NationStates Jolt Archive

At least not without a warrant, anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

Really, it's about time. Is it really that big a deal to get a flipping warrant? Bush's cronies argue that "Well, it would give away state secrets." Boo frickety hoo. This is the United States of Fucking America, not Oceania under Big Brother. You can't go around claiming, "Well...we could tell you why we do it, but it's secret! yeah, that's it! You're trying to uncover our secrets that we need to...umm...what's the word...find terrorists! Thanks, Karl...err, I mean, that's the word."

Next time, George Dubya and Co. might have a little more respect for procedure.

To quote Andrew Jackson:

"The Supreme Court has made its decision now let them enforce it."

Pff. Consider it Ignored by whoever was wiretapping

But wait. This was done by a federal judge.

*waits for the appeals process to kick in*

To quote Andrew Jackson:

"The Supreme Court has made its decision now let them enforce it."
It is a sad day when every branch of government has to buy its own mercenaries to enforce what should be respected as their jurisdiction in this country.

Pff. Consider it Ignored by whoever was wiretapping
You americans really need to depose that current government of yours.

Pff. Consider it Ignored by whoever was wiretapping

This was a federal judge who made the ruling; I am waiting for the Supreme Court to jump in and either go along with the ruling (not likely) or overrule it (since it was down the middle before Bush took office and now has two of his guys on it.) That said, even if the Supreme Court told him no, I doubt it would make a bit of difference. What are they going to do to him if he does, honestly? Tell him not to again?

It is a sad day when every branch of government has to buy its own mercenaries to enforce what should be respected as their jurisdiction in this country.

Read up on the Federal Courts. They do not have the authority to actively enforce their own rulings. Judging by how many times the Supreme Court has been ignored over the decades....

You americans really need to depose that current government of yours.

Mid terms are in November and the Presidential election is in 2008

You americans really need to depose that current government of yours.

im not american

Mid terms are in November and the Presidential election is in 2008
I pray for you all that this time, more than half of your country's population goes to the ballots and replace those idiots.

It doesn't matter who you replace them with; I really don't think anyone could do any worse of a job, even if they tried to.

I pray for you all that this time, more than half of your country's population goes to the ballots and replace those idiots.

It doesn't matter who you replace them with; I really don't think anyone could do any worse of a job, even if they tried to.

Then I suggest you actually look into our past presidencies. We have had even worse ones than Bush.

Then I suggest you actually look into our past presidencies. We have had even worse ones than Bush.
Please, enlighten me. A sense of morbid curiosity has suddenly washed over me.

Certainly no previous president has abused his powers as much as the current administration. This one is basically saying "Fuck you all, I'm president and can do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, and to whomever I want".

And Bush could have had all the secret wiretaps and searches and whatever he wanted just by using the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows just that. FISA even allows the Government to do what it feels it needs to do, and then apply for a warrant afterwards. I don't believe there's ever been a case of a FISA court refusing the Government's requests. Ever.

And Bush could have had all the secret wiretaps and searches and whatever he wanted just by using the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows just that. FISA even allows the Government to do what it feels it needs to do, and then apply for a warrant afterwards. I don't believe there's ever been a case of a FISA court refusing the Government's requests. Ever.
True. But they probably were never refused because they always asked for warrants when those warrants were justified.

The Bush administration seems keen on wiretapping people who have nothing at all to do with terrorism. Even if a warrant was never refused, it would certainly have started if Bush and co. asked for warrants for some of their less justified tappings.

And Bush could have had all the secret wiretaps and searches and whatever he wanted just by using the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows just that. FISA even allows the Government to do what it feels it needs to do, and then apply for a warrant afterwards. I don't believe there's ever been a case of a FISA court refusing the Government's requests. Ever.

That's the big problem here. Bush and Co. have a serious problem with following procedure; it's flagrant disrespect for the law and the Constitution. If Bush has that much disrespect for the law, will he respect the 22nd Amendment? Or, more likely, will the neocons just run another candidate and put the same people into Cabinet positions as before? Picture a ticket of jeb Bush and, say, Condoleezza Rice, with Cheney as something, Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense...the Inner Party still remains in power, even with a different face.

Please, enlighten me. A sense of morbid curiosity has suddenly washed over me.

Certainly no previous president has abused his powers as much as the current administration. This one is basically saying "Fuck you all, I'm president and can do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, and to whomever I want".

Clinton's line-item vetoes and the scandals of his Administration, Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair, Nixon thought he was above the law and spied on his rivals, Johnson's Pentagon Papers and the false justification for the Vietnam war, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and make a power grab, Harding appointed his cronies to political positions and ripped off the US navy in Teapot Dome, etc.

In fact, Nixon was so bad that they passed the War Powers Act to tame the presidency and contain such abuses of power. I'd say the two-term limit was a similar move to contain another FDR.

Please, enlighten me. A sense of morbid curiosity has suddenly washed over me.

Certainly no previous president has abused his powers as much as the current administration. This one is basically saying "Fuck you all, I'm president and can do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, and to whomever I want".
Nixon comes to mind. It could argued that Andrew Jackson was a bad president. As could it be with Abraham Lincoln.

This is why I don't like democracy. We have a bad habit of electing idiots because they might have a degree.

You'd think people'd learn never to trust lawyers and oil tycoons.

And Bush could have had all the secret wiretaps and searches and whatever he wanted just by using the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows just that. FISA even allows the Government to do what it feels it needs to do, and then apply for a warrant afterwards. I don't believe there's ever been a case of a FISA court refusing the Government's requests. Ever.


Which is fine if they actually got teh warrents afterwards. Noone ever said they dont want wiretapping on USians - I think most of us just want a bit of judicial oversight.

But yes there have been a couple refusals for warrentws. Like 5 out of 10 thousand or something.

The best part of it all is that this is the second consecutive descision on this issue ordering a stop to it. The law is clearly on the correct side of it, and the longer this administration flouts the law the more the GOP will suffer for it. Personally, I hope this one rides them into a deep dark hole of electoral disappointment.

Clinton's line-item vetoes and the scandals of his Administration, Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair, Nixon thought he was above the law and spied on his rivals, Johnson's Pentagon Papers and the false justification for the Vietnam war, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and make a power grab, Harding appointed his cronies to political positions and ripped off the US navy in Teapot Dome, etc.

In fact, Nixon was so bad that they passed the War Powers Act to tame the presidency and contain such abuses of power. I'd say the two-term limit was a similar move to contain another FDR.
Hmmm. Tell me again why does the american public usually not wake up in time to vote these morons out of office? (Wasn't Nixon impeached, by the way?)

However, the Bush admin seems to be guilty of pretty all the combined offenses you just named, except for the line-item veto abuse and the occassionnal stained dress(which really isn't much of a scandal, if you ask me)

They lied to justify a war in Iraq, they appoint their friends to positions of power, they're packing the supreme court with neocon judges that fit their ideology, they think they're above th law and spy on everyone... Yep, they seem worse than all those other guys.

Over here in Canada, if a government is utterly corrupt or abuses its power, we simply vote them out. I'll never understand how the american public could reelect them after the first 4 years.

Hmmm. Tell me again why does the american public usually not wake up in time to vote these morons out of office? (Wasn't Nixon impeached, by the way?)

However, the Bush admin seems to be guilty of pretty all the combined offenses you just named, except for the line-item veto abuse and the occassionnal stained dress(which really isn't much of a scandal, if you ask me)

Bush hasn't quite pulled an Iran-Contra or the other Cold War stuff that Reagan and the others did, and hasn't committed a scandal like Teapot dome. Really, the stuff he's done is like an amalgamation of some Johnson and Nixon; not quite as severe as either case, but still pretty bad.

Clinton did have some scandals and did lie under oath; it wasn't a major thing and certainly no Pentagon papers or Watergate, but still was a violation of the law.

They lied to justify a war in Iraq, they appoint their friends to positions of power, they're packing the supreme court with neocon judges that fit their ideology, they think they're above th law and spy on everyone... Yep, they seem worse than all those other guys.

Not quite. What FDR did was he literally tried to increase the number of Supreme Court justices so that he could appoint all of the new justices and thereby gain control over the court...Bush hasn't been quite audacious enough to try to increase the size of SCOTUS.

He's somewhere between Johnson and Nixon when it comes to political power grabs...not quite as bad as FDR or Lincoln, but still pretty high up there. Even so, Andrew Jackson is probably the closest thing to a dictator we've ever had.

Over here in Canada, if a government is utterly corrupt or abuses its power, we simply vote them out. I'll never understand how the american public could reelect them after the first 4 years.

Well, it was a combination of things. The 2004 election was the post-Iraq and post-9/11 presidential election so you had a lot of people voting for Bush because of those two issues; at the same time, this wiretapping and other stuff simply wasn't known to the public at the time even though some parts of it run back as far as 1999/2000 during the Clinton administration.

In 2004, a lot of this stuff simply wasn't known and the justification of the Iraq war hadn't degenerated to the point it has now so people didn't have the same negative opinion they have now.

what are your thoughts on this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

Stupid.

Oh well they will probably keep doing it anyway.

YAY Constitution! Boo NSA! :)

Stupid.

Oh well they will probably keep doing it anyway.

First off, to the OP, there is already a thread on this.

And to Hydesland, they probably will since the Courts do not have power to actually enforce their decisions.

Clinton's line-item vetoes and the scandals of his Administration, Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair, Nixon thought he was above the law and spied on his rivals, Johnson's Pentagon Papers and the false justification for the Vietnam war, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and make a power grab, Harding appointed his cronies to political positions and ripped off the US navy in Teapot Dome, etc.

In fact, Nixon was so bad that they passed the War Powers Act to tame the presidency and contain such abuses of power. I'd say the two-term limit was a similar move to contain another FDR.

Clinton's line item veto? You made that up. He never USED a line-item veto. He might have set the agenda to have a bill on it introduced into Congress (where it was found unconstitutional,) but he never tried to use one, to my knowledge.

Now Bush, on the other hand, with his signing statements has tried repeatedly to use a sort of de facto line item veto.

I could be wrong, so if you have any literature on Clinton's line-item vetoes, I'd be happy to read them (try to avoid sources like Newsmax.)

To quote Andrew Jackson:

"The Supreme Court has made its decision now let them enforce it."

To quote the Constitution:

"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

To quote Andrew Jackson:

"The Supreme Court has made its decision now let them enforce it."
Are you actually saying that unless the Supreme Court is as an institution going to enforce it, then it's not a law?

I thought it was the job of the police and government to enforce laws?

Clinton's line item veto? You made that up. He never USED a line-item veto. He might have set the agenda to have a bill on it introduced into Congress (where it was found unconstitutional,) but he never tried to use one, to my knowledge.

Now Bush, on the other hand, with his signing statements has tried repeatedly to use a sort of de facto line item veto.

I could be wrong, so if you have any literature on Clinton's line-item vetoes, I'd be happy to read them (try to avoid sources like Newsmax.)

I'd have to check, honestly. I just seem to recall there being a SC decision on the issue back in the mid-90's. Bush's signing statements are pretty much the same idea in principle; of course, it's twice as bad considering who's using it...

This judge in this case is a Carter appointed far left loony. I am not shocked. Judicial activists never do surprise me.

Clinton's line-item vetoes and the scandals of his Administration,
Clinton wasnt as bad as Bush, arguably he made the Bush situation worse (by lowering the standards of honesty re the President), but the fact is it was Bush that did the damage and made the world a more dangerous place with his reactionary 'stupid is the new clever' red-neckism.

Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair,
Again not nearly as bad as Bush so far as I can tell. Bush appears to have done a great deal more harm to the US's security in terms of accruing enemies through interference with other nation-states, and the damage done to the U.S's reputation under Bush didnt occur under Reagan, Iran-Contra affair or not. He was also apparently less fiscally irresponsible.

Nixon thought he was above the law and spied on his rivals,
I dont view Bush and co as seeing themselves subject to the law. After all isnt this thread about illegal spying? Has not Guatmo being ruled illegal? As for the laws about torture, who only knows, I wouldnt put money on Bush having no culpability in that area.....

Johnson's Pentagon Papers and the false justification for the Vietnam war,
Heard of Iraq?

FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and make a power grab
Is this supposed to be ironic?

Harding appointed his cronies to political positions and ripped off the US navy in Teapot Dome, etc.
Actually this I know nothing about whatsoever....

In fact, Nixon was so bad that they passed the War Powers Act to tame the presidency and contain such abuses of power. I'd say the two-term limit was a similar move to contain another FDR.
When and if the US gets over Bush-madness, expect similar revisions...Also considering how Bush has behaved with the War Powers Act in place to tame the presidency, how much worse than Nixon would Bush have been were it not in place (aka if he were presiding with the same freedoms as Nixon)...

Frankly I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, I note that many of the 'sins' you cite having been carried out by one president or other are also in Bush's portfolio....:confused:

This judge in this case is a Carter appointed far left loony. I am not shocked. Judicial activists never do surprise me.
And he continues with the trend of mentioning "judicial activists" in every single post.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, what ARE judicial activists, anyway?

Presidents have these activist lower courts rule against them all the time. Ways are always found around them.

And he continues with the trend of mentioning "judicial activists" in every single post.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, what ARE judicial activists, anyway?

Judges who rule based on what they wish the laws said instead of what they actualy say in their text. They believe the consitution is subject to changing public opinion. This motivates them to insert their own ideology into their rulings.

Judges who rule based on what they wish the laws said instead of what they actualy say in their text. They believe the consitution is subject to changing public opinion. This motivates them to insert their own ideology into their rulings.

I see, and after all any judge could CLEARLY see that it says, right there in the constitution, that the president has the authority to authorize surveilance of citizens without a warrant and without congressional approval.

Oh, wait...no it doesn't.

And it's worth noting that as far as this poster goes, you can basically substitute "activist" judge with "democrat" and all the others as "republican".

In other words it's a worthless term, he uses it to describe any judge that disagrees with his own, obviously infallable, viewpoint

Barry, you make me ROFL.

Activist judge is, in fact, code for "judge who rules in a way I don't like".

Why does being a Carter appointment make her a bad judge? She seems like a very good judge, from what I've seen.

Clinton's line item veto? You made that up. He never USED a line-item veto. He might have set the agenda to have a bill on it introduced into Congress (where it was found unconstitutional,) but he never tried to use one, to my knowledge.

Now Bush, on the other hand, with his signing statements has tried repeatedly to use a sort of de facto line item veto.

I could be wrong, so if you have any literature on Clinton's line-item vetoes, I'd be happy to read them (try to avoid sources like Newsmax.)

He used it. But it's not really a clinton issue. The line item veto was part of the GOP's contract with america. It's one of those things that if you really disagree with it you should take it up with Newt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

I assume the Washington Post is an okayish source.

I see, and after all any judge could CLEARLY see that it says, right there in the constitution, that the president has the authority to authorize surveilance of citizens without a warrant and without congressional approval.

Oh, wait...no it doesn't.

And it's worth noting that as far as this poster goes, you can basically substitute "activist" judge with "democrat" and all the others as "republican".

In other words it's a worthless term, he uses it to describe any judge that disagrees with his own, obviously infallable, viewpoint

NO, an activist judge can be a Republican too. It just happens more rarely on the Republican side because the text of the law usualy is on their side. The text of the Consitution's free speech clause was not violated by the wiretap program because it was not part of a law passed by Congress. The text of the Consitution contains no inherent right to privacy. The text of the Constitution contains nothing about seperation of powers that stops the President from conducting wiretaps. This judge's ruling was obviously activist in nature.

Barry, you make me ROFL.

Activist judge is, in fact, code for "judge who rules in a way I don't like".

Why does being a Carter appointment make her a bad judge? She seems like a very good judge, from what I've seen.

It is not a codeword for anything except what it is. It is when a judge rules without consulting the text of law strictly. I do not like many rulings by strict constructionists , but I respect them a hell of a lot more...as they are based on actual law.

The text of the Consitution contains no inherent right to privacy.

Um...."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

The text of the Constitution contains nothing about seperation of powers that stops the President from conducting wiretaps.

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.


The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.


No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.


Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Hrm, nothing about wire tapping in there. Of course, you'd actually have to believe the president only has powers that...ya know...the law says he has. Which is very activist thinking indeed.

This judge's ruling was obviously activist in nature.

Quite right, where does this judge get off thinking that the president only has the powers that the law says he has? What absolute nonsent, after all...he's the president...and...stuff, and junk...after all, just because the law never says he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he doesn't have the power to do it. Pure activitst thinking, reading the constitution and noticing it's not there.

Your true colors are showing. The constitution says NOTHING about authorizing this sort of power, it's not there. And if you were such a true originalist and not just a raging bushevic then even YOU would have to concede that the constitution does not grant him this power, and you who so strongly believes that if it's not written there on the text, it doesnt' exist, must logically concede...he doesn't have it.

You kept talking about how the "true" way to read the constitution is to see what it says, and then you say "well there's nothing there that says he CAN'T!" By your own rationale that's improper. It's not there in the text, that's your whole argument about everything else that DOESN"t have to do with Bush.

Of course when it has to do with Heir president, we can look beyond that minor trivality, eh?

It is not a codeword for anything except what it is. It is when a judge rules without consulting the text of law strictly. I do not like many rulings by strict constructionists , but I respect them a hell of a lot more...as they are based on actual law.

I see.

Show me in the law, point out to me the words in the constitution, that clearly authorize the president to do this.

Go ahead, show me where it is.

Um...."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

the wiretaps left homes secure, houses secure, papers secure, and effects secure. It is not a search. It is not a siezure.



Hrm, nothing about wire tapping in there. why would there be, it was written in 1787 and serves as a limit, not a list of things which can be done .


Your true colors are showing. The constitution says NOTHING about authorizing this sort of power, it's not there. the President was legally given these powers by a legal act of Congress. Setting up a strawman of originalism so powerful that Scalia wouldnt buy it is not impressing me

You kept talking about how the "true" way to read the constitution is to see what it says, and then you say "well there's nothing there that says he CAN'T!" By your own rationale that's improper. It's not there in the text, that's your whole argument about everything else that DOESN"t have to do with Bush.

Of course when it has to do with Heir president, we can look beyond that minor trivality, eh?

The text does not say no wiretaps. It does say that that the President has the duty to execute laws that are put in place by Congress. Congress gave the president the power to wiretap as part of the use of force resolution after 9/11.

I see.

Show me in the law, point out to me the words in the constitution, that clearly authorize the president to do this.

Go ahead, show me where it is.

Oh, don't you sound patheticly psuedo aggressive.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"

Congress gave President Bush the right to use "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The person who decides what is necessary and appropriate is the President unless it is challanged in a court. It has been. But a stay has been granted on appeal from this court's ruling, which means that it continues to be legal unless the Supreme Court of the United States ever rules otherwise.

The text does not say no wiretaps. It does say that that the President has the duty to execute laws that are put in place by Congress. Congress gave the president the power to wiretap as part of the use of force resolution after 9/11.

Really? Then why are so many members of congress denying that fact? I am not denying that the authorization to use military force was passed after 9/11, that's well known fact. I, and many members of congress who VOTED on the resolution, do not believe that the authorization to wiretap without a warrant is part of that.

You should check up the president's "other" argument, the one that argues that even if they didn't authorize him to do it, he gets to because of inherent presidential authority...you know, just 'cause he's president.

You agree with that one too?

Really? Then why are so many members of congress denying that fact? I am not denying that the authorization to use military force was passed after 9/11, that's well known fact. I, and many members of congress who VOTED on the resolution, do not believe that the authorization to wiretap without a warrant is part of that.

You should check up the president's "other" argument, the one that argues that even if they didn't authorize him to do it, he gets to because of inherent presidential authority...you know, just 'cause he's president.

You agree with that one too?

What some members of Congress say is not relavent when it comes to the Constitutionality of this program. Their opinion is not worth anything unless they make the program illegal with a vote....which they have not.

He does not get to do it because he is the President. He gets to do it because Congress gave him the jurisdiction to do it.

PS, you voted on the use of force resolution?

Oh, don't you sound patheticly psuedo aggressive.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"



That's nice, keep reading. You know, where it defines what that executive power is. Things can be so out of context when you only read the first line.

Although I understand that it's hard to keep focused, what with your obviously raging ADD.

Your argument rests on two assumptions:

1) in passing the Authorization to Use Military Force Congress intended that authorization to include wiretaps. This is questionable, and several congressmen have in fact stated that this was NOT their intention

2) Congress could even pass that. Keep in mind that a congressional law can not violate the constitution.

IF congress had the power to authorize such a thing, and IF they actually authorized it...then ok, fair enough.

Neither of those are certain however, and to state with such foolish certainty that they are just shows the fundamental point...you don't know what in hell you're talking about.

That's nice, keep reading. You know, where it defines what that executive power is. Things can be so out of context when you only read the first line.

Although I understand that it's hard to keep focused, what with your obviously raging ADD.


yeah I have insult ADD once I read one I stop reading what you write! I jsut highlight and delete and respond to whatever comes before the first insult. It is rather limiting.

The enforcement of the use of force resolution falls within the limits of executive power as set by the Constitution.

What some members of Congress say is not relavent when it comes to the Constitutionality of this program. Their opinion is not worth anything unless they make the program illegal with a vote....which they have not.

He does not get to do it because he is the President. He gets to do it because Congress gave him the jurisdiction to do it.


He gets to do it because Congress told him he could do it, but it's irrelevant if members of Congress actually are saying they didn't tell him he could do it.

Stunning logic. You miss my point entirely. If members of congress say that the ability to wiretap was NOT part of the powers he was authorized to use...doesn't that somewhat call into question as to whether or not he was authorized to use those powers by Congress?

They don't have to make it illegal, there merely have to withold making it legal, which is exactly what, in the eys of some congressmmen who voted on the act, they did.

The enforcement of the use of force resolution falls within the limits of executive power as set by the Constitution.


Once again, and due try to keep up, only if that was the powers he was granted, and only if congress was constitutionally permitted to grant him that power.

The president can not act in this instance beyond what congess authorized him to do, and congress can not authorize him to do unconstitutional acts.

if either the act is unconstitutional, or congress did not afford him the specific power to issue wiretaps...he can't do it.

Neither of those issues has been resolved yet, so stop acting like it is.

He gets to do it because Congress told him he could do it, but it's irrelevant if members of Congress actually are saying they didn't tell him he could do it.

Stunning logic. You miss my point entirely. If members of congress say that the ability to wiretap was NOT part of the powers he was authorized to use...doesn't that somewhat call into question as to whether or not he was authorized to use those powers by Congress?

They don't have to make it illegal, there merely have to withold making it legal, which is exactly what, in the eys of some congressmmen who voted on the act, they did.
It is not relavent if members of Congress are backing off what they voted for. That is the nature of politics. It has nothing to do with the law's interpretation. They gave the President a broad sweeping arena of choices as to what to do and how to do it with the use of force's extremely broad language. Saying that they don't want it to say what it says is not relavent unless they actualy change what it says.

Once again, and due try to keep up, only if that was the powers he was granted, and only if congress was constitutionally permitted to grant him that power.

The president can not act in this instance beyond what congess authorized him to do, and congress can not authorize him to do unconstitutional acts.

if either the act is unconstitutional, or congress did not afford him the specific power to issue wiretaps...he can't do it.

Neither of those issues has been resolved yet, so stop acting like it is.

The use of force resolution specified that the president could not do anything that violated the text of the Consitution. Its pretty simple really.

Once again, and due try to keep up

Perhaps if you are going to try to imply someone is being stupid you should check your spelling of your rapier wit post first before you send it off. Just an idea.

It is not relavent if members of Congress are backing off what they voted for. That is the nature of politics. It has nothing to do with the law's interpretation. They gave the President a broad sweeping arena of choices as to what to do and how to do it with the use of force's extremely broad language. Saying that they don't want it to say what it says is not relavent unless they actualy change what it says.

I suggest you look up the concept of "legislative intent", and recognize that what you are saying is actually the total opposite of legal tradition.

Perhaps if you are going to try to imply someone is being stupid you should check your spelling of your rapier wit post first before you send it off. Just an idea.

meh, 3 am, long day, and never claimed to be able to spell well.

if you do have a comment on the substance of my argument, feel free to voice it.

The use of force resolution specified that the president could not do anything that violated the text of the Consitution. Its pretty simple really.

And it would appear that at least one court is saying that wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional.

ya see what I'm gettin at here?

The text does not say no wiretaps. It does say that that the President has the duty to execute laws that are put in place by Congress. Congress gave the president the power to wiretap as part of the use of force resolution after 9/11.
The text doesnt need to say wiretaps specifically - what is being 'tapped' and appropriated is private conversations, a private conversation is the property of the conversants, in effect such a conversation is covered by reference to effects.

The use of force resolution specified that the president could not do anything that violated the text of the Consitution. Its pretty simple really.
I would have thought it was simple, however your posting of such a comment here leads me to wonder....you do understand that it's an instruction not a statement of fact...?:confused:

I suggest you look up the concept of "legislative intent", and recognize that what you are saying is actually the total opposite of legal tradition.

I am aware of legislative intent and I do not believe that they did not mean to give the President that power if they have not taken it away by now. Just because the black caucus and the other radilibs have turned on what they voted for it does not mean that the meaning of the law changes.

And it would appear that at least one court is saying that wiretapping without a warrant is unconstitutional.

ya see what I'm gettin at here?

Yes I do, but it is meaningless because an appeal has been put in place.

The text doesnt need to say wiretaps specifically - what is being 'tapped' and appropriated is private conversations, a private conversation is the property of the conversants, in effect such a conversation is covered by reference to effects.

A conversation is not an effect. You do not own your "own" sound waves from your voice as a commodity to be bought, traded, sold etc. Nobody does. They are public record.

Yes I do, but it is meaningless because an appeal has been put in place.

It's not meaningless, it's precident, and it shall be reviewed as such. There will be an appeal, which will fall in the hands of the ultimite governing authority on the constitution, and we shall see what they say.
However it's worth noting bush's other argument, which says that he gets to do it...cause he's president.

At least you're not willing to go along with that ludicrus line of thinking, so I can respect you for that.

A conversation is not an effect. You do not own your "own" sound waves from your voice as a commodity to be bought, traded, sold etc. Nobody does. They are public record.
You are incorrect.

It's not meaningless, it's precident, and it shall be reviewed as such. There will be an appeal, which will fall in the hands of the ultimite governing authority on the constitution, and we shall see what they say.
However it's worth noting bush's other argument, which says that he gets to do it...cause he's president.

At least you're not willing to go along with that ludicrus line of thinking, so I can respect you for that.
The opinion of individual members of Congress is legal precedent since when?

Source where the President said that he gets to wiretap in and of himself as the President without power granted to him by Congress. If you can't, don't make the claim.

You are incorrect.
Show me the court precedent that says that the human voice is a personal "effect" under the Constitution.

Show me the court precedent that says that the human voice is a personal "effect" under the Constitution.
What? You do know that there is a lot more to the law in the US than the Constitution and starie decisis that directly references the Constitution?:confused:

He used it. But it's not really a clinton issue. The line item veto was part of the GOP's contract with america. It's one of those things that if you really disagree with it you should take it up with Newt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

I assume the Washington Post is an okayish source.
Thank you for posting this.
A highlight ...:


Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, with Scalia and O`Connor saying the Idaho potato growers had not shown they were harmed and hence lacked standing to sue; all three said the line-item veto should have been declared constitutional.
Kind of interesting, kinda not.

What? You do know that there is a lot more to the law in the US than the Constitution and starie decisis that directly references the Constitution?:confused:
Perhaps they don't know.
A lot of shooting from the hoop.
However, it should be known that BaAuH20 takes much umbrage to being laughed at, however much merit the circumstance allots.

Perhaps they don't know.
A lot of shooting from the hoop.
However, it should be known that BaAuH20 takes much umbrage to being laughed at, however much merit the circumstance allots.

BaAuH20? And here and I thought I was being too subtle on the other thread. Does he even know you're talking about him?

BaAuH? And here and I thought I was being too subtle on the other thread. Does he even know you're talking about him?
I'm not sure. I don't think i have enough time to find out, truly.
Normally that would be a subtle insult, but seriously enough, i'm usually absent due jolt issues (that haven't caught up to me tonight yet ;) )


EDIT: I caught it? :)

The use of force resolution specified that the president could not do anything that violated the text of the Consitution. Its pretty simple really.
You know, the decision covered that argument, that the AUMF had given the President the power to do whatever was necessary, blah blah blah. The judge didn't exactly find it compelling. (http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf) This is text from the actual decision, pages 37-39.

VIII. The Authorization for Use of Military Force
After the terrorist attack on this Country of September 11, 2001, the Congress jointly enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (hereinafter “AUMF”) which states:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The Government argues here that it was given authority by that resolution to conduct the TSP in violation of both FISA and the Constitution.

First, this court must note that the AUMF says nothing whatsoever of intelligence or surveillance. The government argues that such authority must be implied. Next it must be noted that FISA and Title III, are together by their terms denominated by Congress as the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted. Both statutes have made abundantly clear that prior warrants must be obtained from the FISA court for such surveillance, with limited exceptions, none of which are here even raised as applicable. Indeed, the government here claims that the AUMF has by implication granted its TSP authority for more than five years, although FISA’s longest exception, for the Declaration of War by Congress, is only fifteen days from date of such a Declaration.

FISA’s history and content, detailed above, are highly specific in their requirements, and the AUMF, if construed to apply at all to intelligence is utterly general. In Morales v. TWA, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992), the Supreme Court taught us that “it is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.” Id. at 384. The implication argued by Defendants, therefore, cannot be made by this court.

The case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) in which the Supreme Court held that a United States citizen may be held as an enemy combatant, but is required by the U.S. Constitution to be given due process of law, must also be examined. Justice O’Connor wrote for the court that: [D]etention of individuals . . . for the duration of the particular conflict in which they are captured is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518.
She wrote that the entire object of capture is to prevent the captured combatant from returning to his same enemy force, and that a prisoner would most certainly return to those forces if set free. Congress had, therefore, clearly authorized detention by the Force Resolution. Id. at 518-
519.

However, she continued, indefinite detention for purposes of interrogation was certainly not authorized and it raised the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes the enemy combatant status assigned him. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 521, 524.

Justice O’Connor concluded that such a citizen must be given Fifth Amendment rights to contest his classification, including notice and the opportunity to be heard by a neutral decisionmaker. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 533 (citing Cleveland Board of Education v. Laudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)). Accordingly, her holding was that the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution must be applied despite authority granted by the AUMF.

She stated that:
It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.
* * * *
Any process in which the Executive’s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short. Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 532, 537.
Under Hamdi, accordingly, the Constitution of the United States must be followed.

The AUMF resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers doctrine.

A conversation is not an effect. You do not own your "own" sound waves from your voice as a commodity to be bought, traded, sold etc. Nobody does. They are public record.
Tell that to the RIAA. :p

HUZZAH!

Now I can talk about my evil schemes in peace, instead of hearing little beeping noises every time I say something a bit dodgy!

I think the part that unsettles me the most about the issue of wiretapping is the rationale I'm hearing in defense of it on the media. I listen to a lot of conservative talk shows, and normally I agree with them, but this time... not so much. The biggest pro-wiretap argument I've heard so far is "Look how well it worked! If it hadn't been for wiretapping, those planes would have blown up from London!"

You can't justify this kind of thing on that basis. It's like saying "the ends justify the means" and in terms of Constitutional law, that's crap.

Is it unconstitutional? Well, they certainly CAN get warrants, and the FISA court exists specifically for that purpose. If that process is too slow, then they could streamline it and make the judges available 24/7 for a warrant. I don't see why that's such a big hangup... Unless there's some question as to whether or not they'd GET the warrant, which brings us back to square 1.

If this action is based on law-enforcement, then they need a warrant. Period.

If this action is based upon military operations, then they're really screwed because the military CANNOT act directly against US citizens unless Martial Law is in place, which it is not.

I don't understand FISA and the need for Bush to screw over your Constitution anyway. Isn't there an act/law that lets Federal agents get retroactive warrants extending like two wees after the action the warrant is needed for is taken? Is Federal red-tape so bad that two weeks isn't enough?

I don't understand FISA and the need for Bush to screw over your Constitution anyway. Isn't there an act/law that lets Federal agents get retroactive warrants extending like two wees after the action the warrant is needed for is taken? Is Federal red-tape so bad that two weeks isn't enough?

Is UK red tape so bad that 28 days of arrest without charge isn't enough?

LOL

Is UK red tape so bad that 28 days of arrest without charge isn't enough?

LOL

Apparently so. Although why you're being so dickish about it is beyond me; I asked a perfectly reasonable question.

Is UK red tape so bad that 28 days of arrest without charge isn't enough?

LOL


According to the latest YouGov poll, most of us favour making it 90 days.

According to the latest YouGov poll, most of us favour making it 90 days.

Good God that's depressing. So much for the rights of the accused...

Apparently so. Although why you're being so dickish about it is beyond me; I asked a perfectly reasonable question.
Not anymore dickish than the tone of your question, and not any less reasonable a question than yours.

I find it fascinating that just because the poster is "Deep Kimchi", people automatically assume it's a dickish response.

I said earlier this week that if I intend to be a dick, I will use XML tags such as <your ideas suck> test message </your ideas suck>

The red tape, BTW, to get warrants, can be exhaustive. In order to get the warrants throught the FISA court quickly, you have to have a lot of paperwork in exact order - in some cases hundreds of pages of documentation.

Try writing your doctoral thesis in two weeks.

Good God that's depressing. So much for the rights of the accused...

I suppose that most of us are sick of hearing about 'rights' after the sham of 'rights' is being employed to give hijackers asylum instead of the boot.

Not anymore dickish than the tone of your question, and not any less reasonable a question than yours.

I find it fascinating that just because the poster is "Deep Kimchi", people automatically assume it's a dickish response.

I said earlier this week that if I intend to be a dick, I will use XML tags such as <your ideas suck> test message </your ideas suck>

The red tape, BTW, to get warrants, can be exhaustive. In order to get the warrants throught the FISA court quickly, you have to have a lot of paperwork in exact order - in some cases hundreds of pages of documentation.

Try writing your doctoral thesis in two weeks.

You have somewhat of a reputation old chum.

And oh dear, paperwork. Perhaps you should just avoid it and kick peoples doors down instead and drag them out? That would save a lot of time and fuss now, wouldn't it?

You have somewhat of a reputation old chum.

And oh dear, paperwork. Perhaps you should just avoid it and kick peoples doors down instead and drag them out? That would save a lot of time and fuss now, wouldn't it?

Well, the UK seems to have dispensed with warrants. They can search your house, wiretap your phone, read your email, and arrest you, and wait 28 days before being forced to let you go (unless they can convince the court that they need more time to find evidence).

There's probably a balance somewhere. I would say that the FISA court is fine, if you give the Feds 90 days to come up with the evidence. Same with holding people on suspicion of terrorism.

Now, I would change one thing. If it turns out that the government was wrong - i.e., after 90 days, there's no evidence, and they've ruined your house, your reputation, and held you in jail for 90 days and you've lost your job, they should have to pay millions of dollars in restitution to each person. Say, 20 million per person. In cash, tax free, immediately. And that comes out of the budget of the arresting agency.

Are you actually saying that unless the Supreme Court is as an institution going to enforce it, then it's not a law?

I thought it was the job of the police and government to enforce laws?

When you are dealing with the Federal Courts, it is the job of the government to do what the Supreme Court tells them to do. Legally speaking, the government can ignore the Supreme Court at its leisure. The Congress can punish the President for doing so but it has never happened in the past.

I'd have to check, honestly. I just seem to recall there being a SC decision on the issue back in the mid-90's. Bush's signing statements are pretty much the same idea in principle; of course, it's twice as bad considering who's using it...

How is it twice as bad considering who is using it? Seems to me it is bad when anyone does it.

And yes, Clinton did use line item vetos till they were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Good God that's depressing. So much for the rights of the accused...
Indeed. It's completely out of order and it needs to be sorted out.

I find this entire debate kind of funny because the American Public never really has privacy because the Government has been spying on us for over two centuries.

I pray for you all that this time, more than half of your country's population goes to the ballots and replace those idiots.

It doesn't matter who you replace them with; I really don't think anyone could do any worse of a job, even if they tried to.

That's what I was telling Bush apologists before the last election. Everytime I heard "you don't know that Kerry's going to be any better," It was all I could do to make a reply calmer than, "yes I fucking do you retard. Anything would be better than him. A literal piece of shit sitting on that seat stinking the place up for 4 years would be better than President Bush as long as some halfway compotent individual picked the cabinet."

Same deal with this pack of Congressmen and the Senators. I'd like to see them all kicked out right now (president included) and replaced from scratch. Can't possibly be worse. It just isn't possible. This guy has superlativly bad goals, and suprelativly bad means of achieving them. At least if we replace them all we have a chance at someone who can either accomplish stupid ideas, or someone who can't accomplish good ideas. Either one is better than someone who can't accomplish his bad ideas, but can do far worse while trying.

Fuck! It's only yesterday that he realized "Iraq isn't doing that great."

new Domici, you apparently do not know as much as you think you do. Granted, we probably would not be in Iraq but what makes you think that warrentless wiretappings will not be continuing?

I'd have to check, honestly. I just seem to recall there being a SC decision on the issue back in the mid-90's. Bush's signing statements are pretty much the same idea in principle; of course, it's twice as bad considering who's using it...

No, it's not the same principle, but even if it was, that principle was declared unconstitutional.

What Bush is doing isn't preventing a bill, or parts of one, from becoming law. He's making it law, but then refusing to follow the law he just signed. Signing statements don't carry the weight of law. It's just the President saying what his opinion is.

He doesn't have the right to violate the law. He thinks he does. This isn't biased left-wing slander on my part. He was asked by a reporter if wire-tapping without a warrant, nor any intention of getting one, violates the law and his response was, "I don't like that term "violates." We asked the FISA courts if we could use this law to get these wiretaps, and they said 'no you can't do that using this law' so we didn't use the FISA law, but I don't like to say that we violated the law..." and he kept rambling like that, in typical Bushian fashion.

In other words, "yes, I violated the law, but I'd like it if you didn't say so."

His defense amounts to a murderer saying "Yes, I killed the guy for his stereo, but I asked a cop beforehand, 'hey, self defense means that you can kill a guy if he's trying to kill you, right? So can use that law to kill a guy if I want his stereo? No?' So I didn't use the self-defense clause. I just killed my roommate and kept his stereo. But I didn't break the self-defense rule, I just didn't use it."

new Domici, you apparently do not know as much as you think you do. Granted, we probably would not be in Iraq but what makes you think that warrentless wiretappings will not be continuing?

Because a Democratic president wouldn't have the support of Congress to violate the law like this.

Remember when Clinton wanted to go into Easter Europe with the support of the whole world? The Republicans were totally against it. Do you think for one second that a republican congress would trust a Democrat with the power to secretly spy on them?

And Bush didn't 'continute' secret wire tapping. That stopped under Nixon, and he was going to be impeached over it (don't quibble with me over the details). Then came FISA, which lets you get a wiretap and wait 3 days before asking for a warrant. Bush decided that even that was too much of a burden. That's what would not be tolerated from a Democratic president.

Now, please demonstrate to me why John Kerry would be using illegal wiretaps.

Well, the UK seems to have dispensed with warrants. They can search your house, wiretap your phone, read your email, and arrest you, and wait 28 days before being forced to let you go (unless they can convince the court that they need more time to find evidence).


Yes, but if you say banana they stop straight away.

One of the sentences in the decision makes me wonder how objective and knowledgeable this judge is. I think she is more interested in a political agenda than a legal one. She wrote "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." The part about hereditary Kings is what makes me question her objectivity.

The part about powers not existing outside the Constitution makes me wonder how she avoids the coercion that the federal levys on us every time it collects payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Too bad these hacks seem to think they can influence how our national security is protected. I'm sure this will be appealed and overturned. I juist hope it is before some crisis is caused by compliance with this order.

Another thing I noticed is that everyone is harping on Bush for this "supposed" violation of the Constitution.

Can someone name me a president who has not violated the Constitution?

Because a Democratic president wouldn't have the support of Congress to violate the law like this.

Remember when Clinton wanted to go into Easter Europe with the support of the whole world?

He had the support of the whole world? That is rich since he did it without consent of the whole world. He had NATO support for that operation and not the UN.

The Republicans were totally against it. Do you think for one second that a republican congress would trust a Democrat with the power to secretly spy on them?

Since it has been happening with a Democratic and Republican led Congresses....

And Bush didn't 'continute' secret wire tapping. That stopped under Nixon, and he was going to be impeached over it (don't quibble with me over the details).

Care to actually back that up?

Then came FISA, which lets you get a wiretap and wait 3 days before asking for a warrant. Bush decided that even that was too much of a burden. That's what would not be tolerated from a Democratic president.

And you think that has stopped warrentless wiretappings?

Now, please demonstrate to me why John Kerry would be using illegal wiretaps.

Nice edit. How about defending America from those who want to do it harm and can not wait for a FISA warrent?

Another thing I noticed is that everyone is harping on Bush for this "supposed" violation of the Constitution.

Can someone name me a president who has not violated the Constitution?

Your previos post had me suspicious. This one has me certain. Your knowledge of logic and ethics is completly fucked up.

"But Maaaa. All the other presidents are doing it."

The answer isn't "well, this president violated the constitution, but so what, so do others."

The answer is, let's start impeaching these mother-fuckers for violating the supreme law of the land, and if this constitution won't do it, we'll vote in another batch that will get off their asses and do their jobs.

Now, can you please tell me how Clinton and Carter violated the Constitution? I'd ask about Reagan and Bush, but I already know. And before that, Nixon paid a price for his violation. So did LBJ. Why is no one asking Bush junior to pay a price for his violation?

And why is it when you say that other presidents have violated the constitution it sounds like the broke a law, but when you say that Bush violated the constitution it sounds like he used it as a jizz rag?

*snip*

Now can you do a post without insulting someone? I am a very nice person but I do not take to kindly to being insulted.

Insulting a poster while trying to make a point negates the point you are making.

Now I will ask my question again.

Name me a president who has not violated the US Constitution.

No, it's not the same principle, but even if it was, that principle was declared unconstitutional.

What Bush is doing isn't preventing a bill, or parts of one, from becoming law. He's making it law, but then refusing to follow the law he just signed. Signing statements don't carry the weight of law. It's just the President saying what his opinion is.

He doesn't have the right to violate the law. He thinks he does. This isn't biased left-wing slander on my part. He was asked by a reporter if wire-tapping without a warrant, nor any intention of getting one, violates the law and his response was, "I don't like that term "violates." We asked the FISA courts if we could use this law to get these wiretaps, and they said 'no you can't do that using this law' so we didn't use the FISA law, but I don't like to say that we violated the law..." and he kept rambling like that, in typical Bushian fashion.

In other words, "yes, I violated the law, but I'd like it if you didn't say so."

His defense amounts to a murderer saying "Yes, I killed the guy for his stereo, but I asked a cop beforehand, 'hey, self defense means that you can kill a guy if he's trying to kill you, right? So can use that law to kill a guy if I want his stereo? No?' So I didn't use the self-defense clause. I just killed my roommate and kept his stereo. But I didn't break the self-defense rule, I just didn't use it."IN essence, he's violating his oath of office, which is to execute the office of the President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Executing the office of the president means enforcing the laws Congress makes--that's why the executive branch is in charge of the federal policing authorities as opposed to the judicial branch. It does not, however, mean that the President gets to pick and choose what he enforces--he's supposed to enforce them all equally. In theory, at least--every president has his own biases and levels of importance. But he certainly does not have the power to invalidate laws simply because he doesn't like them, except when he uses veto power.

One of the sentences in the decision makes me wonder how objective and knowledgeable this judge is. I think she is more interested in a political agenda than a legal one. She wrote "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." The part about hereditary Kings is what makes me question her objectivity.

The part about powers not existing outside the Constitution makes me wonder how she avoids the coercion that the federal levys on us every time it collects payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Too bad these hacks seem to think they can influence how our national security is protected. I'm sure this will be appealed and overturned. I juist hope it is before some crisis is caused by compliance with this order.
What is it about the threat of terrorism that causes otherwise reasonable people to wet their pants and start tossing away privacy rights willy-nilly?

Another thing I noticed is that everyone is harping on Bush for this "supposed" violation of the Constitution.

Can someone name me a president who has not violated the Constitution?

William Henry Harrison.

What is it about the threat of terrorism that causes otherwise reasonable people to wet their pants and start tossing away privacy rights willy-nilly?

Since when did we have a literal right to privacy as the Government has been violating that principle for decades.

IN essence, he's violating his oath of office, which is to execute the office of the President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Executing the office of the president means enforcing the laws Congress makes--that's why the executive branch is in charge of the federal policing authorities as opposed to the judicial branch. It does not, however, mean that the President gets to pick and choose what he enforces--he's supposed to enforce them all equally. In theory, at least--every president has his own biases and levels of importance. But he certainly does not have the power to invalidate laws simply because he doesn't like them, except when he uses veto power.

Hmm. There is legislation that gets passed that provides no funds for its enforcement. Tell me, is the President supposed to pull money out of his ass? I'm sure that plenty of Presidents before have not enforced various legislation to the extent that one may desire. Shall we throw them all in jail?

The Supreme Court already ruled that the President can't be made to enforce all legislation.

William Henry Harrison.

Good point :D

What is it about the threat of terrorism that causes otherwise reasonable people to wet their pants and start tossing away privacy rights willy-nilly?
That's a facetious question, if I ever saw one. Doesn't it bother you to write things like that?

Hmm. There is legislation that gets passed that provides no funds for its enforcement. Tell me, is the President supposed to pull money out of his ass? I'm sure that plenty of Presidents before have not enforced various legislation to the extent that one may desire. Shall we throw them all in jail?

The Supreme Court already ruled that the President can't be made to enforce all legislation.

Or the President flat out ignores the Supreme Court.

Now can you do a post without insulting someone? I am a very nice person but I do not take to kindly to being insulted.

Insulting a poster while trying to make a point negates the point you are making.

Now I will ask my question again.

Name me a president who has not violated the US Constitution.

A) It's retarded to ask me to demonstrate a negative. The onus is supposed to be on you to show me how some others have done it.

B) My point was that it doesn't matter if you think other presidents have violated the constitution. If this one has done it he should be impeached. If others have done it, they should have been impeached. It's like saying "lots of guys commit murder. Why shouldn't I go free?"

C) You have demonstrated a very poor understanding of ethics and logic. I called you on it. If you're insulted, I don't care, but it does nothing to undermine my point. The only thing that undermines a point is a lack of foundation, foundation on false facts, or unsound logic in building the argument up. Your "all presidents violate the constitution" has no basis (you haven't name one president that has done it) and does nothing to bolster your argument that it's OK for Bush to have done so, because you have not demonstrated how one president's crime justifies another.

D) You continue to demonstrate your poor understanding of logic by asking your rhetorical question even when the point that you are trying to raise with it has been debunked. Once the point is debunked your question, no matter how many times you ask it, is about as relavent as "what color is the sky? Blue? You mean the color that represents democrats? are you going to tell me that the party of the sky is less Godly than the party of blood?"

E) I'll ask again, can you tell me how Clinton or Carter has violated the Constitution? If you can't then I have told you a president that has not violated the constitution.

That's a facetious question, if I ever saw one. Doesn't it bother you to write things like that?
Not at all--you're the one who's proposing that we toss rights out the window in exchange for some false sense of security from a threat that will, in all likelihood, never touch the vast majority of US citizens personally.

Not at all--you're the one who's proposing that we toss rights out the window in exchange for some false sense of security from a threat that will, in all likelihood, never touch the vast majority of US citizens personally.

Can you personally guarantee that?

Care to actually back that up?

With this you establish yourself as a certified conspiracy theorist on top of having no understanding of logical structure of debate. Go find a book on logic and learn the meaning of the phrase "loosness of association." Until then, I will only bother to respond you your posts if they address a topic I find interesting. But rest assured, I am only using such a post as a "that reminds me," and my future posts should in no way be construed as a response directed towards you in any way.

The red tape, BTW, to get warrants, can be exhaustive. In order to get the warrants throught the FISA court quickly, you have to have a lot of paperwork in exact order - in some cases hundreds of pages of documentation..

I'm curious how you know this since the warrants are not public. If you are basing your opinion on typical criminal search warrants, you may very well be right. If the warrants really are that long, my opinion might change.

However, after spending the last 10 years reviewing 100's of search warrants, I'd bet my next paycheck that the content of most of them are merely 'cut and paste', with several paragraphs of specific information added.

My opinion is that NSA just wanted to cut corners instead of doing things the right way...

Not at all--you're the one who's proposing that we toss rights out the window in exchange for some false sense of security from a threat that will, in all likelihood, never touch the vast majority of US citizens personally.

You mean that if I bring hairspray on a plane it won't automatically detonate killing everyone on board? That's just naive. :p

Can you personally guarantee that?

I'll personally gauarantee it. If you get blown up by a terrorist, come to me and I'll say, "my bad."

Can you personally guarantee that?
Hmmm. 300 million American citizens. Maybe 10K Islamic fundamentalist terrorists worldwide, and I'm being way fucking generous with that number. Throw in the typical problems with logistics, funding, willingness, and our regular security measures which, while they could be better, don't have to extend to the level of police-state tactics that you and Myrmidonisia are practically masturbating to get, and I'd say the odds are pretty much in my favor. The danger is certainly not worth pissing one's self over, especially when there are more effective methods to increase security without giving up liberties.

Hmmm. 300 million American citizens. Maybe 10K Islamic fundamentalist terrorists worldwide, and I'm being way fucking generous with that number. Throw in the typical problems with logistics, funding, willingness, and our regular security measures which, while they could be better, don't have to extend to the level of police-state tactics that you and Myrmidonisia are practically masturbating to get, and I'd say the odds are pretty much in my favor. The danger is certainly not worth pissing one's self over, especially when there are more effective methods to increase security without giving up liberties.


No. Think like a politician for a minute. Even the Democrats today have to get up and say they will "do something".

Your plan sounds like "do nothing". Because odds on, the typical American won't be affected. If you figure 911 only killed ~3000 people, that's a very minor percentage of Americans. But a very public disaster and public spectacle.

At least if something happens today, the government can say "we were trying". The 911 Commission seems to have concluded that "doing nothing" was bad.

Political suicide, even if a fairly minor attack actually occurs. Because your opponents will seize on it, and the public will know you did nothing to prevent it.

A) It's retarded to ask me to demonstrate a negative. The onus is supposed to be on you to show me how some others have done it.

Nope. I asked a question. The onus is on you to prove the answer to my question. By saying it is a negative before even trying shows me that you do not know alot about the Presidency.

B) My point was that it doesn't matter if you think other presidents have violated the constitution. If this one has done it he should be impeached. If others have done it, they should have been impeached. It's like saying "lots of guys commit murder. Why shouldn't I go free?"

And the majority of those murderers are caught and tossed into jail. Presidents who have violated their oaths of office and/or violated the Constitution have not been impeached save one. I only say one because Andrew Johnson was impeached on an unconstitutional law.

C) You have demonstrated a very poor understanding of ethics and logic. I called you on it. If you're insulted, I don't care, but it does nothing to undermine my point.

You called me on nothing but your pure biasness against this president instead of actually looking over the history of the Presidency. You want to hang one person on something that has been going on for decades. Heck since President John Adams.

The only thing that undermines a point is a lack of foundation, foundation on false facts, or unsound logic in building the argument up. Your "all presidents violate the constitution" has no basis (you haven't name one president that has done it) and does nothing to bolster your argument that it's OK for Bush to have done so, because you have not demonstrated how one president's crime justifies another.

Presidents who have done it: Bush (GWB), Clinton (lying under oath-Impeached but not convicted) Bush(GHWB), Reagan (Iran-Contra-not impeached), Carter, Nixon (Resigned rather than be impeached), LBJ (lying about vietnam-Hey if it can work on Bush..), JFK (illegally spying on Americans)...etc.

Those are just some of them. We can also include Jackson on that list for ignoring the Supreme Court Rulings in regards to treaties made with Indians. Lincoln for trampling all over the Constitution, McKinly for listening to false reports about the Maine (again, if we can hang bush on bad intel..) FDR for trying to undercut the Constitution. We could go on but then again, I could be typing all day. Needless to say we have had very very few presidents who have not violated the Constitution.

D) You continue to demonstrate your poor understanding of logic by asking your rhetorical question even when the point that you are trying to raise with it has been debunked.

Actually, it is only rhetorical in your mind because you have no answer despite one being given for you. Of course he only lasted 30 days in office before he died. What about George Washington? Another one who did not violate the Constitution.

Once the point is debunked your question, no matter how many times you ask it, is about as relavent as "what color is the sky? Blue? You mean the color that represents democrats? are you going to tell me that the party of the sky is less Godly than the party of blood?"

No point was debunked.

E) I'll ask again, can you tell me how Clinton or Carter has violated the Constitution? If you can't then I have told you a president that has not violated the constitution.

Carter for undermining the security of our country and Clinton for lying under oath which is a misdeamener and an impeachable offense.

Carter for undermining the security of our country and Clinton for lying under oath which is a misdeamener and an impeachable offense.

You could toss in the echelon program for clinton probably.

FDR for the win tho'.

You could toss in the echelon program for clinton probably.

FDR for the win tho'.

Since I do not know much about the echelon program. In fact, this is the first time I have heard of it.

Since I do not know much about the echelon program. In fact, this is the first time I have heard of it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/echelon.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/echelon.htm

Thank you Mr.Deep Kimchi

Thank you Mr.Deep Kimchi
It's a safe bet that every post here goes through Echelon.

Is this the program that some people are trying to hang Bush regardless that it started under Clinton?

Is this the program that some people are trying to hang Bush regardless that it started under Clinton?
Yes.

Yes.

Morons and hypocrits and from me, that is saying something.

No. Think like a politician for a minute. Even the Democrats today have to get up and say they will "do something".

Your plan sounds like "do nothing". Because odds on, the typical American won't be affected. If you figure 911 only killed ~3000 people, that's a very minor percentage of Americans. But a very public disaster and public spectacle.

At least if something happens today, the government can say "we were trying". The 911 Commission seems to have concluded that "doing nothing" was bad.

Political suicide, even if a fairly minor attack actually occurs. Because your opponents will seize on it, and the public will know you did nothing to prevent it.
First of all, you can hardly call what I wrote there a "plan." It wasn't one, and it wasn't meant to be on. And since you didn't notice, I did mention that there were ways to tighten security without resorting to police-state tactics, namely increasing checks on port containers, putting better scanners at security checkpoints at airports and train stations, increasing security at the borders and the like. But illegal wiretapping is not necessary, nor is it desirable.

First of all, you can hardly call what I wrote there a "plan." It wasn't one, and it wasn't meant to be on. And since you didn't notice, I did mention that there were ways to tighten security without resorting to police-state tactics, namely increasing checks on port containers, putting better scanners at security checkpoints at airports and train stations, increasing security at the borders and the like. But illegal wiretapping is not necessary, nor is it desirable.
It worked for the Bali bombing.

It worked for the Bali bombing.
You keep saying that but never backing it up. Now, you may well be accurate in that illegal wiretapping got the criminals involved, but couldn't warrants have been gotten after the fact? I mean, it's not as though the Bali bombing was thwarted, was it? Or is this another instance? Show me something.

You keep saying that but never backing it up. Now, you may well be accurate in that illegal wiretapping got the criminals involved, but couldn't warrants have been gotten after the fact? I mean, it's not as though the Bali bombing was thwarted, was it? Or is this another instance? Show me something.
No, it identified them after the fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?ex=1156046400&en=6f97e5a0be2e6a8e&ei=5070

One guy caught shown on page one, the bali mastermind shown on page two.

No, it identified them after the fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?ex=1156046400&en=6f97e5a0be2e6a8e&ei=5070

One guy caught shown on page one, the bali mastermind shown on page two.
Do you read the stories you post? This isn't about the illegal, warrantless wiretapping--it's about the legal SWIFT program that tracks bank transactions. Warrantless wiretapping didn't seem to have anything to do with that investigation, and it certainly didn't preempt the bombing, and preemption is primary argument made to use warrantless wiretapping.

Do you read the stories you post? This isn't about the illegal, warrantless wiretapping--it's about the legal SWIFT program that tracks bank transactions. Warrantless wiretapping didn't seem to have anything to do with that investigation, and it certainly didn't preempt the bombing, and preemption is primary argument made to use warrantless wiretapping.

So now that you brough it upt, what makes you think that terror plots where not broken using "illegal" wiretapping?

Do you read the stories you post? This isn't about the illegal, warrantless wiretapping--it's about the legal SWIFT program that tracks bank transactions. Warrantless wiretapping didn't seem to have anything to do with that investigation, and it certainly didn't preempt the bombing, and preemption is primary argument made to use warrantless wiretapping.
Plenty of people want SWIFT stopped too. The same people that want all NSA activity stopped.

So now that you brough it upt, what makes you think that terror plots where not broken using "illegal" wiretapping?

What makes you think they were? ANd is it worth it?

Well, you know, I'm pretty sure that agencies or people who do this kind of thing are going to treat this judge's order in the same way that serial rapists treat restraining orders.

So now that you brough it upt, what makes you think that terror plots where not broken using "illegal" wiretapping?

What makes you think they were? I haven't heard of any proof and you know they trot out any uncovered terrorist plot right away (even when it really isnt a terrorist plot) to show how effective they are.

What do you have against getting a warrant after the fact? Noone is saying that wiretaps shouldnt be used at all are they?

Plenty of people want SWIFT stopped too. The same people that want all NSA activity stopped.
Oh bullshit. There are very few people who are of the extreme you just described. Nice strawman, however. Make it yourself?

Oh bullshit. There are very few people who are of the extreme you just described. Nice strawman, however. Make it yourself?
The guy running as the Democrat for Senate in our district is going to put a stop to all NSA activity. It's a promise.

The guy running as the Democrat for Senate in our district is going to put a stop to all NSA activity. It's a promise.

I havent heard any arguments against SWIFT personally. I see no problem with it. I believe trackign the money is a wonderful way to go.

Got a link to a quote from this Democrat?

I havent heard any arguments against SWIFT personally. I see no problem with it. I believe trackign the money is a wonderful way to go.

Got a link to a quote from this Democrat?
I can't link to television ads in the DC Metro area.

I can't link to television ads in the DC Metro area.

I am surprised there aren't blogs out there talking about this. Sounds like something easy to attack.

I searched but I can't find anything.

The guy running as the Democrat for Senate in our district is going to put a stop to all NSA activity. It's a promise.
Virginia, right? So that's Jim Webb. Find a quote, because I'm saying you're full of shit.

Is this the program that some people are trying to hang Bush regardless that it started under Clinton?

Bullshit. We're not talking about domestic surveilance. We're talking specifically about WARRANTLESS domestic surveilance here. Big difference. The same difference as the police, without any documentation, hauling you out of your house and arresting you and the police serving a warrant.

Do you have ANY proof that Clinton ordered WARRANTLESS surveilance on American citizens? Do you? Do you even understand the difference? Do you?

Bullshit. We're not talking about domestic surveilance. We're talking specifically about WARRANTLESS domestic surveilance here. Big difference. The same difference as the police, without any documentation, hauling you out of your house and arresting you and the police serving a warrant.

Do you have ANY proof that Clinton ordered WARRANTLESS surveilance on American citizens? Do you? Do you even understand the difference? Do you?

Judging by my reading of Eschelon, no warrents are involved and they are monitoring it anyway. And please do not swear. It makes you look unintelligent when you do.

Also, do not raise your voice in a debate. I can tell you are angry and when someone gets angry in a debate, they automatically lose in a debate.

Judging by my reading of Eschelon, no warrents are involved and they are monitoring it anyway. And please do not swear. It makes you look unintelligent when you do.

Also, do not raise your voice in a debate. I can tell you are angry and when someone gets angry in a debate, they automatically lose in a debate.

I was not raising my voice. I was emphasising important words/concepts.

And no, raising one's voice does not lose a debate. Lack of a cogent argument/grasp of facts loses debates.

First of all, Eschelon is not for domestic spying. It's an international data mining program. Second, Eschelon does not spy on individuals. Third, Eschelon was not started by Clinton.

Presidents who have done it:...Clinton (lying under oath-Impeached but not convicted)

Lying under oath is not a violation of any clause of the constitution. Thus the constitution was not violated.

Federal law maybe, but not the constitution.


Nixon (Resigned rather than be impeached)

Private action, spying on individuals by individuals. Again federal law violation, not constitutional violation.

LBJ (lying about vietnam-Hey if it can work on Bush..)

Again, lying does not violate the constitution.

Those are just some of them. We can also include Jackson on that list for ignoring the Supreme Court Rulings in regards to treaties made with Indians.

Yes, that was unconstitutional...you found one.

Lincoln for trampling all over the Constitution,

Questionable...but I'll give it to you.

McKinly for listening to false reports about the Maine (again, if we can hang bush on bad intel..)

Stupidity is not unconstitutional.

FDR for trying to undercut the Constitution

OK I'll give you this one.

We could go on but then again, I could be typing all day. Needless to say we have had very very few presidents who have not violated the Constitution.

You didn't name as many as you think:

Jackson - I'll give you him.

Lincoln - iffy, but there's enough of an argument to make it

FDR - again...iffy, but his court packing schemes came close enough that I can give you this one.

Clinton - lying under oath is not unconstitutional. It may be a violation of federal law, but not the constitution.

Reagan - can make a POSSIBLE treason argument which would make it a constitutional problem, but other than that...again, not constitutional law here

Nixon - illegal act in private spying, but it wasn't governmental sanctioned it was private individual, thus a violation of law, but not the constitution.

LBJ - again, there is nothing actually in the constitution that says the president has to be honest. It may be federal law, but not constitutional ones.

Carter for undermining the security of our country and Clinton for lying under oath which is a misdeamener and an impeachable offense.

Once again, lying under oath, though it may be criminal, is not UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The charge was no president has had a presidency that did not violate the constitution. Now I ask you, what did clinton do that violated the CONSTITUTION. Not federal law, but the actual constitution?

First of all, Eschelon is not for domestic spying. It's an international data mining program. Second, Eschelon does not spy on individuals. Third, Eschelon was not started by Clinton.

All meh's, really.

1. Echelon spies on everyone worldwide.

2. Well it doesn't spy on non-individuals either. The difference is that it doesn't specifically target anyone. Is that worse? Could be argued either way in terms of privacy concerns.

3. Didn't stop it though, did he. And it was considerably expanded under his watch.

The point is though, that it's probably also unconsitutional, and clinton had no problem with it.

*snip*

Under the Constitution, a president should be impeached for a high crime and/or misdeamenor.

As such, any law that a president breaks, is a violation of his obligation as a President and therefor, a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The presidents I have named have broken federal law and therefor, the constitution of the United States that has the Oath of Office in it.

I was not raising my voice. I was emphasising important words/concepts.

And no, raising one's voice does not lose a debate. Lack of a cogent argument/grasp of facts loses debates.

First of all, Eschelon is not for domestic spying. It's an international data mining program. Second, Eschelon does not spy on individuals. Third, Eschelon was not started by Clinton.

I will give you number 3.

As to the first, you are indeed right. As such, Americans are also being spied on by this program. It may not be individuals but it can lead to individuals being spied upon. So one can make a case that Americans are being illegally spied upon.

Under the Constitution, a president should be impeached for a high crime and/or misdeamenor.

As such, any law that a president breaks, is a violation of his obligation as a President and therefor, a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.

The presidents I have named have broken federal law and therefor, the constitution of the United States that has the Oath of Office in it.

The oath of office states that:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The president swears to follow the constitution. The president does not actually swear to uphold all the laws. There is nothing in the oath that explicitly states that the president will not violate federal law.

It only explicitly states that the president will execute the function of his office (and no where in the constitution does it actually say that the job description requires breaking no law), and it explicitly states that the president will not violated the constitution.

It does not state that the president swears not to break federal law. Thus breaking federal law is not a violation of either the president's oath of office, or any specific provision in the constitution that states the president shall not violate federal law.

It IS, however, criminal, don't get me wrong. However one can be criminal and not violate the constitution. It does not say anywhere that the president shall not violate non constitutional law. It says says what shall happen to him if he does, but it doesn't say that to break federal law, while as the president, will automatically result in a violation of the constitutional provisions governing the president.

A violation of federal law is a violation of federal law. An unconstitutional act is an unconstitutional act. There is, in no part of the constitution, that states unequivicably that the president who violates federal law is violating the constitutional princples that govern the executive.

It merely states what happen if he should. Clinton did arguably violate federal law, I'll go with you on that. However his oath of office never explicitly stated he would not violate federal law, thus breaking federal law is not a violation of his oath of office. Nor does the constitution explicitly state that a violation of federal law by the sitting president is de facto a violation of the constitution. Thus it wasn't a violation of the constitution.

It WAS a violation of federal law, and thus an impeachable offense, but not an unconstitutional one.

A few things. First off, faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States. In other words, to abide by what his powers truly are. Every president knows what he can and can not do. Regan did not do so, Nixon sure as hell did not do so, Carter failed utterly to do so. And Ford? He just sat out his term.

Now let us move on to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.. They are obligated to preserve the Constitution which many have not done. In fact, most of the Presidents have trampled on it.They are to protect the constitution. This is something that several have tried to do but in the course of trying to protect it, have violated it. Lincoln is a prime example of this one. He is also a key one in defending it as well. Now both parties are claiming they are defending it when in fact, neither party is defending it at all.

This was a federal judge who made the ruling; I am waiting for the Supreme Court to jump in and either go along with the ruling (not likely) or overrule it (since it was down the middle before Bush took office and now has two of his guys on it.) That said, even if the Supreme Court told him no, I doubt it would make a bit of difference. What are they going to do to him if he does, honestly? Tell him not to again?

Actually the end is quite effective, due to chain of evidence... If you found an entire terrorist hideout, with bombs in place, through an illegal wiretap, none of the resultant evidence would be admissible... And you would effectively have no evidence...

Please, enlighten me. A sense of morbid curiosity has suddenly washed over me.

Certainly no previous president has abused his powers as much as the current administration. This one is basically saying "Fuck you all, I'm president and can do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, and to whomever I want".

Lincoln abused presidential power greatly.....

At least not without a warrant, anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

Really, it's about time. Is it really that big a deal to get a flipping warrant? Bush's cronies argue that "Well, it would give away state secrets." Boo frickety hoo. This is the United States of Fucking America, not Oceania under Big Brother. You can't go around claiming, "Well...we could tell you why we do it, but it's secret! yeah, that's it! You're trying to uncover our secrets that we need to...umm...what's the word...find terrorists! Thanks, Karl...err, I mean, that's the word."

Next time, George Dubya and Co. might have a little more respect for procedure.


:rolleyes:

Next time state your view without swearing. Thanks!

:rolleyes:

Next time state your view without swearing. Thanks!

Screw that. There are times when genteel language cannot express adequately the depth and breadth of one's righteous anger. That's why swear words were "invented".

Okay, I'm not clear on the rules here. Is swearing completely out? Can I use symbols like &*#$ to express my frustration?

Okay, I'm not clear on the rules here. Is swearing completely out? Can I use symbols like &*#$ to express my frustration?

Do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you don't flame someone directly.

Do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you don't flame someone directly.

Thank fuck. That's a fucking relief,

Do whatever the fuck you want, as long as you don't flame someone directly.

Fuck yes. Thanks for clearing it up.

To quote Andrew Jackson:

"The Supreme Court has made its decision now let them enforce it."

Any second grader will tell you it's the president's job to enforce the rulling of the supreme court. Not make up his own rules. Which is why Bush is a terrible president. And Jackson's a douche. Yea, I said it.

You americans really need to depose that current government of yours.

Full agreement here.

And Bush could have had all the secret wiretaps and searches and whatever he wanted just by using the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows just that. FISA even allows the Government to do what it feels it needs to do, and then apply for a warrant afterwards. I don't believe there's ever been a case of a FISA court refusing the Government's requests. Ever.

FISA denied only 4 warrents before Bush. Out of about 2000. 4. Ever. Once Bush took office, they denied about 80 of his 200. That's why he decided to circumvent them.

The FISA courts exist only to grant these warrents. They love granting warrents. They had only denied 4 since they were created. Hell, you can even apply for a warrent 3 days after the fact. Bush's program was so rediculous that this court had to deny about half of his requests. So, when even those lenient laws were too constricting for him, Bush decided to just not fallow them. He's a Hitler and a proto-facist, and is turning America into a statist police state. We have seperation of powers for a reason. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves over the insult and falgrent disrespect for the values they fought for. And Bush ain't the first. He's just one of the more obvious.

The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves over the insult and falgrent disrespect for the values they fought for. And Bush ain't the first. He's just one of the more obvious.

And, most importantly, he's the only one we as Americans can do anything about, Jackson and Lincoln being dead and all.

And now kiddies, for the lighter side of the NSA and the Bush Administrations idiocy......

Wiretapping: Phone savings. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49182)

And isn't nice that they care that much?

Any second grader will tell you it's the president's job to enforce the rulling of the supreme court. Not make up his own rules. Which is why Bush is a terrible president. And Jackson's a douche. Yea, I said it.

They are supposed to yes but they do not have to. Jackson completely ignored the US Supreme Court as did Abraham Lincoln. Hence the quote from Andrew Jackson: The Supreme Court has made their decision now let them enforce it. Everyone knows the Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism to force the President to enforce its rulings.

They are supposed to yes but they do not have to. Jackson completely ignored the US Supreme Court as did Abraham Lincoln. Hence the quote from Andrew Jackson: The Supreme Court has made their decision now let them enforce it. Everyone knows the Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism to force the President to enforce its rulings.
In an ideal situation, if a President refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling, Congress would step in and force his hand, either with legislation or the threat of impeachment. In practical terms, however, that never happens, because usually there's not enough of an adversarial relationship between the two branches of government.

In an ideal situation, if a President refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling, Congress would step in and force his hand, either with legislation or the threat of impeachment. In practical terms, however, that never happens, because usually there's not enough of an adversarial relationship between the two branches of government.

I agree with you 100%.

Nice edit. How about defending America from those who want to do it harm and can not wait for a FISA warrent?

I was looking for something else, but I missed this the first time around, so if I'm grave digging, sorry.

This a beautiful illustration of Conservatives parroting talking points, but not understanding a single thing that they're talking about.

The mistake here of course is that one need not wait for a FISA warrant. Under the FISA law you can start spying, and then ask for a warrant later. Up to 3 days later. Which, in practical terms, means that you can tape for as long as you want, and when you hear something good you can ask for a warrant and use everything from the previous 3 days and anything you get afterwards.

But Bush likes to complain that he should be allowed to illegally wiretap because he can't wait. And hacks like this go along and believe him. And what's worse, they trust him.

In an ideal situation, if a President refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling, Congress would step in and force his hand, either with legislation or the threat of impeachment. In practical terms, however, that never happens, because usually there's not enough of an adversarial relationship between the two branches of government.

As I remember it presidents have a long history of ignoring Supreme Court rulings, no one has the will to stop them though.

This a beautiful illustration of Conservatives parroting talking points, but not understanding a single thing that they're talking about.

Sorry but I do not deal with talking points. The point of fact remains that the President is charged with keeping America safe. I am sure that this will get overturned by the Appeals court as it is within the President's power to do such a thing.

The mistake here of course is that one need not wait for a FISA warrant. Under the FISA law you can start spying, and then ask for a warrant later.

Then by definition of warrentless wiretaps, you are still doing warrentless wiretaps. You cannot spy without a warrent if you insist they have a warrent even though you can start without one. Sorry but come on. That defies logic.

Up to 3 days later. Which, in practical terms, means that you can tape for as long as you want, and when you hear something good you can ask for a warrant and use everything from the previous 3 days and anything you get afterwards.

So the government can still spy illegally for three days? Nice to see people who advocate FISA advocate for illegal spying.

But Bush likes to complain that he should be allowed to illegally wiretap because he can't wait. And hacks like this go along and believe him. And what's worse, they trust him.

He's the president. He has the authority.

As I remember it presidents have a long history of ignoring Supreme Court rulings, no one has the will to stop them though.

Another true and accurate point.