that debate again. There has been way to many threads on that topic.

Take offense all you want. If ordered to, he would kill people. It can hardly get less noble than that.

The LOAC is a subset of the Geneva Conventions, that are based on respect for human rights, and the declaration of same. I know it's not the same thing, but you have yet to voice support for either.

I'd still like to know what you think. You cannot claim that I'm an idiot clone eating spoonfuls of propaganda, and then not back up your apparent stance that White Phosphorous was not used on people in Iraq. I think it was, and there's enough evidence to make that a credible claim.

*sigh* I know it's been all over the place, but it's still true "He who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither security nor liberty." How about some charges, and trials? You know, things usually associated with arrests. Not that there have been any arrests that have come from this domestic spying that I've heard, but we have a nice phrase - "Probable Cause" that you use to get a warrant.

nice phrase, but if we're dead, then we can't even ponder such nice turns of speech.

it wasn't said by someone who faced the possibility of a madman blowing up 50 people with a bomb strapped to his torso....

I see no invasion of "privacy" whatsoever when we're tapping calls coming from foreign states, calls made by terrorists to hatch plans with Americans. Sorry, but if an American is plotting to murder other Americans, we have the right to do anything possible to stop him. Sorry, but I value my life more than a domestic terrorist's "rights". LOL, he has no right to murder me, so why should he have a right to privately plan my murder?

Our #1 right is the right to life. Without that, we can enjoy no others. The #1 priority of the federal government should be to protect Americans. Tell me what's worse:

a)NSA taps into a call from a terrorist in Iraq to an American and finds out that they are planning to blow up a mall (or plan a blast in one...) in Suburbia USA. They want to kill as many people as possible. By tapping into the call, NSA has ignored the American's right to privacy. The next day, FBI agents arrest the American and the plot to murder law-abiding Americans is foiled.

or

b)NSA is suspicious of the call between the American and the Iraqi terrorist, but because they require a warrant to tap it and do not have the warrant, they do not tap it. The terrorists blow themselves up in a mall in Your Hometown, USA, and 50 people are killed.

Now which is the greater trampling of rights: the American terrorist's right to hold a private phone conversation, or the right of the 50 murdered people to live?

IMO, people who are planning to attack this country forfeit their rights.

Take offense all you want. If ordered to, he would kill people. It can hardly get less noble than that.

I wouldn't go to that extreme if I were you. There are military personel on this board that will crucify you because of statements like that. We do not go around and intentionally target women and children. That'll be a warcrime. Attacking enemy forces is not a warcrime. Learn the difference between the two and you'll be a better debator.

The LOAC is a subset of the Geneva Conventions, that are based on respect for human rights, and the declaration of same. I know it's not the same thing, but you have yet to voice support for either.

I support the conventions on human rights, however, to base an arguement solely on the Declaration of Human Rights is a weak arguement. It wouldn't even hold up in court because the Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty. No one even recognizes it as a treaty. They only recognize it as a declaration.

I'd still like to know what you think. You cannot claim that I'm an idiot clone eating spoonfuls of propaganda, and then not back up your apparent stance that White Phosphorous was not used on people in Iraq. I think it was, and there's enough evidence to make that a credible claim.

As I said, i'm not going to get dragged into a WP debate.

We do not go around and intentionally target women and children.

except when you do.

except when you do.

If ya talking vietnam, only one person was ever court martial for violating the rules of war.

except when you do.

except, um, we don't. you're confusing us with terrorists/insurgents.

If ya talking vietnam, only one person was ever court martial for violating the rules of war.

and yet more than one person was involved in even just the one incident. and we know there were more incidents. hmm, interesting.

and yet more than one person was involved in even just the one incident. and we know there were more incidents. hmm, interesting.

Incidentences are investigated.

except, um, we don't. you're confusing us with terrorists/insurgents.

those would be the people taking hostages to use as leverage against perceived enemies, yes?

except, um, we don't. you're confusing us with terrorists/insurgents.
Sure we do--we just call them collatoral damage and say that there's no way to control cluster bombs and the like (and there isn't, but when you drop a cluster bomb in a place where you know there are civilian women and children, you have de facto targeted them). And then there's the recent story about the way we've been kidnapping female and child relatives of insurgents we're after. That could easily be considered targeting them as well.

As to your above comments about the wiretapping thing--you're extraordinarily naive and uninformed. Reports have already come out that note that among the groups wiretapped without a warrant include pacifist anti-war groups. Yeah--they're terrorists. The fact is that as long as there's no oversight (the FISA Court, Congressional Intelligence committees), you don't clue one as to who is being spied on and who isn't, and if you're that trusting of your government, if you're that chickenshit that you believe there's a terrorist behind every rock and that this government, so inept at everything else, will get this right and protect you, then you don't want to live in the US--you want to live somewhere where civil liberties aren't even considered a possibility and where you can be tossed in jail for dissenting with the government.

The Democrats have already given up on the NSA wiretapping issue. They recognize that this issue is a non-starter for them - it will only turn off people, because they will always be arguing from the position that makes them appear weak on terrorism.

Look at the comments from the major Democrats on the Sunday talk shows - Durbin, Schumer and Jane Harman. They're all conciliatory - if FISA needs to be rewritten or updated so the President can do what he thinks he needs to do, let's do it.

No one is talking impeachment seriously anymore.

Every issue that comes up now will be framed with the November elections in mind. If either side thinks they can't use the issue to make some points in November, they're going to ignore it and move on to the next one.

Incidentences are investigated.

investigated, covered up. same dif.

"In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." - colin powell investigating the my lai massacre.

The Democrats have already given up on the NSA wiretapping issue. They recognize that this issue is a non-starter for them - it will only turn off people, because they will always be arguing from the position that makes them appear weak on terrorism.

Look at the comments from the major Democrats on the Sunday talk shows - Durbin, Schumer and Jane Harman. They're all conciliatory - if FISA needs to be rewritten or updated so the President can do what he thinks he needs to do, let's do it.

No one is talking impeachment seriously anymore.

Every issue that comes up now will be framed with the November elections in mind. If either side thinks they can't use the issue to make some points in November, they're going to ignore it and move on to the next one.
Well, no one was talking seriously about impeachment in the first place. I posted the original article with a note of disbelief, and you'll find no stronger advocate of the notion that Bush deserves impeachment than I am.

But I think this will still be an issue for one reason--Bush has made no move to ask Congress to change FISA. Now, he may do that in the SOTU, but I don't expect it, because the more this program comes to light, the more it looks like there's no possible way to make it legal short of repealing the 4th Amendment. There's no probable cause involved; hell, there's not even reasonable suspicion. That's why they didn't go to FISA before--they couldn't even get retroactive warrants from the easiest court in the land and they knew it.

If I were running, I'd make it an issue. I'd run ads that showed the kinds of stuff an unregulated NSA could be picking up on and I'd tie my opponent as closely as possible to Bush.

But I think this will still be an issue for one reason--Bush has made no move to ask Congress to change FISA. Now, he may do that in the SOTU, but I don't expect it, because the more this program comes to light, the more it looks like there's no possible way to make it legal short of repealing the 4th Amendment. There's no probable cause involved; hell, there's not even reasonable suspicion. That's why they didn't go to FISA before--they couldn't even get retroactive warrants from the easiest court in the land and they knew it.

If I were running, I'd make it an issue. I'd run ads that showed the kinds of stuff an unregulated NSA could be picking up on and I'd tie my opponent as closely as possible to Bush.

The reason why he's not going to bring it up, and the reason why he's made no move to ask Congress to change FISA is because he doesn't believe that he needs to do that - if he is within his authority doing what he's doing now, there's no point in changing the law to make it "more legal". There's no 50%+1 rule when it comes to something being legal or illegal.

This would be akin to me calling my mom 500 miles away and asking her if I can go to the bathroom - I think I've got the authority to do it, so why would I bother asking permission?

Bush said it himself in his press conference last week - if he thought he was doing something illegal, why was Congress briefed repeatedly? Harmon and others have confirmed that they were aware of the program.

Again, like I said, this issue is a nonstarter for Democrats and they've already made the decision at the top to depolarize the issue.

But you're right - tying your opponent to Bush will be a major play in the elections in the fall, and you're going to see (assuming nothing changes) a lot of the Potomac Two-Step when it comes to dancing around supporting the President from both sides of the aisle this fall.

No one is talking impeachment seriously anymore.

except, of course, the american people. what with a majority of them agreeing with this statement from a zogby poll and all.

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12525

except, of course, the american people. what with a majority of them agreeing with this statement from a zogby poll and all.

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12525

Unfortunately, the American people don't vote on articles of impeachment.

It takes more than a poll to get this process started.

Unfortunately, the American people don't vote on articles of impeachment.

It takes more than a poll to get this process started.

indeed. which is why i stand by my position from earlier in the thread. i dislike congress in general and feel no need to rely on them for anything. i support a sort of 'democratic impeachment' involving storming the whitehouse and dragging everyone with any authority into the streets by their ankles. and then perhaps a good soild round of chasing them out of town with torches and pitchforks.

and then we move on to congress.

indeed. which is why i stand by my position from earlier in the thread. i dislike congress in general and feel no need to rely on them for anything. i support a sort of 'democratic impeachment' involving storming the whitehouse and dragging everyone with any authority into the streets by their ankles. and then perhaps a good soild round of chasing them out of town with torches and pitchforks.

and then we move on to congress.

...which is exactly the reason why the founders wrote the Constitution the way they did. :)

...which is exactly the reason why the founders wrote the Constitution the way they did. :)

yes, because they were a pack of counter-revolutionaries intent on rolling back the gains of the revolution.

This would be akin to me calling my mom 500 miles away and asking her if I can go to the bathroom - I think I've got the authority to do it, so why would I bother asking permission?

Your changing the situation. The onlty way to keep same situation is you promised your mom never to go anywhere with out asking her.

See now you asked because you had to to not be a liar and be trust worthy. A man's word is his bond and all.

If you go without asking her: you are breaking your promise.

Bush promised to follows the laws when he was sworn in both times. He just broke his promise. You can't trust his word now (if you did prreviously lol).

Not gonna happen unless some prominent repub's wife or daughter comes forward with some accusation of sexual misconduct. :fluffle:

Okay, this is a very much "consider the source" piece--this comes from the Washington (read:Moonie) Times Insight magazine (http://www.insightmag.com/), and it's behind a subscription wall so I can't get to the whole thing--my school's Lexis/Nexis server is mysteriously down. Here it is, with my commentary to follow:



Now I'm of two minds about this. I certainly believe Bush deserves it--I thought he deserved it before the 2004 elections because of the lies he told about the Iraq WMD intelligence--anad the latest NSA stuff only furthers that belief.

But I don't buy this article that Bush is sweating it, for one simple reason--the Republican House leadership would have to get on board for anything to come to the floor, and even though DeLay is gone, that ain't gonna happen. I have doubts that it would happen if we had a Speaker named Nancy Pelosi, but under Hastert? I've got a better chance at taking the bronze in rhythmic gymnastics at the next Olympics (even though I'm fabulous with the ribbon). It wold take a meltdown of epic proportions, with millions of protestors on Pennsylvania Avenue chanting that Bush either gets impeached or he'll be dragged out into the street by his ankles for this Congress to do something about it.

But it is a pretty picture to imagine--the impeachment, not the ankles thing. :D

Your changing the situation. The onlty way to keep same situation is you promised your mom never to go anywhere with out asking her.

See now you asked because you had to to not be a liar and be trust worthy. A man's word is his bond and all.

If you go without asking her: you are breaking your promise.

Bush promised to follows the laws when he was sworn in both times. He just broke his promise. You can't trust his word now (if you did prreviously lol).

Bush promised to follow the laws - yes. But the question here is whether or not what he did was legal. He believes it is. The Justice Department does too. The question of whether or not it was will be resolved by the courts.

Bush promised to follow the laws - yes. But the question here is whether or not what he did was legal. He believes it is. The Justice Department does too. The question of whether or not it was will be resolved by the courts.

And as of right now, no one has proper standing to file a lawsuit.

The reason why he's not going to bring it up, and the reason why he's made no move to ask Congress to change FISA is because he doesn't believe that he needs to do that - if he is within his authority doing what he's doing now, there's no point in changing the law to make it "more legal". There's no 50%+1 rule when it comes to something being legal or illegal.

This would be akin to me calling my mom 500 miles away and asking her if I can go to the bathroom - I think I've got the authority to do it, so why would I bother asking permission?

Bush said it himself in his press conference last week - if he thought he was doing something illegal, why was Congress briefed repeatedly? Harmon and others have confirmed that they were aware of the program.

Again, like I said, this issue is a nonstarter for Democrats and they've already made the decision at the top to depolarize the issue.

But you're right - tying your opponent to Bush will be a major play in the elections in the fall, and you're going to see (assuming nothing changes) a lot of the Potomac Two-Step when it comes to dancing around supporting the President from both sides of the aisle this fall.Your analogy fails, largely because this situation is far more serious, and because 1) Congressional hearings start next week on it and 2) there are two federal lawsuits asking for the courts to order an immediate halt to the program until its constitutionality can be determined.

As to your little remark about Harmon, it's already been noted by multiple sources that Congress was not told about the full extent of the program and that not only Harmon, but other Democrats in both the House and Senate had objected to what little they were told about it. Now not everyone will use this issue in November, but it will still be used.

And as of right now, no one has proper standing to file a lawsuit.
Corny, you really ought to try to keep up with this stuff (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/), especially if you're going to weigh in on the subject. Not that it's ever stopped you in the past.

Corny, you really ought to try to keep up with this stuff (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/), especially if you're going to weigh in on the subject. Not that it's ever stopped you in the past.

I don't see anything here to indicate that they have standing to bring a suit!

Your analogy fails, largely because this situation is far more serious, and because 1) Congressional hearings start next week on it and 2) there are two federal lawsuits asking for the courts to order an immediate halt to the program until its constitutionality can be determined.

The analogy doesn't fail because the situation is far more serious. That's the reason why I used an easy to understand analogy. I've never heard of an analogy failing because it wasn't serious enough.

Congressional hearings will start this week, but Congressional hearings will not determine whether or not the President was exercising his Constitutional authority or he overreached. They'll be for fact finding and political grandstanding.

I'm aware of the lawsuits, which is why I said "this is something for the courts to decide".

As to your little remark about Harmon, it's already been noted by multiple sources that Congress was not told about the full extent of the program and that not only Harmon, but other Democrats in both the House and Senate had objected to what little they were told about it. Now not everyone will use this issue in November, but it will still be used.

Whether or not Congress was informed as to the full extent of the program will be determined in the hearings. Harmon has stated that most of the Congressman and Senators who are complaining about the program weren't briefed on it. She has acknowledged that she was. Rockefeller and Roberts have acknowledged that they were. Again, if the President thought that what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have even gone that far.

It's too early to tell whether or not anyone will use this in November. If they do, I doubt it will have a major impact. Those who are predisposed to like the President will dismiss it, those who are predisposed to hate him will call it the most dangerous invasion of our rights since Hoover and independents probably won't care. The usually don't about this kind of thing.

I don't see anything here to indicate that they have standing to bring a suit!

And, as usual, that's your problem.

Whether or not Congress was informed as to the full extent of the program will be determined in the hearings. Harmon has stated that most of the Congressman and Senators who are complaining about the program weren't briefed on it. She has acknowledged that she was. Rockefeller and Roberts have acknowledged that they were. Again, if the President thought that what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have even gone that far.

It's too early to tell whether or not anyone will use this in November. If they do, I doubt it will have a major impact. Those who are predisposed to like the President will dismiss it, those who are predisposed to hate him will call it the most dangerous invasion of our rights since Hoover and independents probably won't care. The usually don't about this kind of thing.Unless he was doing it as a power grab and was counting on a complacent Congress not to call him on it. Remember, the AG is Gonzales, a man who was pushing for a stronger executive when he was Bush's White House counsel (the whole torture issue, remember?), and who is now signing off on these actions as AG. (On a side note, if we want to talk seriously about impeachment, Gonzales ought to be at the top of the list.)

And, as usual, that's your problem.

There's nothing in the article to indicate that anyone has any legal standing.

There's nothing in the article to indicate that anyone has any legal standing.

I have to agree with you here.

The only way these folks would have grounds to sue is if their messages were intercepted. I don't think there's any way for them to determine that before the case is thrown out.

As far as I know, there haven't been any prosecutions arising out of this information, either, so that's not an option.

It's an interesting quandry.

I have to agree with you here.

The only way these folks would have grounds to sue is if their messages were intercepted. I don't think there's any way for them to determine that before the case is thrown out.

As far as I know, there haven't been any prosecutions arising out of this information, either, so that's not an option.

It's an interesting quandry.

Yes it is an interesting quandry. One I'm glad I do not have to decide on :D

Yes it is an interesting quandry. One I'm glad I do not have to decide on :D

Me either. Alito and the boys can have at it.

Me either. Alito and the boys can have at it.

And girls too and I agree 100%

if the President thought that what he was doing was wrong, he wouldn't have even gone that far

good thing that we can trust dear leader to make such decisions himself and not have to worry about power corrupting him

Yes it is an interesting quandry. One I'm glad I do not have to decide on :D

Have the suits been thrown out?

Have the suits been thrown out?

They havne't even gone to trial yet.

I have to agree with you here.

The only way these folks would have grounds to sue is if their messages were intercepted. I don't think there's any way for them to determine that before the case is thrown out.

As far as I know, there haven't been any prosecutions arising out of this information, either, so that's not an option.

It's an interesting quandry.
Of course there aren't any prosecutions arising out of it--first of all, it's only just come to light, and second of all, who would be in charge of prosecuting any violation of the law? The justice department, headed by the guy who signed off on the program. Like he's really going to sic his boys on his own ass. This is a classic example of the need for not only a special prosecutor, but for an opposition party to be in control of one house of congress, so they can investigate using subpoena power. Right now, Republicans can do whatever they want with impunity because they hold all the cards. The same thing happened to Democrats when they ran the whole show--it's the whole power corrupts thing.

They havne't even gone to trial yet.

True, but if no one had any legal standing whatsoever to even bring the suit, then the suits should be done with before they even go to court.

True, but if no one had any legal standing whatsoever to even bring the suit, then the suits should be done with before they even go to court.

They were only just filed. They aren't going to be tossed before they go in front of a judge &c.

This would be akin to me calling my mom 500 miles away and asking her if I can go to the bathroom - I think I've got the authority to do it, so why would I bother asking permission?
Admittedly, i don't know very much about you, but one thing painfully obvious here is that you ARE capable of one/some of the most INFANTILE and fallacious examples EVER posted on this forum.

This is just f*cking pathetic.

Admittedly, i don't know very much about you, but one thing painfully obvious here is that you ARE capable of one/some of the most INFANTILE and fallacious examples EVER posted on this forum.

This is just f*cking pathetic.

One wonders if you will ever find a way someday to disagree with someone without either being overtly insulting or by gratuitively using profanity. Oops, sorry. Pr*fanity.

One wonders if you will ever find a way someday to disagree with someone without either being overtly insulting or by gratuitively using profanity. Oops, sorry. Pr*fanity.
Apparently he is the Simon Cowell of our little dysfunctional set. Sadly though he is more often right then wrong...oh the humanity.

One wonders if you will ever find a way someday to disagree with someone without either being overtly insulting or by gratuitively using profanity. Oops, sorry. Pr*fanity.

Well, Straughn WAS criticizing a wee-wee analogy after all. How delicate must one be when telling one that such a poor argument stinks?

Once again, wee-wee.

One wonders if you will ever find a way someday to disagree with someone without either being overtly insulting or by gratuitively using profanity. Oops, sorry. Pr*fanity.
Nah, you don't have that kind of time.
As desperate times call for desperate measures,
profane ignorance has its turn in the barrel.

Further, if someone posts in a manner that portrays opposing viewpoints as childish and uninformed, where THEY THEMSELVES are uninformed or disingenuous in their representation, they themselves MERIT the mockery befitting their insinuation of others' character. Truly, asking mother for permission to piss? Although there are a few youngsters here, this particular topic is quite a few graduations above that kind of comparison.

If it makes you feel better, then i guess i could reply to you sometime without the conditions you imply in your post ... but to be honest it's more fun sometimes to be off the cuff. But since i endeavour to be better at making people think i care and that i'm trying to be a better person,
I apologize that you take umbrange to my posts.
Yep, that oughtta clear it all up, just like real life. *nods*

Well, Straughn WAS criticizing a wee-wee analogy after all. How delicate must one be when telling one that such a poor argument stinks?

Once again, wee-wee.
Hey, thanks man. *bows*
BTW, you know i was referencing a Dilbert episode a while back when i mentioned spooning, right? :eek:

Nah, you don't have that kind of time.
As desperate times call for desperate measures,
profane ignorance has its turn in the barrel.

Further, if someone posts in a manner that portrays opposing viewpoints as childish and uninformed, where THEY THEMSELVES are uninformed or disingenuous in their representation, they themselves MERIT the mockery befitting their insinuation of others' character. Truly, asking mother for permission to piss? Although there are a few youngsters here, this particular topic is quite a few graduations above that kind of comparison.

If it makes you feel better, then i guess i could reply to you sometime without the conditions you imply in your post ... but to be honest it's more fun sometimes to be off the cuff. But since i endeavour to be better at making people think i care and that i'm trying to be a better person,
I apologize that you take umbrange to my posts.
Yep, that oughtta clear it all up, just like real life. *nods*

Or more succinctly, "goddammit, it was a wee-wee argument! Like I'm supposed to respond respectfully to that?"

I just like saying wee-wee.

Apparently he is the Simon Cowell of our little dysfunctional set. Sadly though he is more often right then wrong...oh the humanity.
oh the humanity
Oh, Ozzy's family Sho' loves pr*fanity Whoa, the insanity
Oh, dogs that crap and pee Home of depravity? No, they live happily, Yo!
Plus "Da Ali-G Show" and "Celebrity Mole" oh, and there's Anna Nicole, well, she's scaring me .. "Look ma, no cavities", oh, it's a station break .... better go out to the kitchen and microwave something!

I don't have Simon's dress sense nor can i suck as mean a c*ck. But i REALLY, really appreciate the comparison. *bows*

Thanks, also, for intro'n me with Weird Al.
And the other stuff, too. Although i truly don't know what you're talking about. All those other words are confusing.

Or more succinctly, "goddammit, it was a wee-wee argument! Like I'm supposed to respond respectfully to that?"
Yeah, what you said. *nods*


I just like saying wee-wee.
Well, you're one of the lucky few who can pull it off! Me, it'd be a disaster. Like Verd said, "Oh, the humanity ..."