You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Thank you again for proving you are unable to frame your argument in a legal context and must instead use ad hominem.Quote from TheConMan:
The only reason one needs to come to the conclusion mentioned above is to read your drivel. You have an extremely difficult time coming up with your own sound arguments without having to resort to some obscure right-wing propaganda website. Once in a while, try turning off Rush Limbaugh and O'Rielly, maybe then you might grow a brain.
Once in a while, try using logic and reason to make your points.
Quote from dddooo:
You should have been concerned with this issue when we invaded Iraq turning instanteniously the entire world against us and creating a hotbed of terrorism where it did not exist before instead of hunting OBL and destroying AQ.
Regarding this specific issue we're indeed losing the war on terror if we're losing our liberties, granting our president unlimited and unconstitutional powers, allowing him break the law, turn this country into a police state and eliminate the system of checks and balances.
Instead of Hunting OBL? We can do both, and OBL is in a CAVE, sending out people on foot with notes, AQ is losing.
Oddly no more planes crashing into buildings here.
But you guys with your Libertarian Philosophy want to make it possible that could happen or worse.
Your arguments are so TIRED.
Police State? You need to go live in China and discover exactly what a Police State is.
Name one liberty that you have lost, since the Patriot Act was in place.
So, because there is disagreement with the Iraq war, we should just say "fuck it" and not monitor international communications in order to prevent further attacks?Quote from dddooo:
You should have been concerned with this issue when we invaded Iraq turning instanteniously the entire world against us and creating a hotbed of terrorism where it did not exist before instead of hunting OBL and destroying AQ.
:eek:
dddooo, are you American?
One last demagogue
Dec 23, 2005
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- 2005 was already the year of the demagogue, having been dominated for months by the endlessly echoed falsehood that the president ``lied us into war.'' But the year ends with yet another round of demagoguery.
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president had clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.
Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who ``literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence'') finds ``pretty decent arguments'' on both sides but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were ``probably constitutional.''
In 1972, the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups, but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.
True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the so-called FISA law of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the U.S. be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, writes: ``Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms.'' Indeed, Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that ``the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,'' then noted a few minutes later that ``courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches.''
Presidents always jealously guard executive authority. And Congress always wants to challenge the scope of that authority. This tug-of-war is a bipartisan and constant feature of the American system of separation of powers. President Bush's circumvention of the FISA law is a classic separation-of-powers dispute in the area in which these powers are most in dispute -- war powers.
Consider the War Powers Resolution passed over Nixon's veto in 1973. It restricts, with very specific timetables, the president's authority to use force. Every president since Nixon, Democrat and Republican, has regarded himself not bound by this law, declaring it an unconstitutional invasion of his authority as commander in chief.
Nor will it do to argue that the Clinton administration ultimately accepted the strictures of FISA law after a revision was passed. So what? For the last three decades, presidents have adhered to the War Powers Resolution for reasons of prudence, to avoid a constitutional fight with Congress. But they all maintained the inherent illegitimacy of the law and the right to ignore it. Similarly, Clinton's acquiescence to FISA in no way binds future executives to renounce Clinton's own claim of ``inherent authority'' to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales chose a different justification for these wiretaps: They were covered by the congressional resolution shortly after 9/11 authorizing the use of ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against al Qaeda. Gonzales' interpretation is based on a plurality Supreme Court opinion written by Sandra Day O'Connor that deemed legal the ``executive detention'' of U.S. citizen and enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi. ``Detention'' is an obvious element of any authorization to use force. Gonzales argues that so is gathering intelligence about the enemy's plans by intercepting his communications.
I am skeptical of Gonzales' argument -- it implies an almost limitless expansion of the idea of ``use of force'' -- while the distinguished liberal law professor, Cass Sunstein, finds it ``entirely plausible'' (so long as the wiretapping is limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda). Sunstein maintains that ``surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force'' that ``standardly occurs during war.''
Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor.
Dec 23, 2005
by Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- 2005 was already the year of the demagogue, having been dominated for months by the endlessly echoed falsehood that the president ``lied us into war.'' But the year ends with yet another round of demagoguery.
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president had clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-like, that the president's actions were slam-dunk illegal. It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.
Does the president have the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches against suspected foreign agents in the United States? George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr (one critic calls him the man who ``literally wrote the book on government seizure of electronic evidence'') finds ``pretty decent arguments'' on both sides but his own conclusion is that Bush's actions were ``probably constitutional.''
In 1972, the Supreme Court required the president to obtain warrants to eavesdrop on domestic groups, but specifically declined to apply this requirement to snooping on foreign agents. Four appeals courts have since upheld presidential authority for such warrantless searches. Not surprisingly, the executive branch has agreed.
True, Congress tried to restrict this presidential authority with the so-called FISA law of 1978. It requires that warrants for wiretapping of enemy agents in the U.S. be obtained from a secret court. But as John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, writes: ``Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms.'' Indeed, Clinton's own deputy attorney general testified to Congress that ``the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,'' then noted a few minutes later that ``courts have made no distinction between electronic surveillances and physical searches.''
Presidents always jealously guard executive authority. And Congress always wants to challenge the scope of that authority. This tug-of-war is a bipartisan and constant feature of the American system of separation of powers. President Bush's circumvention of the FISA law is a classic separation-of-powers dispute in the area in which these powers are most in dispute -- war powers.
Consider the War Powers Resolution passed over Nixon's veto in 1973. It restricts, with very specific timetables, the president's authority to use force. Every president since Nixon, Democrat and Republican, has regarded himself not bound by this law, declaring it an unconstitutional invasion of his authority as commander in chief.
Nor will it do to argue that the Clinton administration ultimately accepted the strictures of FISA law after a revision was passed. So what? For the last three decades, presidents have adhered to the War Powers Resolution for reasons of prudence, to avoid a constitutional fight with Congress. But they all maintained the inherent illegitimacy of the law and the right to ignore it. Similarly, Clinton's acquiescence to FISA in no way binds future executives to renounce Clinton's own claim of ``inherent authority'' to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales chose a different justification for these wiretaps: They were covered by the congressional resolution shortly after 9/11 authorizing the use of ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against al Qaeda. Gonzales' interpretation is based on a plurality Supreme Court opinion written by Sandra Day O'Connor that deemed legal the ``executive detention'' of U.S. citizen and enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi. ``Detention'' is an obvious element of any authorization to use force. Gonzales argues that so is gathering intelligence about the enemy's plans by intercepting his communications.
I am skeptical of Gonzales' argument -- it implies an almost limitless expansion of the idea of ``use of force'' -- while the distinguished liberal law professor, Cass Sunstein, finds it ``entirely plausible'' (so long as the wiretapping is limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda). Sunstein maintains that ``surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force'' that ``standardly occurs during war.''
Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor.
You're insulting my IQ??? Care to tell me what my IQ is? If you only knew what a stupid post that was. I guarantee you my IQ is higher than a conmans! LOL!Quote from TheConMan:
Reading some of these posts is worse than a visit to the insane asylum. I have to thank ET for allowing such a forum to exist. After reading much of their nonesensical posts, it is apparent that many of the right-wing con-bots are positively deranged individuals with IQs at the very bottom of the totem pole. Maybe that's why a con-bots can be so efficiently programmed.
When you're not concerned with whether Bush's gigantic fuck up in Iraq damaged the war on terror, when you ignore border and port security and other serious issues but then get all worked up that the opposition to spying on americans is weakening our position in the war on terror - one has to wonder whether you have your priorities straight. (not you personally hapa as I was responding to someone else's post)Quote from hapaboy:
So, because there is disagreement with the Iraq war, we should just say "fuck it" and not monitor international communications in order to prevent further attacks?
YesQuote from hapaboy:
dddooo, are you American?
Yes, I believe so too.Quote from hapaboy:
I believe the law you have quoted is part of the FISA statute. If I'm wrong, let me know.
I am not sure I understand, are you saying that the provision is not constitutional and is therefore illegal, that Bush is constitutionally ALLOWED TO spy on americans without a court order? Good luck with this defence, you're going to need it.Quote from hapaboy:
Besides, and I repeat, the FISA Court of Review said FISA could not encroach on the President's Constitutional powers.
Obviously we can't, Osama has been in a CAVE for the last 30 years and it did not stop him from masterminding several dozen attacks against american targets worldwide. He's still at large, AQ is growing and recruiting like crazy. Maybe if instead of invading Iraq we sent 100,000 more american troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan that would not be the case.Quote from agin1415:
Instead of Hunting OBL? We can do both, and OBL is in a CAVE
Oddly no planes crashing into buildings prior to 9/11 either. We had one attack per decade on our soil, the fact that nothing has happened during the last 4 years means nothing.Oddly no more planes crashing into buildings here.
Did you mean liberal, or you're too ignorant to know the difference?But you guys with your Libertarian Philosophy want to make it possible that could happen or worse.
Oh I see, as I expected everything is black and white for you. If we're not like China we can't possibly have issues with our democracy and our liberties.Police State? You need to go live in China and discover exactly what a Police State is.
The Fourth Amendment protects me against unreasonable searches and seizuresName one liberty that you have lost, since the Patriot Act was in place.
Why do I need luck? The FISA Court of Review said what it said about the President's authority, not I.Quote from dddooo:
I am not sure I understand, are you saying that the provision is not constitutional and is therefore illegal, that Bush is constitutionally ALLOWED TO spy on americans without a court order? Good luck with this defence, you're going to need it.
Federal appellate courts have held - unanimously - that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats.
Nowhere do I come to the conclusion you do that FISA is illegal, and in fact the AG has said, as has Bush, that FISA is still used and is an important tool.