NationStates Jolt Archive

After all, it's been stated that everything has been done within the realms of the law. so, laws don't need changing... right?

Right? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping_4)


Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts said he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change U.S. law regarding the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress.


"We are trying to get some movement, and we have a clear indication of that movement," Roberts, R-Kan., said.

Without offering specifics, Roberts said the agreement with the White House provides "a fix" to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and offers more briefings to the Senate Intelligence Committee.



Ok, so if you are going to "fix" the law, does that not implicitely mean that what has been going on has been in contravention of it?

Should this fix not also then include a.... ohhhh.... I dunno..... impeachment?

Because if the administration HAS been operating within the law, then it doesn't need fixing. If it needs fixing, then the Administration needs to be penalized for having operated outside of it.


How the hell can you have it both ways?

Answer: You can't.

Exception: If you have control over the body that could impeach you, the law is irrelevant.

There's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't play baseball.

Republicon 101: You can always have your cake and eat it too, as well as the Democrats' cake.

Republicon 101: You can always have your cake and eat it too, as well as the Democrats' cake.
Small point - Democrats seem to be going along with this revision of the law.

It's not hard to screw someone if they bend over and drop their trousers willingly.

There's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't play baseball.

Irrelevant Kimchi, because there IS something in the rulebook about warrants for phones of citizens.


"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order.Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so,"

--George W. Bush, April 20, 2004 Buffalo, New York.

Ok, so if you are going to "fix" the law, does that not implicitely mean that what has been going on has been in contravention of it?
You're problem is the fairly common assumption that government is sane. It isn't, their motto is: "If it ain't broke, fool around with it until it explodes, then buy a new one at an absurdly inflated price."

Irrelevant Kimchi, because there IS something in the rulebook about warrants for phones of citizens.


"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order.Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so,"

--George W. Bush, April 20, 2004 Buffalo, New York.

I'm not arguing that - I'm saying that plenty of Democrats seem ok with overlooking that and just modifying the law.

Senator Durbin, for instance, is very positive about this.

It's hard to classify the Democratic Party as an "opposition", don't you think?

In consideration of your assertion that President Bush isn't being impeached because he controls the Senate, I would submit that your assertion is incomplete and inaccurate.

He's not being impeached because the Democrats don't care to do so, the Republicans won't, and the American public believes that the NSA was right for spying without a warrant.

Yes, perhaps it's illegal. But it's hard to hang a man if the people of the town like what he did, the sheriff won't arrest him, and the town council wants to give him the keys to the city.

You're problem is the fairly common assumption that government is sane. It isn't, their motto is: "If it ain't broke, fool around with it until it explodes, then buy a new one at an absurdly inflated price."


Oh no, I have no such assumption. I just like to point out their more obvious bullshit and then enjoy the spectacle of the blind supporters running out with this week's copy of the party talking points.

It's kinda like watching roaches run from the light....


"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

-- George W. bush, July 14, 2004 Fond Du LAc, Wisconson

After all, it's been stated that everything has been done within the realms of the law. so, laws don't need changing... right?

Right? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping_4)



Ok, so if you are going to "fix" the law, does that not implicitely mean that what has been going on has been in contravention of it?

Should this fix not also then include a.... ohhhh.... I dunno..... impeachment?

Because if the administration HAS been operating within the law, then it doesn't need fixing. If it needs fixing, then the Administration needs to be penalized for having operated outside of it.


How the hell can you have it both ways?

Answer: You can't.

Exception: If you have control over the body that could impeach you, the law is irrelevant.
As if the shifting of the authority on impeachment wasn't enough, since apparently it hasn't raised enough hackles, other things come to light at PRETTY MUCH THE SAME TIME :

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469250

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469124

Now put these together and the republicans have *ZERO* place to argue about the "fear of democrats' invasive, run-everything government".

Don't you find it interesting that of the Democrats that have spoken up, if you look at the Democrats on the intelligence committee who were briefed on the surveillance program, none of them have called for it to be stopped?

Makes you wonder what the surveillance program is doing.

Small point - Democrats seem to be going along with this revision of the law.

It's not hard to screw someone if they bend over and drop their trousers willingly.
Thanks for pointing this out, Deep Kimchi. The Republicans and Democrats are practically the same party these days. Only their supporters and the media keep up the illusion of ideological difference.

Don't you find it interesting that of the Democrats that have spoken up, if you look at the Democrats on the intelligence committee who were briefed on the surveillance program, none of them have called for it to be stopped?

Makes you wonder what the surveillance program is doing.
It would be interesting to see if it weren't for anything the administration wanted to be "classified" to listed as such ... with the exception of Libby and Cheney's discretion, of course.

It would be interesting to see if it weren't for anything the administration wanted to be "classified" to listed as such ... with the exception of Libby and Cheney's discretion, of course.
I'm just pointing out that of the people that know about the program, no one objects to it if they know the details.

Maybe we should all know the details - maybe then, a lot fewer people would be upset.

Either that, or there's no real difference between Republicans and Democrats, except for a few phony shrill voices.

1. ... if you are going to "fix" the law, does that not implicitely mean that what has been going on has been in contravention of it?

2. Should this fix not also then include a.... ohhhh.... I dunno..... impeachment?

3. Because if the administration HAS been operating within the law, then it doesn't need fixing. If it needs fixing, then the Administration needs to be penalized for having operated outside of it.

4. How the hell can you have it both ways?
1. No.

2. No.

3. No.

4. Because the law can sometimes be very vague, and because the proposed solution is a political solution to a political problem, not a legal one.

I'm just pointing out that of the people that know about the program, no one objects to it if they know the details.

Maybe we should all know the details - maybe then, a lot fewer people would be upset.

Either that, or there's no real difference between Republicans and Democrats, except for a few phony shrill voices.
As a few other posters and myself had noted ... the biggest and most obvious difference is the idea of individual moral authority vs. societally-enforced moral authority. As far as the other stuff, there's enough situations for a person to have a reasonable argument on either party's fault.
My concern is how quick this is happening and how many real consequences will result.

4. Because the law can sometimes be very vague, and because the proposed solution is a political solution to a political problem, not a legal one.
You mean, like changing rules in the middle of the game? Because that's exactly what they're trying to do.

You mean, like changing rules in the middle of the game? Because that's exactly what they're trying to do.

You mean like those who believe that the Constitution is a "living" document whose meaning can and should be constantly re-interpreted to mean what it never did before?:rolleyes:

You mean, like changing rules in the middle of the game? Because that's exactly what they're trying to do.
Sigh. Try reading up on what's actually going on instead of your usual knee-jerk predictablity.

You mean like those who believe that the Constitution is a "living" document whose meaning can and should be constantly re-interpreted to mean what it never did before?:rolleyes:
No, I mean doing something illegal, then retroactively making it legal because people found out about it.

Sigh. Try reading up on what's actually going on instead of your usual knee-jerk predictablity.
For ONCE, can you reply to one of my posts without SOME type of insult?Because constant insults like that shows you yourself know nothing and need to feel better by putting others down. :rolleyes: That's not too tasty is it?

Actually, US v Olmstead for reasons of "public safety" found it reasonable to violate the protections laid down by the Constitution.

Olmstead was a case in which the government used wire taps to gather evidence against people it suspected were involved in the illegal sale of alcohol during Prohibition.

Actually, US v Olmstead for reasons of "public safety" found it reasonable to violate the protections laid down by the Constitution.

Olmstead was a case in which the government used wire taps to gather evidence against people it suspected were involved in the illegal sale of alcohol during Prohibition.
Interesting, but after reading up on it a bit, I found that "This case was reversed by Katz v. U.S. (1967)."

(http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/288/)

Interesting, but after reading up on it a bit, I found that "This case was reversed by Katz v. U.S. (1967)."

(http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/288/)

Good to know, thank you.

It's still a dangerous precedent that is supported by local actions such as to fight prostitution, cities confiscate the cars of men soliciting sex, sell them and keep the proceeds. Cities misuse eminent domain to take the property of their citizens so that businesses that will generate high tax revenues can build on it. Police are allowed to seize cash and property from people suspected to be involved in the drug trade, and keep it - even if the people they take it from are never charged, much less convicted. It's up to the victim of the seizure to prove the property isn't related to drug trafficking.

Sigh. Try reading up on what's actually going on instead of your usual knee-jerk predictablity.
Okay, Eutr, if you're read up on this topic, then what do you think of this post? It certainly factors in and i haven't seen any comment on it on your part.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10443489&postcount=9

Okay, Eutr, if you're read up on this topic, then what do you think of this post? It certainly factors in and i haven't seen any comment on it on your part.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10443489&postcount=9
I have this odd feeling that the Democratic Party is suffering from the same schizophrenia it had during the Vietnam War that resulted in the Chicago riots.

This time, however, I think the Democratic Party will actually fracture into two parties - one that is more vehemently and specifically "liberal", and another that is marginally different from the Republican Party.

I see this combination of vocal fury and passive acceptance as just another sign.

I have this odd feeling that the Democratic Party is suffering from the same schizophrenia it had during the Vietnam War that resulted in the Chicago riots.

This time, however, I think the Democratic Party will actually fracture into two parties - one that is more vehemently and specifically "liberal", and another that is marginally different from the Republican Party.

I see this combination of vocal fury and passive acceptance as just another sign.
It may, depending on certain forces ... given they're EXTREMELY bad at getting their sh*t together when they need to (as a party) and it also doesn't bode well to know there are dems supporting the refit ... it's understandable you would see it as such. Strangely enough i'm thinking more and more of the unity in the party is requiring certain press integrity ....

It may, depending on certain forces ... given they're EXTREMELY bad at getting their sh*t together when they need to (as a party) and it also doesn't bode well to know there are dems supporting the refit ... it's understandable you would see it as such. Strangely enough i'm thinking more and more of the unity in the party is requiring certain press integrity ....
People are only going to take so much of being stabbed in the back by their own party.

Witness the outrage of the people who voted Labour in the UK and had Blair and Brown screw them.

I've got plenty of Democrat friends who think that Clinton screwed them hard - they think he was a big disappointment. It was harder for them to tolerate him than it was for me (they had high hopes that were dashed).

The Dean effect was another precursor - the younger members of the party aren't going to stick around if they're getting the shaft.

People are only going to take so much of being stabbed in the back by their own party.
Admittedly, you're in Bush country on that one. *nods emphatically*

I've got plenty of Democrat friends who think that Clinton screwed them hard - they think he was a big disappointment. It was harder for them to tolerate him than it was for me (they had high hopes that were dashed).
I do too - not only due being in AK, where it's quite obviously a red state.

The Dean effect was another precursor - the younger members of the party aren't going to stick around if they're getting the shaft.Dean has some good ideas at times but is only one of the party and not particularly indicative of the whole movement - obviously people are starting the grooming now - and i'm not particularly plussed by the idea of Dean being the replacement for Bush, but i don't see that as being the case anyway, more than his charisma putting a challenge in to the party to try harder.
Then again, i'm not in either party so it's not something i really can say i have enough information about to be much help.

Ok, so if you are going to "fix" the law, does that not implicitely mean that what has been going on has been in contravention of it?

Should this fix not also then include a.... ohhhh.... I dunno..... impeachment?

Because if the administration HAS been operating within the law, then it doesn't need fixing. If it needs fixing, then the Administration needs to be penalized for having operated outside of it.


How the hell can you have it both ways?

Answer: You can't.

Exception: If you have control over the body that could impeach you, the law is irrelevant.
Actually, the heart of the matter here is quite simple. There are two parts to it.
Part 1: Does the executive branch have the constitutionally granted power to execute warrantless searches? Every presidency since before Jimmy Carter's has claimed this. It has been upheld in federal courts. I don't know if it's gone to the Supreme court.
Part 2:
Can the legislative branch limit the executive branch's constitutionally granted powers? I'm almost completely sure the answer to this one's no. Have to ask CT and a couple others, but I'm not 100% sure.

If the answer to the first question is yes, and the second question is no, than the senator is just trying to save face for his constituents.

Well, for those keeping track ...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-18T181315Z_01_N18211618_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&archived=False

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's domestic spying program should be overseen by a special court, the Senate Intelligence Committee's chairman said in an interview published on Saturday that revealed a split with the White House.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts told The New York Times he had concerns that the court, established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, could not issue warrants quickly enough for the eavesdropping program. But he said he would like to see that obstacle worked out.

"I think it should come before the FISA court, but I don't know how it works," Roberts, a Kansas Republican who has backed the administration on most intelligence issues, was quoted as saying. He said speed and agility were essential for the program.

Both Republicans and Democrats have raised questions about the program, which began shortly after the September 11 attacks. It allows the National Security Agency to act without a warrant in eavesdropping on the international communications of U.S. citizens suspected of having terrorist ties.

The surveillance act made spying on American citizens in the United States illegal without the approval of the special court, which operates in secret.

Bush insists he has constitutional authority to authorize the eavesdropping program as part of his war on terrorism, and the administration has resisted appeals for legislation to change the program. ("See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY)

The White House also contends Congress gave Bush the power as part its authorization to use force to respond to the September 11 attacks. Many lawmakers from both parties disagree.

Roberts told the newspaper he did not believe that exempting the program from the court's purview "would be met with much support" from Congress.

He was cited as saying he believed (Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc. - O3d)
Bush had the constitutional authority for the program. However, he said, "We would be much more in concert with the Congress and the FISA court judges," if the court oversaw the program.

Roberts announced on Thursday that "an agreement in principle" had been reached with the White House to address concerns about the eavesdropping. He rejected a call by committee vice chairman John Rockefeller, a Democrat, for an immediate probe into the program.

The White House has said Bush is open to ideas like that of Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine, who suggested creating a special subcommittee within the intelligence committees that would receive more details on the program and provide more oversight. DeWine's bill would also exempt the program from the intelligence court.

Oh no, I have no such assumption. I just like to point out their more obvious bullshit and then enjoy the spectacle of the blind supporters running out with this week's copy of the party talking points.

It's kinda like watching roaches run from the light....


"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

-- George W. bush, July 14, 2004 Fond Du LAc, Wisconson


What I think is interesting is that Bush refers to some resolution which supposedly gave him these wartime powers and, basically, be above the law. Later, he says that he has a constitutional right. He completely contradicts himself, and in my opinion should definitely be impeached. However, it won't ever happen because of the blind faith the Republicans have in him. I think that this could be called the beginning of the downfall of the United States; our civil liberties that we have had for over 200 years are being taken away from us thanks to the NSA domestic spying and the USA PATRIOT ACT. Its the beginning of a snowball.