| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
What the heck |
|
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296
|
I've been looking in this forum, and perhaps my eyes aren't completely open...but I'm a little surprised that no one has started a forum on the wire tapping that presumably Bush broke the law over. OK...I'll start. Most of you know, I'm not a Bush person...but...to me, this is nothing but a witch hunt....ah hem...Mr. Spector, are you listening? First and foremost, don't people of the US know that this has been going on for years? I know both republican and democreatic reps do. Big Brother has been listening to telephone conversations for a long time...geeze louise, what could they be thinking, & how are they getting away with this? or are the Americans that disconnected, that they really believe, this is the very first time something like this has happened? Second, if it's going to eleviate and divert another terrorist attack, well sir, I for one am glad that somebody's doing something? Right? What do you think? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Lee J. - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Do you have something to support that contention, Lee? Or are we just talking tin foil hats here?  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I'm sure there's plenty who will holler about the civil liberties of the US citizen getting a cell call from a known terrorist organization from outside the US, then that US citizen calling others inside the US getting wire tapped. Yanno, like that ACLU lawyer who got busted for transporting messages between her client, accused of terrorism, to the rest of his buddies who just happened to be known terrorists, who then cried foul that her civil liberties were being compromised along with suppresion of free speech, press, and expression. Shame President Clinton and Bush didn't have the express authority to tap Atta's phones, much less the rest of the 9/11 hijackers. There is something funny about the entire NSA wiretapping thing. There's a section of the 'rules' which allows for a substantial cash payment (I think it's about $30,000) to anyone tapped erroneously, falsly, or vindictively. To date, not one cent has been paid out. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I think if Big Brother is going to listen in on my phone calls then he should help to pay the phone bill! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There is plenty to support it, Ron. Just view the transcripts from the past days when it was shown that the same techniques were used in WWI, WW2, Korea, the cold war. Vietnam and others. This is nothing new and has been used by many presidents. It still amazes me that Democratic leaders can't understand why they keep losing elections when they continue to make these bonehead grandstand plays that a child can see through and make voters choke, or smile. Fortunately for the Republicans, it seems they will never learn....may they continue to be what they are. Don't worry, icebox. Big Brother could care less about your phone calls....or mine, for that matter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As Paul Harvey said this morning, there have got to be a lot of militant Muslim leaders laughing themselves to death that we are even discussing an issue like this. Maybe that's the answer to getting rid of them. We can continue to make our idiocy public so they can all die laughing... |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
This was brought up before - my response hasn't changed one iota: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001321-2.html#27 |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There is a legal way and an illegal way in carrying out eavesdropping in our nation. I believe it can be virtually unanimously agreed that there are absolutely legal ways in going about this, especially for tracking down those who threaten our soils and bringing them to justice. The issue here, plainly, is that Bush chose the illegal route in going about these operations, by not obtaining the court approval. Even during a state of war, the law still exists, the law doesn't dissolve, and Bush must have believed he has the right to disobey any established law during wartime, as the John Yoo memo appears to suggest. I can absolutely understand why this is such a big deal. Whether this administration means it or not, it is in my understanding that Bush went above the law here, and out of it he is making many young Americans think, "Hey, if he can get above the law and get away with it, we sure can too!" What good is our valuable checks and balances system if our own representatives that work to hold it up exploit and try crawling around it? What's the point of even having laws like this in place to begin with if this behavior continues to go on excused? Beyond that, there appears to be a political intent behind this endeavor; spying on political opposition and dissent. There's much evidence that shows many dissent groups, from anti-war activists to peace groups to Quakers in Lake Worth, Florida, were the ones targeted through this practice. Much of this appears to be all political, and the press doesn't appear to be taking a note of that as these hearings go forth. The bottom line here, this really isn't about being against eavesdropping or not, for I believe we can all agree eavesdropping is necessary in times of crisis........this is about our President aggressively, willfully and shamelessly breaking the law.......and continuing to make lame, changing excuses repeatedly about why he did it. Alberto Gonzalez can go on all he wants about General Washington intercepting letters from the British and Abraham Lincoln advocated telegraph taps.....Bush has broken the law here, and the trifecta which is our Constitution, the law that made the FISA court possible and the Supreme Court generate a mountain of evidence showing that such a blank check in time of law contradicts the reality. If you may remember, it was Bush himself who agreed (while defending the unmodified Patriot Act), "By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order... When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do." * * Forget the way the question is formulated in the recent polls that show a clear polarizing divide on the issue of warrantless eavesdropping. Take the issue of identity theft, for instance. A unanimous bi-partisan majority agree it is a HUGE problem and must be cracked down on. Meanwhile, government officials have admitted themselves to The Washington Post and other sources that this program has went through like a fine-tooth comb "hundreds of thousands of faxes, emails, and phone calls", and a vast majority of those monitored were founded not to be suspicious enough of having monitored increased to the next stage. Meanwhile, Cheney continues to claim that this illegal practice has saved thousands of lives, yet cannot offer any proof or evidence of that, Gonzalez has failed to answer Feingold's question of if he knew any other president who authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA since its origin in 1978 (when the answer is obviously no).....their attempts at defending this sound like a fruitcake of molded excuses. I'm telling you, I believe this particular issue is going to hurt the GOP come this November...especially if the Democrats stick in framing the debate on how the law was violated. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Noah - if it's so "plain," then why is there such an issue about it? Goes back to what I said in the topic I linked to about how it's funny that the opposition always complains about how unseeing the other side is. Your glasses must be better than mine if you can be so certain of everything. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Because that IS the debate. I specifically said: "The issue here, plainly, is that Bush chose the illegal route in going about these operations, by not obtaining the court approval.". This is why this has escalated into a national issue. The problem has nothing to do with whether eavesdropping Americans is right or wrong...the problem is of Bush going about doing this without obeying the law. Democrats and Republicans like Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel aren't crying out because there was eavesdropping to begin with, almost all Americans believe eavesdropping on suspected groups and inviduals that threaten our security is a must. They're crying out because they either believe or are skeptical in that Bush went about allowing this eavesdropping unlawfully. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, would you please refresh my mind as to the law that Bush has broken here...and how his actions are labeled by you as illegal? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I think he means the 1978 law signed by Carter which allowed for domestic spying so long as certain parameters were met, such as court orders and search warrants. His and others beef is that Bush's administration (umbrella term encompassing the NSA which is Congressionally funded) quite failed to get court permission, even after the fact, and that these activities have been going on for several years. Never mind the listening posts are not even on US soil and monitor satellite transmissions. Never mind the cash bounty should such eavesdropping be unwarranted. Never mind America is at war. And never mind how leaky the Capitol is....sometimes I think Washington DC is laid out less like a wheel, and more like a sieve. Of course there are those in the US who firmly believe terrorists should be accorded the same rights as say an illegal alien with regards to civil liberties found in America...unless they are American citizens. Yanno, like Kennedy's wiretapping of MLK, Nixon's wiretapping of the DNC, and the infamous Clinton fiascos of Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
aha.. The bottom line here, this really isn't about being against eavesdropping or not, for I believe we can all agree eavesdropping is necessary in times of crisis........this is about our President aggressively, willfully and shamelessly breaking the law..... So, in other words, it's not about the actions, which are necessary, it's about how he went about it. That's an interesting viewpoint. I wonder, Noah, if during the Clinton fiasco, you said "It's not about the sex - it's about him committing a shameless and willful felony by lying to the grand jury". I don't recall you saying that, sir...but rather the opposite. Of course you consider this investigation of vital importance. It's against Bush, which I'm sure automatically qualifies it as such. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Again...wire tapping has been going on for years...they listened in for years for key words, like the presiding President's name at the time, bombs, etc. and to my knowledge it has been going on since the 40's. Believe me, we had the technology then, and it's been happening now and basically I'm for it. What I don't understand is politicians...we're such a divided country, and right where they want us to be...if there were more parties, one wouldn't feel obligated to back up their party and I don't care what anyone says, both sides are corrupt. It never ceases to amaze me that people are afraid to change parties, and lobby for more parties...instead of defending corruption...if that there were more parties, it would surely afford more honest politicians not afraid to work for the people, instead of themselves...I'd vote for the first politician that stands up and announces, he's going to take a cut in his pay/bonus, and get rid of some of his aides, and try to do more of the work himself. But, people honestly feel, b/c their families were democrates/replublicans for years, it would be a dishonor to them to change. So, instead, we all fight and back up our arguments with articles from others who are simply people with an opinion, which is good, yet not so good. The extreme lefts and rights really scare me...seriously...look at what is happening over some stupid cartoon...it's annal, stupidity, self imposition...this world will be destroyed by religion... Anyway, sorry for getting off the subject here...I'm really really worried about the extent that people will go. I don't like what Bush has done to this country...he's tried and not done such a good job, although, he's also done some good things, in my opinion, but on this issue...to me, this is simply a witch hunt!!!! Have they asked the American's how we feel about this? I'm telling you all straight from the heart...I have nothing to hide, and they can wire tap me all they want, or anyone else for that matter, if it's going to help deter another 9-11. I cannot believe this country...we have such marvelous opportunities, we are still the best country in the world to live in, and yet, we allow our government to get away with something like this... a waist of time and our money, just b/c they hate Bush. When in fact, they know, Big brother has been listening in for years and years. Frankly, I'm glad they do, especially after we've found all those tunnels from Mexico to the US...I swear to you, another terrorist attack has been forwarned. We are so lax with our laws and with allowing anyone into this country...it's bound to happen soon. When it does, it's going to seriously effect the stock market again...and that's exactly where they want to hurt us. So, if a little wire tapping is going to save some lives, then I'm all for it! Christopher, I agree with you whole heartidly... both your link and your comment... Thanks be to all of you for joining in this forum... please feel free to tear me a new one, if you'd like  I'll try and be strong...  and Ron, years and years ago, my uncle worked for the secret service...so if the tin foil hat fits, so be it? But I really wanted a blue one... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The 1978 law known as the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" made it illegal to authorize wiretaps without a warrant, even if the goal is to protect the nation against particular attacks or if we're at war. Moreover, FISA requires that the government demonstrate that the target is an "agent of a foreign power," and it gives U.S. citizens and permanent residents special protections. It's no accident why this was formed in the first place. The Ford and Nixon Administrations most notably engaged in similar abuses of executive power, and there was a time even "enemies" like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were being eavesdropped on, where they then made lame excuses that the taps were justified because the president had uninhibited power to protect the nation. It isn't always a requirement to obtain a warrant within 72 hours to begin a wiretap. FISA also allows provisions for emergency situations. When war is declared, FISA allows warrantless wiretapping for 15 days, then Congress mus be consulted after that period of time. These safeguards have been violated, as have the Separation of Powers and the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, which reads, ""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." And while the Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within our country, hundreds of thousands of Americans are being monitored, with approximately an additional 500 added each day since 9/11. Compare that to a total of 1758 warrants all throughout 2004. But what particularly made Bush's drive to eavesdropping illegal was that if he truly felt that FISA was insufficient, he could have went to seek legislative amendment. That's part of what makes our democracy and checks and balances system so great; the President and citizens always have the ability to discuss, debate, and seek and change the law. It is also beyond dispute that in a democracy like this, the President can't go violating laws just because he finds them obsolete or trivial. Therefore, I find what Bush did was simply illegal on these grounds. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Where did you get these numbers, Noah? Seems to me an impractical way to go about securing, well, anything. How many people would be required to monitor conversations that would number in the millions? If there truly are hundreds of thousands, as you claim, we can rest assured that no one will likely get to the conversation you had with your mom the other day for at least 50-60 years, since they're obviously so back-logged with all the rest that they haven't been able to get to yet. Think about it - how much of your time could you devote to listening to even just one person's phone conversations on a given day? I, myself, spend several hours on the phone each day. You'd have no time to sleep. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands you're talking about and you'd need four times that amount of personnel just to monitor them. Of course, you'd need someone to monitor the monitors as well... and someone to monitor them... In as far as it's "clear," I still disagree. If it were clear, there wouldn't be the arguement that the [recent] powers granted by congress weren't a "blank check" to do what he wanted to. I can see implied in that bill (I can't remember what it's called, sorry) that he did indeed have granted to him the powers to do what he, as Commander in Chief, felt necessary to further peace and security. What I find even more interesting, however, is that I haven't heard too many questioning whether he's done a good job with those powers or not. Has he saved us from even one bombing on home soil due to listening in on phone conversations (legally or illegaly)? I've heard several situations quoted. Would preventing another attack on American soil justify an illegal action by the President? I'd say so. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, it's interesting you bring up the Clinton parallel here, because there is a sharp contrast in coverage of the Lewinsky investigation of 1998 and the current domestic spying program coverage. http://mediamatters.org/items/200601210001#1 On January 22, 1998, the first full day after the Lewinsky story was first broke, the two papers often ridiculed for "liberal bias", The New York Times and The Washington Post, ran a total of nineteen articles about it with five on their front pages with at least 28 reporters, totaling 20,888 words. Contrasting that with December 17, 2005, the first full day after the story of warrantless wiretapping was released, these two papers ran a total of five articles with 12 reporters, totaling 6,303 words. http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm Now, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton either, but it is also noteworthy in pointing out that in even the months after the story was first released, Clinton's approval ratings remained quite high, where many of these archived polling trends even reveal only the occasional 50's-range approval percentage following January 1998, and moreover he left office with an approval ratings in the 60's range. Other archived polls you look up will also show you that a majority of Americans did not approve of impeachment of the president on the grounds Kenneth Starr provided. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm Contrast that with Bush's recent approval numbers, where they haven't been in the 50's since March of 2005, and certainly a tragic fall from the months following September 11th when they hovered in the high 80's and even lower-90's. Those are approval ratings any president would ever envy to have even at one point in office. Moreover, a slight majority of Americans believe that this administration should be required to get a court order before going ahead with wiretaps, and a slight majority also believe Bush should be impeached if it is found out he broke the law, which in my opinion I do believe he did. * I'm not thrilled about Clinton lying whatsoever, but come on...you among others I'm certain were already screaming at him long before he lied under oath, when the media and politicians joined forces and spent millions of dollars to try and defame him when it wasn't even n the public's interest. So it comes to no surprise why because you think otherwise of Bush, you'd defend, seemingly even deify him sometimes, at all costs, regardless of whatever suspicion may be in the back of your mind. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I wonder what homeland security and the President is going to do, if they suspect a cell is going to attack the US tomorrow...will they sit there tapping their fingers waiting 72 hours, allowing the attack to happen, or listen in on phone conversations for the names of places involved, and go get inialate the crazy men from carrying out their intended attack? What would you do. yanno, if I were the President, I'd be sitting there with my hands out like a scale saying to myself....hmmmm wiretapping, or another attack on the US? Guess what I'd do? Would you wait 72 hours? I'm sorry, but that's how really stupid this whole thing is, to me anyway. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Lee, with all respect, I believe you're missing the point here on what this issue is about. I repeat: this is NOT about whether eavesdropping is right or wrong. I believe wiretapping is essential to protecting our nation, and there is a legal way about going about doing it and if it is ensured it won't be abused for political reasons, like spying on peaceful political opposition. This is about LAW & ORDER, and if Bush broke the law or not. Yes...if we're indeed at war and Bush believes FISA is bologne, he has every right to work and try to change the rules to not wait 72 hours for a permit to authorize wiretaps. I would hold nothing against him if he did just that. But he didn't do that, and rather than working to change the rules regarding obtaining permission, he just walked around the law without doing so and went ahead with everything he wanted. Is this the message we want to send to our children...that it is OK to walk around neighborhood laws, city laws, any law, if you feel your life is under attack or so? What's the point of even having laws, a democracy, when those who swear the oath to protect and defend our democratic ideals and law don't hold their own? THAT'S what this issue is about. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
So, Noah, obeying the law as you interpret it (let's just assume for the moment it is, in fact, illegal) is more important than protecting our people? That is what you're saying, regardless of how you try to phrase it. You recognize a legal method of wiretapping - that has no small amount of limitations and time constraints placed upon it. Under normal circumstances, I'd say those were reasonable constraints. These are not normal times. Thousands of people lost their lives. Drastic times, drastic measures, eh? There may be many situations where waiting the proscribed time limit is reasonable. Even getting a post-action warrant would work most of the times. But will that cover any and all situations? What if there are suspected leaks? What if the warrant is denied based off of too much speculation and it turns out that the people that could have been wiretapped are the same ones who just bombed downtown Seattle? What if, during the processing of a warrant - in the 48th hour - the person who was going to be tapped gets off the phone with his girlfriend and breaks into San Francisco’s water supply to dump a ton of nerve poison in it? There are scenarios and scenarios that can support Bush's actions, legal or not. Should he be called to account for his actions? Absolutely. Should we prevent him from securing our future by miring him down in bureaucratic sludge? Not on your life. Not on mine, either. Brad asked in another thread if [we] felt any safer now. This, makes me feel a little safer. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:No, Noah, I'd much rather teach my son to obey the law, even if it means he's killed. After his funeral, I'll make it a point to go to the courts to see if I can get the rules changed... well, if there are any courts left that haven't been reduced to rubble. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Don't worry, (be happy); just before the big bang there'll be some big strong don't give a damn action hero to save us all. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't feel any safer when our liberties and law of the land are being compromised for uninhibited presidential authority. In fact, I believe this John Yoo mentality that the Constitution does not apply in a post-911 wrld hurts our national security, and frankly makes me at least feel less safe. Bush himself agreed (at least before) well after the 9/11 attacks that law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property, as these strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. I can point to at least five times since April 2004 when he reiterated that point. I for one will begin to feel much more safe when our government ends or at least tones down this ongoing interventionist form of foreign policy in places which aren't focused on the exact threats to our nation, and money is redirected toward our schools, health services, power plant security, etc. In my heart, each time money is taken from food stamps and health programs that reach out to the poorest of Americans, that is in itself a huge interior threat to our national security. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I'm senior management here at our company. As such, I have developed or taken part in the development of numerous policies (read as "laws" in context) for my direct employees as well as those they supervise. The employees don't have the option of going outside of the established policies. If they do, they are [breaking the law] and will be dealt with accordingly. I, however, as management, can choose to circumvent or disregard any policy I choose. I grant that I will have to answer for the results of any such action, but I still have the authority to make that decision. Bush, in effect, is manager over those federal officers and can certainly dictate policy for them. As the most senior management, he can also find need to not abide by those policies. One can claim "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," but in reality, he not only has the ability, but the responsibility to act as his office demands in order to meet his "Scope of work." I still don't agree with you that it is so clearly illegal for him to circumvent the warrant process, but even so (again, I say) even so, he has the responsibility to do so if it is a course of action that will help meet his job description... the part about protecting us. quote:Huh? How is wiretapping suspected terrorists not an exact threat focused on our nation? Or, are you suggesting that we have to have definitive proof prior to listening in on someone's conversation? If that's the case (and I may be reading too much into what you're saying), then that's a ridiculous notion. Placing the ability to have a private conversation over the welfare of even a single human life is just... ridiculous. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm not thrilled about Clinton lying whatsoever, but come on... That's it, Noah.."not thrilled" but "come on" about Clinton committing a felony but screaming bloody murder that Bush committed an illegal action even though the results are beneficial to the security of the country. Along with Christopher, I would like to know where those figures you are tossing around come from. Shall we just publish all security measures we employ against terrorists on the front page of the Washington Post? That way everything would be above board......I think that's what some of the Democratic leaders would like to do....guess who is not going to be using cell phones anymore to communicate with their agents in the US? Thank you, senators.. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Sometimes I wonder if you don't read everything I say and reply off of "slice-and-dice" segments of choice. I agree with you that it was wrong for Clinton to lie as he did. But you and I also both recognize that the scandal didn't start there. Many in the GOP really wanted to defame and embarrass Clinton long before Clinton shot himself in the foot for nothing more than political gain. The Democrats were mired in tremendous corruption during the Clinton era like the GOP is now with the Abramoff scandal, DeLay and the Wilson leak, and Gingrich and others desperately wanted to take advantage of their own catastrophes and bring Clinton down, and when a peek of his seedy personal life was revealed, they and the media just jumped all over it, seizing that as the fuel in embarrassing him and seizing greater control. (In the eyes of the general public, despite believing that personal folly to be of bad taste, it didn't affect the nation's generally approving views of Clinton as a president.) Clinton is very much one of the main reasons I'm not a Democrat, even if I favor his presidency over Bush's or Reagen's. I condemn his Welfare Reform, the War on Kosovo and the Telecommunications Act among other things. However, when reflecting on Whitewater, I find the basis on which those like Gingrich in the GOP went after Clinton to begin with was a shameful witch hunt, where his affair with another woman was nothing but his and her family's business, which did indeed effectively lead to Clinton disgracing and embarrassing himself and his family for not being straight-forward and honest about what happened because Clinton both lacked spine, and the media and many in the GOP wouldn't stop attacking. Making a storm about a blowjob, which didn't break any law or was felonous until Clinton lied under oath, is one thing. Routinely exercising disdain for the law of the land is another thing, and I believe it is widely recognized which is worse. Specter, Hagel, Wilson and other Republicans I believe are understanding this too. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey Noah, good morning you wrote this... Because that IS the debate. I specifically said: "The issue here, plainly, is that Bush chose the illegal route in going about these operations, by not obtaining the court approval.". This is why this has escalated into a national issue. The problem has nothing to do with whether eavesdropping Americans is right or wrong...the problem is of Bush going about doing this without obeying the law. Well, then, Noah, if this is the issue totally, then I'm glad Bush went the illegal route to listen into terrorist cell operations...to perhaps avoid another incident by picking up information from their conversations. I'm so happy someone's got the backbone to do this...cuz I want to know, someone's watching, no matter what they have to do to gain this information...Noah, this is real...it could hit your hometown, your public buildings, kill your friends and neighbors...and we're dealing with people, who have no sense of value for human life, not even children. It is imparative that sometimes people understand that their are sometimes no guidlines that fit into certain situations well. Sometimes a person has to make a decission which might be unpopular for the good of the majority, and in this case, in my mind Bush did right...and these people who are against him for doing so, well, God forbid, if they win against Bush, God help them if a bomb wipes out most of their friends, family, etc...perhaps then and only then, will they understand the need to do as such...I would most certainly do the same as Bush...and back him for doing so. illegal or not, Noah, back then when these laws were first drawn, these circumstances we face now, didn't exist. And again, where the heck does Spector get off when he knows that this wire tapping has gone on for years and years, probably Noah, before your time....and I'm for it...when it comes down to perhaps saving children from a dirty bomb...wire tapping to me seems very very trite. Noah, we've become a world that isn't so nice, which sometimes needs some not so nice tactics. You want a leader who is going to move on this...and not dilly dally around afraid of making decission b/c it might be unlawful? I back the man on this 100% And Mike Fitzpatrick, if your listening, don't call me again on this subject, using a voice message, which only gives me a yes or no answer, allow me to give you my two cents...dirty politics!!!! (very dirth politics!) |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
With all due respect, Noah, I've noticed that you certainly do exactly that - address only selected statements and completely gloss over others - as to your reasoning, I can only guess, but I've noticed it several times in this very thread. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But you and I also both recognize that the scandal didn't start there. Many in the GOP really wanted to defame and embarrass Clinton long before Clinton shot himself in the foot for nothing more than political gain. er, like you're saying the Democrats have not been after Bush for years on anything they thought they could make political hay on? From his service record to Gitmo to a zillion other things, the list goes on and on. They have done everything in their power to muddy him as much as possible, with utter disregard for the consequences. This time is no different. Wiretappings and clandestine activities have something in common....they are supposed to be SECRET to work. So what do the Democrats do? Paste them on the front pages, all in an effort to go after Bush. Between Gitmo (which mysteriously disappeared from the front pages after Democratic congressmen went down there to investigate) to this, I would fully expect AlQuaida to award drunk Teddy K and his cronies medals of honor for all they have done for them. They could care less about what's good for the country if it meant defeating Bush. They have shown it on several occassions. Secrecy and not getting approval bothers you? Can you say "Hillary" and "FBI files" for me, please? I only sound bitter because I am. The Democrats do not have a lock on sleazy politics, no doubt about that, but the way they are going about it with the world situation the way it is, with our soldiers fighting in the Middle East, with the threat of future terrorism in the US not only possible but promised by terrorist leaders....their actions - aimed at nothing more than throwing whatever rocks they can pick up at Bush - can easily be defined as giving aid and comfort (not to mention some good bellylaughs) to the enemy. Their actions are despicable... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
As much as I believe there are indeed threats to our nation (I believe the war in Iraq has made them more real than ever), I believe the threats are being blown out of proportion and are overexaggerated. Some of the last few responses, honestly, struck me as apocalyptic in tone. If it is truly believed that it is OK to act above this particular law during wartime, we might as well pretend the Third Amendment doesn't exist and require all households to have a soldier quartered in to protect us and our children. We might as well pretend the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist and allow our government to conduct break-ins everywhere and seize everything that could be used for terrorist plots, from matches to Swiss army knives to violent videogames. Beyond the Constitution, we might as well pretend Posse Comitatus doesn't exist and allow battalions to march to and fro 24/7 through each city square and neighborhood park. Feingold was a bit far-fetched when he said that this president seems to live and behave in a pre-1776 world, since the Constitution wasn't completed until September 17, 1787. But he certainly seems to be acting as though it's a pre-1787 America. The bottom line is, every four years we elect a president who lives up to the spirit of Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution in making this very oath before he/she enters office: "I do solemnly swear (or 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." Whether it is peacetime or wartime, this oath is equally relevant, no matter who's in office, no matter how extreme or minor the circumstances are, and it is the president's supreme duty to defend everything our Constitution stands for. I remain concerned that many still don't understand exactly how serious this matter is, and what truly is at stake. Many might feel here that this may be no big deal whatsoever and we can rise above the law because of extenuating circumstances just this once. But if we choose to remain just this passive, we may soon wake up and find ever more of our established principles and checks and balances chiseled and torn away, losing more of what we are. I'm being dead serious here. In passively allowing our democratic principles to be sacrificed, we will only become even more vulnerable to what threatens our nation. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Uh, I'm getting this really queasy feeling in my stomach. So, how many of you think it's okay for a president to break the law? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't agree with a lot of what the Democratic Party does or stands for either. Some of the things you listed including Gitmo, no, I believe it was important for the Democrats to investigate possible detainee abuse there, and I believe they're doing the right thing on the NSA case, but there is much that divides me from this party, particularly with the lack of vision. I desire to keep on the thread topic, but I'll briefly say in my view I relate more with the Democrats than I do the Republicans. Many Republicans are trying to chip away at our domestic services, including food stamps, student loans and Medicaid to trade for ongoing war and tax cuts that only benefit the CEO's and richest of Americans. The Democrats are trying to stop these cuts to our essential basic qualities of life. Many Republicans tried to eliminate eligibility for overtime pay for millions of workers, and the Democrats stopped that from happening. Many Republicans are not allowing the minimum wage of our nation to be increased, while most Democrats have made ongoing efforts to try and have it raised. Things like this are what convinces me I'm closer to being a Democrat in recent years than a Republican. I believe the Democrats as a party have a better understanding of strengthening the American family and recognizing the truth that a stronger American family makes a stronger America, and many Republicans do mean well but the party itself widely misses the point. This administration is, frankly, forcing our grandchildren to pay the enormous debts which it is encouraging. I believe it epicly unacceptable that more and more Americans have been falling into poverty and without health insurance. And with more programs that they depend on in getting by being cut, their very lives are being endangered, and I find that utterly condemning. I do applaud more and more in the GOP in taking note of these injustices and dissenting on Bush's intended program cuts in his budgets, and respect that they have the courage to speak out here. Unfortunately, I don't believe this administration gets it yet. I think the very thing that hurts the GOP and gives Senate and House seats to the Democrats (I predict the Dems will gain 1-2 Senate seats and 6-9 House seats) in the forthcoming mid-term elections won't even have anything to do with the Democrats.....it'll be Karl Rove that helps the Democrats win, as he is threatening his own party in blacklisting any Republican who doesn't side with Bush on the NSA law issue. This will indeed be entertaining to watch. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Bin Laden threats may boost Bush” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4630054.stm Maybe he’s on the RNC payroll . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You desire to keep the thread on topic??? then what was all that, Noah? Gonzalez is stating that Bush did not break the law. i have a hard time imagining him saying that without having something to back it up. As far as the Democrats are concerned, they are trying to induce by fear. They have made no claims that the wiretapping is not limited to international calls. They have made no claims that the average citizen is being spied upon, or has his phones tapped or mail read by this action of Bush. What they do is throw it up in the air for imagination to run wild with. "Phone lines are being tapped. What if that happened to you, Mr. Joe citizen?" "The government is using clandestine means cloaked in secrecy, people are under surveillance...would YOU like to be under surveillance, Mrs. housewife?" Is Mr. Joe citizen having his phone tapped? No. Is Mrs Housewife under surveillance? No...and they know it. They just want to create the illusion that MAYBE....... Does it work? Here's Icebox wanting the government to pay part of his phone bill if they are going to listen in. Of course he said it in jest...but some people will have those thoughts seriously. The Democrats should change their emblem from the jackass (which is appropriate) to the innuendo. That would be more accurate.... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Gonzalez has went this entire week failing to offer any credible case to why it was necessary to ignore the 1978 act and instead just continues to spit out inconsistent, often laughable historical comparisons long before the time of FISA, including Washington intercepting letters from the British and Lincoln tapping telegraphs. If we want to preserve our free republic, the answer to the question "Is the president above the law?" is no. Something doesn't automatically become legal because some lawyers you hire like John Yoo say it is. It has to be measured with the Constitution and established law in order to be legal. There's an utter lack of respect to the Bill of Rights among other things happening here and in other instances. This administration acts as though if they themselves believe or decide some search or rising above the law is reasonable that it is automatically appropriate. Of course, the American people can always decide themselves that it is OK that the Constitution be violated. I just hope that it is understood that you'll be asking for any loss of liberty in the process, and there's almost nothing you can do about it when you later look upon it and regret it. * * Anyway, the GOP is no different in terms of playing with fear. On and on and on and on and on most of the party continues to exploit September 11th and, like Hilary Clinton said yesterday, "playing the fear card" on the American public. Karl Rove himself said he intends to make the war on terror the central party political issue for the 2006 mid-term elections. This means you can expect within the next nine months for this administration to try and scare the pants off of as many Americans as possible so they forget all other issues in our nation regarding the deteioration of our domestic fabric and poverty among other things, and count on them coming back crawling to their arms. It's funny also, because looking back in numerous other times of crisis in history, I don't recall everyone running around like recalcitrant kids begging our government to break the law, reduce our liberties and place all our other aspirations on the backburner. Normally throughout history, we have been quite calm and resolute in the face of threats, and that is why much of the world believes we set a great example for the world. Giving into this mass apocalyptic hysteria is really the thing that would weaken our nation. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why, indeed, should terrorism be one of t he most important things facing us? Just because Bin Laden and his cronies go one television to assure their followers that the United States WILL be attacked again, why should we take that seriously? I can assure you of one thing, Noah. If the United States IS attacked, those same senators screaming at Bush right now for this will be demanding his head on a platter for not doing enough to prevent it. That's a given... No one has to try to "scare the pants off" anyone, Noah. All they have to do is show the pics from 9/11 or Spain or London or any of the other places the terrorists have it. There are many people who actually do still remember that day...and the threat has not gone away. By the way, which of your liberties have been reduced? You claim there are...name one, please. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Tee Hee~~ I learned many years ago not to say anything on a telephone I would not want repeated! Remember "party lines"? No, not political party lines, telephone party lines when you had two to four other people sharing a telephone line!! just an intent to lighten up. martyjo |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In Malaysia's largest city, Kuala Lumpur, about 3,000 protesters marched from a mosque to the high rise building housing the Danish Embassy shouting: "Long live Islam. Destroy Denmark. Destroy Israel. Destroy George Bush. Destroy America!" ...Associated Press This over a cartoon we had nothing to do with....security not a major issue, Noah? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Balladeer, According to a National Review article, the cartoons first appeared last September. Since then there has been a deliberate campaign to inflame the Moslem population including the use of cartoons, (one of which shows Mohamed mating with an animal), that were never among those published. It was also noted that Denmark is scheduled to soon chair the committee to look into Iran’s nuclear program and it’s violations of previous agreements. Off thread but thought you'd like to know. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8530 On spying: quote: On Exec. authority: quote: On freedom: quote: The thing that bothers me here is not Bush's character or intent, it is not a defense of wiretapping, nor is it D fear versus R fear. It's not what the government does here that bothers me, it's the idea that the president can break the law and that he can do it with impunity if he has a good reason. What, if anything, is the constitution about except precisely saying no to that? -----------------Dixi et salvavi animam meam |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't believe that the President broke the law. The powers given to him by the Constitution, and more recently by the Congress, supercede the 1978 law on domestic wiretapping. We aren't talking about domestic spying anyway, not that you would know that by the political spin and media headlines. It is only international calls that are being monitored, and only then on known cell numbers that have a link to the terrorists, on calls to and from those numbers, even if the calls come into or go out of the U.S. The President would be derelict in his duties not to authorize such surveillance. Life is of much greater importance than "the law" anyway, even if the accusation could be made to stick that the President broke "the law." Sometimes I think we forget that. We tend to place the notion that we are a "nation of laws" above all else. Law should be considered a servant, not a master, (similar to Christ's teaching, for instance, that the Sabbath was created for man and his benefit, and that man was not created to be a slave of the Sabbath). Common sense must prevail, and priorities have to be ordered properly. It would be of more benefit to the welfare of this country, and its future survival, if the politicians would attack Al-Qaida and Islamic fascism with the same zeal as they do the President. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Huan Yi, it gets better than that. The investigation of the Lebanon assassination is due to come up. The Syrian leader told the UN that he and his brother wanted immunity for turning over the rest of the participants in it. The UN refused. It is due to come up before the UN Security Council and they are going after everyone responsible, all the way up. At about the same time this will happen, there will be a new Security council leader. Guess what? It's the Danish member of the UN. Wait till you see the fireworks.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: But, Denise, do you accept the premise? If he broke the law should there be consequences? If extremism in the name of liberty is no vice, there are multiple fronts in the battle. None of them should be prioritized over another (except, perhaps by the law) |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hey, thanks for sharing that article, Brad! Look, Balladeer, both you and I believe it a central and essential responsibility to protect our country and our citizens at all costs. We may disagree on terms of ideology in how we go about doing so, but I assure I believe it a most important mantra which we must continue to resonate. All I'm also saying is that fear is a most powerful weapon, which can easily become toxic if manipulated or used. It is naive to pretend that there is no threat in the world, but it is also dangerous and unhealthy to be frequently encumbered in fear and panic. Fear itself is what blows the threat out of proportion, and only ensures paranoia among ourselves. I was simply saying that there have been many times when our nation was challenged with conflict in the past and we were far more calm and resolute during those times. Our confidence and dual-belief approach that 1) we do and accept that there is a conflict and 2) yet, we also have the ability to overcome this with a cool resolve, has proven to be a successful and healthy way in dealing with any number of conflicts, while fear can easily tend to self-destruct itself. * And, yes, a number of civil liberties ARE being infringed upon in result of this fear. Peace groups like the Quaker Meeting House in your state of residence Florida were monitored at Lake Worth, as well as a number of gay pride groups and anti-war groups. Thousands of Google records and other records are being monitored and attempted to be handed over to a sole department, where they will likely hold them for years and could easily encourage identity theft. Your local library could be prone to searches should you check-out any controversial book even if you only did so to critique it for a research paper. Things like this are happening in result of this fear. * http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021006.html The American Bar Association sponsored this new Harris Interactive poll conducted through telephone surveying between February 3rd and 6th. It found that 52 percent agreed that a president should never be able to "suspend the constitutional freedoms of people like you." even during wartime. An additional 25 percent said constitutional freedoms should never be suspended unless authorized by a court or Congress. A second question adds that 45 percent believe it would never be justified to allow government eavesdropping on personal communications without a search warrant or court order, with 48 percent divided (22% believing it OK based on an anonymous tip of helping to plan a terrorist attack in the U.S, and another 21% believing it OK based on suspicion you were sending money to a terrorist organization. (which it's constructed like an either/or situation, in whether you react to that anonymous tip OR spy warrantless, which both are legal as long as the latter is sought within 72 hours of the wiretap.) This poll reads that a strong majority believe the Constitution still matters regardless of the circumstances, and I believe there's widespread skepticism in that this administration still hasn't explained why the current law is inadequate to fulfill the security requirements of our nation. * I have not at all forgotten 9/11...clearly I still remember where I was each moment that day...from the time it was nearly 8:00 that morning and my mom was taking me to school in our old green Dodge Caravan, and we were listening to our favorite adult alternative station KBCO 90.7 when the breaking news came in, to when we were both crying minutes before we pulled into the front parking lot of my school and hugging each other, not letting go for about four minutes or so, then walking into school to remain glued to the TV set until 10:30, then school was cancelled and I waited in the art room until my mom came to pick me up at around 1:00 where me and my art teacher Ms. Dunlap talked on and on about the latest developing parts of the news and beginning incredibly slowly a poem of my tears reflecting whoever was lost that day. The memory of 9/11 resonates deeply with me to this day, and I believe it's a memory almost everyone in this nation holds dear. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm afraid you missed my question, Noah.. By the way, which of your liberties have been reduced? You claim there are...name one, please. What in your life has changed as a result of Bush's actions? In your normal, daily life what restrictions have been placed on you? Whay can you not do that you could do before 911? True, if you fly, you now have to go through a scurity checkpoint. What else? You speak of our rights and civil liberties being violated by this president's actions so I ask you.....name one that you personally have lost, please? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Doesn't that make the deaths of a LOT of good Americans, from 1776 right up to 2006, something of a sham, Denise? I have to suspect those who gave their lives over the years to secure our liberties rather hoped they would be valued a little more highly. America, it seems, has changed. Freedom might be worth the lives of countless soldiers, but the minute the life of a civilian is placed in nebulous jeopardy the scales suddenly tip in the other direction. People want to feel safe, and if that feeling of safety costs them a few minor liberties, well, so be it. Ideals, after all, aren't worth dying for, our entire history not withstanding. If our young men are dieing only to save civilian lives at home, frankly, it isn't worth it. My life isn't worth theirs. Neither is yours. If they're not fighting to protect a way of life, one that insures that all Americans are protected by the law, then those boys shouldn't be fighting at all. When did Home of the Brave come to apply only to those wearing a uniform? I don't think the terrorists really need to mount another attack against this country. Their goal has ever been to instill fear and, clearly, they've already won. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If he broke the law should there be consequences? You're going into hypotheticals now, Brad? Senator John McCain, never one to fear criticizing Bush if his views differ, said on Letterman the other night that Bush had not broken the law. What he did was basically disregard the diplomatic move of contacting the top congressional leaders on it first. Bush undiplomatic...what a concept! The Democratic congressional leaders, smarting from a tweaked nose, are howling at the insult..we don't have a situation of breaking the law but rather breaking procedure. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have to suspect those who gave their lives over the years to secure our liberties rather hoped they would be valued a little more highly. Same question to you, Ron, as to Noah. Which of your liberties have been violated? Which have been undervalued? Fear does not rule us but caution does. I don;t see that as a bad thing.. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
To this day, I myself have not lost one to my knowledge. I haven't individually been stripped of a liberty, but it certainly doesn't mean that our nation's liberties at large are at risk and there are others who have been victimized. I have no clue if I have been spied on in any peaceful war protest I've participated in, but there's many who have been and if a single department holds onto those records for years, they could be victims of identity theft. I also know a number of local Portlanders who were subject to break-ins because they volunteer for Food Not Bombs, an all-volunteer organization dedicated to non-violent social change with local chapters nationwide working to share free vegetarian food with all citizens. And if we don't recognize that they are at risk, both you and I could ultimately lose what was taken for granted if this becomes a passive routine allowance. It does concern me that you don't appear the slight bit concerned that if indeed those break-ins could happen to hunger activists, your own Fourth Amendment rights could also be at risk. (unless of course you don't mind any searches if you believe it's only intended to protect you.) Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I am not as concerned because I do not believe that actions like that are just random acts for the hell of it with no basis to back them up. All you know is that searches were made. Do you know why? No, you don't and neither do I but I doubt it was without reason. You would need a lot more facts than you have to make statements like yours. No, I don't mind any searches that are intended to protect me at all. If someone feels that they have the need to search me or my past, based on reasonable assumptions, let them. I have nothing to hide nor fear. By the way, when you are quoting the 4th amendment, don't forget that the word "unreasonable" is in there. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: None of which I'm aware, Mike, or I'd likely already be in prison. I think I can assure you, it won't happen quietly. Of course, if I was only concerned with my own rights I'd probably just shut up and try not to attract too much attention. quote: Personally, I think the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and any surveillance not governed by adequate checks and balances are symptoms of a very bad thing, Mike. But those aren't so much the issue as is the attitude that Americans deserve to feel safe and some apparently are willing to pay any cost for that feeling of security. I think we all need to realize that war entails the possibility of death, for soldiers, for civilians, even for the people we love, and if our only goal is to avoid death the answer isn't "caution," but capitulation. I think Ideals are important and shouldn't be set aside in the name of "caution." I think the only real security anyone ever has in this world is fueled largely by courage, not by "caution." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It has long been accepted that a benevolent dictatorship is the most efficient form of government possible. But it's still a dictatorship, and history suggests it rarely stay benevolent for long. If we really wanted to trust our lives to men instead of the Rule of Law, Mike, we should have just stuck with King George III back in 1776. The result would have been much the same, it would have saved a lot of lives, and it would certainly have been the cautious thing to do. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I'm afraid I don't understand much of the crux of your reply, which may be my shortcoming, not yours. Of course, if I was only concerned with my own rights.. Whose rights are you concerned with? Who is complaining that their rights are being violated and how are Bush's actions violating those rights? Personally, I think the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and any surveillance not governed by adequate checks and balances are symptoms of a very bad thing, Mike. Are you stating that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo were not covered by adequate checks and balances? Yes, the Democrats made Gitmo front page news until they actually investigated it and, when they saw no political fodder could be made from it, it disappeared rather quickly. But those aren't so much the issue as is the attitude that Americans deserve to feel safe and some apparently are willing to pay any cost for that feeling of security. Yes, I believe Americans deserve to feel safe, or at least deserve to feel that their government is doing everything possible to insure their safety. What is the comment "are willing to pay any cost" supposed to mean? No one has spoken about any cost. You pulled that out because Bush did exactly what Congress would have authorized him to do but didn't only because he didn't go to them? That is supposed to mean that Americans will do anything at any cost to be safe? That's fairly insulting to the common man and the type of comment I would consider to be beneath you, will all due respect. That is littledifferent than Noah proclaiming our rights are being trampled and then can't name one that is. I think Ideals are important and shouldn't be set aside in the name of "caution." You feel that one can't be cautious without shedding ideals? Don't you feel that one can, and should show caution when faced with a threat? Your sentence reads like if we are cautious we are going to set aside our ideals. that if we show caution we will do anything, right or wrong, to stay alive. Again i consider that to be an unfair statement. All of this because we are using eavesdropping techniques to try to subvert future threats and Bush not telling congress before he did it? Ideals gone, do anything to stay alive, invividual rights trampling, national moral decay, the fabric of what made America great being torn apart....good grief! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
and now you are likening the Bush presidency to a dictatorship???? Beacuse of this? Make that a good grief times 2! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Far be it from me to put words in Ron's mouth, but if enough people begin to believe that it's okay for the president to break the law, then you've got a dictatorship, de facto if not de jure. Think about it, Bush may or may not have broken the law (Do I really have to state what I think here?) concerning wiretapping or at other times, the thing that bothers me is that at least some Americans are beginning to think that's okay. If that's what they think, if that's what you think, you already think he is a dictator. Now, if Bush is a good guy, we don't have to worry, but what about the next one and the next one and the next one? People who live under authoritarian rule don't follow willingly, they shrug their shoulders, mumble under their breath, and stay under the radar as much as they can. And don't tell me it can't happen, it can, it does. Free republics are still the exception, not the rule when it comes to history. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I think it comes down to relative risks. I am more concerned about the damage terrorists, (or is that insurrectionists) , could do now to American society than the possibility that the executive listening in on their conversations to and from the United States might someday lead to an American Hitler or Stalin ruling in Washington, (which can be just as easily accomplished with an election). Speaking of which: there is one thing I’ve noticed. We are willing to go on ad nauseam about our own government and society yet fall mute regarding the real threats facing them. Look how little comment there has been in: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001334.html It’s as if there is no belief it is real, much the way Europe responded to Hitler. Fact is two oceans don’t protect us anymore. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Bovard quote: The above was after 9/11 and the new paradigm. quote: Don't state your opinion if you disagree with policy. quote: This may be the big problem, good ideas, legitimate ideas often go sour during the beauracratic process. People make mistakes and they can also be vindictive and spiteful. quote: The guidelines are most likely broad so that you don't miss the bad guy. The problem is that that inevitably leads to mistakes and misuse. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If that's what they think, if that's what you think, you already think he is a dictator. Brad, if it's far be it from you to put words in Ron's mouth, please don't try to put them in mine. The next one and the next one and the next one? ..and Hillary says it's the REPUBLICANS spreading fear? This entire thread is such a knee-jerk overreaction, in my book. Bush didn't follow protocol....ok...butlet's get a grip on reality here. Reading this thread one would think that the country is disintegrating. Everyone is running around scared, stripped of whatever personal freedoms they once had, willing to sacrifice whatever morals they once had just to be safe, the country now being run by a dictator, the constitution a shambles, everyone being wire-tapped and having their mail read, all of what America stood for destroyed and an end to life as we know it right around the corner. My God, I know that poets tend to exaggerate and it's much easier to do so on the internet but come on.... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, I think we can and should be cautious without shedding ideals. That isn't what I've seen in this thread, however, as evidenced by these quotations: LeeJ I have nothing to hide, and they can wire tap me all they want, or anyone else for that matter, if it's going to help deter another 9-11. ... So, if a little wire tapping is going to save some lives, then I'm all for it! Christopher Would preventing another attack on American soil justify an illegal action by the President? I'd say so. Denise Life is of much greater importance than "the law" anyway, even if the accusation could be made to stick that the President broke "the law." Balladeer No, I don't mind any searches that are intended to protect me at all. Huan Yi I think it comes down to relative risks ... Perhaps I shouldn't have said "any cost," but I nonetheless have to stick with much too high of a cost. People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice. Why should Marines and soldiers die for this country if the very people who sent them into harm's way are unwilling to do the same? Everything we have in this country was paid for in blood. And if we want to keep it, we need to be willing to keep making the payments. Not just the young men. All of us. If our only goal is to protect American lives, we should surrender immediately. I, uh, don't know to whom we can surrender, right off hand, but I'm sure we'll find someone if we look hard enough. There has to be someone somewhere who will promise us safety and security in exchange for ... what? Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe again? quote: Mike, this isn't about Bush. I stopped caring about Bush the day after he won the last election. I don't know if he broke the law and, beyond wanting to see it handled through due process, really don't care. This, too, shall pass. However, any knee-jerk overreaction, in my opinion, is coming from those who are willing to surrender our Rule of Law in exchange for personal security. You attempt to trivialize concern by exaggerating it (as you so often do), but you've got to realize, Mike, that has to work both ways. Have you been killed by a terrorist, yet? Anyone been killed in your city yet? Heck, do you even know anyone who has taken a day off work because they were too afraid to go out their door in the morning? If concern can only be justified by extremes, Mike, you clearly have nothing about which to be concerned. Let's talk about throwing Law and Order out the window when another twenty or thirty states have been attacked, okay? Of course, unlike you, I'm not going to trivialize the potential for another attack. I don't think we have to wait for extremes to be concerned about extremes, and I honestly don't believe you think that either. People are going to die, and yes, that concerns me. Of greater concern, however, is whether America is going to survive as a country ruled by Law and not by men. People are going to die in the future, as they've died in the past, and I'd honestly like to believe the deaths were for something worth preserving. Some 230 years ago, the people of this fledgling country wanted to crown George Washington the new King of America. Washington, of course, was far wiser than the people and he declined. Sadly, it seems the people haven't learned a whole lot in two centuries. They are still far too ready to surrender what others have died to earn for them. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad and Ron, no I don't think it is "okay" for the President, or anyone else for that matter, to break the law. We do have to honor the Rule of Law for without it we would sink into dictatorship. And that would dishonor all those who have shed their blood for our freedom. And those who do believe that the President broke the law should call for an investigation into the matter. My point was only that I think that sometimes we elevate that ideal to the point of throwing out common sense and a proper ordering of moral priorities, and the fact that there are also situations where there are sometimes "competing", "contradictory" laws to consider. It isn't a cut and dried, black and white issue. And the President's authority has always been more broad during times of war than during times of peace, as a leader's power also is when Marshal Law is declared, for instance. I'm sure that all war time President's could have been accused by somebody to have broken this or that law. But in this case I don't believe that any laws have been broken. If our government were not listening in on calls made to and from the cell numbers that are known to belong to the terrorists from evidence uncovered in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter where the calls are being placed to or from, then our government would be derelict in its primary responsibility to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens. And if some believe that such wiretapping violates the "letter" of the 1978 law that was signed prior to our war against terrorism and probably had to do with preventing another domestic spying situation as happened to MLK, then they should change the law to conform with the present day reality of our war against Islamic fascism. And like Balladeer, I'm not seeing 'fear'. I'm seeing a common-sensical desire for caution to be exercised by our government for it to do all that it has to do in uncovering the plots aimed against us. If that means listening in on known Al-Qaida operatives, here and abroad, so be it. I don't think that they should fall under the protection of a 1978 domestic spying law. That was the context of my remark about life being more important than following a law, the letter of a law that is out of sync with present day reality, just as I don't believe that people are morally bound to obey a law that takes away an innocent life. In such cases 'breaking the law' is a moral imperative, just as I believe that "the law" should have been broken in the Terri Schaivo case. I still cannot get my mind around the fact that the courts denied her the due process granted any common criminal with far less evidence of judicial malfeasance than was evidenced in her situation, and that the Governor and President stood by "helpless" as an innocent was barbarically starved to death for 28 days at the behest of an estranged spouse. I never will get my mind around it. If the National Guard can be sent in to ensure desegregation, they could certainly have been sent in to protect a life. I believe that that was President Bush's major failing. Our military is sworn to protect our lives and our liberty. Although I am far from a coward, they are by far more brave than I. God bless them every one, past, present, and future. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Thanks, Denise. The only thing we disagree on, then, is the latitude the Executive branch of government should be given. I agree with surveillance of enemies, but only (and always) within the parameters of checks and balances to help curb the abuses we've repeatedly witnessed in the past fifty years (some of which I think Brad detailed a bit in one of his posts). Dissidents, like King and others, aren't enemies and shouldn't be treated as enemies. Those, however, are issues of Law. When at least two branches of our government are in agreement, they have my support even when I disagree (later, I may do my best to vote them out of office). I have little fear of Law. I greatly fear men given too much power. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice. Again, I would like to know what liberties we have surrendered. Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe again? Again, what freedom have I (or you( given up? I don't know if he broke the law and, beyond wanting to see it handled through due process, really don't care. This, too, shall pass. However, any knee-jerk overreaction, in my opinion, is coming from those who are willing to surrender our Rule of Law in exchange for personal security. If you don't know whether he broke the law or not then how can you label people as being willing to surrender rule of law? If he didn't, they didn't. You attempt to trivialize concern by exaggerating it (as you so often do), but you've got to realize, Mike, that has to work both ways. Have you been killed by a terrorist, yet? Anyone been killed in your city yet? LOL! I agree I have trivialized many things but not concern. It is my concern that causes me and millions of others to agree with Bush's actions. No, i haven't been killed by a terrorist and nor has anyone in my city. I attribute a large part of that to the way Bush has handled the security of this country since 9/11. The man has obviously done something right, whether you care to accept that or not. Let's talk about throwing Law and Order out the window when another twenty or thirty states have been attacked, okay? I refer you once again to your comment I don't know if he broke the law . Why, then, would you make the reference to throwing law and order out with respect to the topic? Of course, unlike you, I'm not going to trivialize the potential for another attack. I see nowhere that I have trivialized the potential for another attack. On the contrary, I have supported and applauded Bush's actions with regards to preventing it. Some 230 years ago, the people of this fledgling country wanted to crown George Washington the new King of America. Washington, of course, was far wiser than the people and he declined. Sadly, it seems the people haven't learned a whole lot in two centuries. They are still far too ready to surrender what others have died to earn for them. What in the world is that blurb supposed to be? Are the people ready to crown Bush king, in your opinion, or turn over absolute control to any one leader? Are people now ready to throw away their values indescriminately to anyone who offers them safety? You are insulting millions of people with that comment. No, Ron, I didn't attempt to trivialize. I attempted to show in a light-hearted way that this overreaction is completely unwarranted (unless, of course, one happens to be a Bush-hater). The actions of Bush dealt with the monitoring of certain overseas communications only. The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Bush's actions in this incident. That frosts the cookies of the others. Instead of accepting it, they prefer to paint the picture that this overwhelming majority has simply gone though some moral crisis where they have surrendered their values. I'd like to know where all of this concern and indignation was all the times that Clinton, Hillary and Gore actually did break the law......they weren't here. No one has been able to say that Bush broke the law in this incident. He hasn't been brought up on charges and no one has yet to come out with any definite proof that law was broken. You yourself claim not to know, nor does anyone else on this thread. Instead, hypotheticals are resorted to a la Brad. So what happens if there is a congressional investigation and it turns out that Bush did not break the law? Is all of this invalid? Is Bush not a dictator anymore? Do the American people regain their morality you claim they have lost over it? Did all of the soldiers of the past 200 years not die in vain? Do all of the "Bush the absolute power grabber" inferences disintegrate? Is it a non-issue? Yes, I believe it is. You may call it trivializing it....I prefer to label it the Chicken Little syndrome. Nan says hello |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021006.html In an American Bar Association-sponsored poll released Friday, 52 percent of respondents said that the President of the United States alone cannot suspend constitutional freedoms even during wartime, with another 25 percent saying he must obtain authorization by a court of law or Congress, adding to a total of 77% having disagreement and skepticism toward the president's secret surveillance program. * http://www.abanet.org/op/domsurv/ Following the revelation in a December edition of The New York Times about Bush ordering extra-judicial domestic spying, the ABA created a task force to examine this issue, including a former director of the FBI, former General Counsel of the CIA and former Counsel of the National Security Agency. * http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-aba11.html Tomorrow, the American Bar Association will announce its opposition of the domestic spying program, in voting on a resolution drafted by the task force, which will include these six clauses: ************************* 1) Call on the President to abide by our constitutional system of checks and balances and respect the roles of Congress and the judiciary in protecting national security consistent with the Constitution. 2) Oppose any further electronic surveillance in U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge the President, if he believes FISA is inadequate, to seek amendment or new legislation. 3) Urge Congress to affirm that the Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted by Congress in September 2001 did not provide an exception to FISA, saying such an exception must be explicit. 4) Urge Congress to conduct a comprehensive, thorough investigation of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program. 5) Urge Congress to assure proceedings of that investigation are open to public. 6) Urge Congress to review and make recommendations regarding intelligence oversight process. ************************* Finally, the ABA President Michael Greco was asked today by the Chicago Sun Times if Bush's announcement Thursday about the Los Angeles attack "weakened his argument against unapproved eavesdropping." * "The attack -- at this point the alleged attack -- on Los Angeles is disturbing, but it doesn't change the fact that neither now nor ever in the future should we be frightened into sacrificing constitutional freedoms because something happened or something is about to happen. I personally reject the false choice that is being offered Americans that they must give up their liberties to have security." * I believe thus far they are doing an effective job attempting to frame the central issue here. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm not sure what gives me the bigger headache.. reading this thread or the mendacious, contumacious, obfuscatory argument presented by the Bush administration on this subject. (Not that their arguments on other subjects are different). The Bush administration (which is funded by Congress Alicat -- it's all Congressionally funded -- that's the only actual power of the Congress) basically says ; "It's a time of war -- we can do what we want" This, however flies in the face of FISA, which was passed in 1978 (which is your proof Ron that the government has been spying on us) and the current push to re-pass the Patriot Act. If they can do whatever they want -- the Patriot Act is clearly superfluous. This is why died in the wool conservatives and Republicans are also balking at this activity -- it's a far cry from a witch hunt. This is nothing short of a Constitutional showdown over a power-grab by a deceptive administration. If FISA doesn't do what they need -- then they can ask for it to be changed -- and haven't been at all bashful about going to the Congress to get whatever legislation they needed. Why don't they simply seek an amendment to FISA? Reference the above -- mendacious, contumacious, obfuscatory. Add on top the equally counterfeit argument that even discussing this damages our national security and tips off our enemies... really? They don't know we have electronic surveillance capability? Well, according to the Attorney General's testimony presidents all the way back to Honest Abe and George Washington were using electronic surveillance.  What do they feed these people for breakfast?What civil liberty is violated you ask? Try the Fourth Amendment: quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"sacrificing contsitutional liberties"..."giving up their liberties".. Again, I ask...which? These are catch-phrases due to induce fear safe behind the fact that they specify nothing in particular. I would like to hear from, or read about, these groups that are screaming that their constitutional liberties are being eroded. Where are they? LR, I will point out to you as I did to Noah the word unreasonable in the 4th Amendment. Some comsider his actions reasonable and others don't. You obviously fall in the latter category, which is your right but perhaps you can also respect the rights of others to claim they are....or not. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I didn't. I didn't start the hypothetical thing either. If you want to get on my case about something (not you are getting on my case about something), the only thing I was trying to do was ask if people are serious about what they're saying. If they're not, great. But, c'mon, Huan Yi, a few weeks back, actually said that parts of the constitution were now irrelevant. Personally, it's the flippancy of some of these remarks that is troubling. Denise, Thanks. I wasn't, I'm not, trying to corner anybody anywhere. If we accept law as a benchmark, then we can discuss whether he did in fact break the law or not. If you say, "He didn't break the law and it doesn't matter anyway," we're not even in the same ballpark. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: If they are reasonable it's for a judge to decide. That's Constitutional. Not whether or not I respect your right to an opinion. I can have an opinion all day long that my neighbor is cooking meth. My opinion doesn't give me the right to knock down his door and go in and look around. Nor does it give a mob with torches that right. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If that's what they think, if that's what you think, you already think he is a dictator. - Brad When someone tells me what I am thinking, I normally consider that putting words in my mouth. If there is another meaning, please forgive my misinterpretation. LR...I agree completely. Let's let a judge decide before condemning or mentioning dictatorships then. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Mike, the only reason we're having this discussion is because this administration doesn't want a judge to decide. But, are you saying you support a Senate Hearing? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Fair enough....I am saying that if the congressmen who are making veiled accusations that the President broke the law wish to officially accuse him and try their case before a judge I would support it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm cool with that. Mike, Does 'if' supply a function that I'm not aware of? If you pass Go, you collect 200$. That doesn't mean you've passed go or that I owe you 200$. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No hidden functions, Brad. Nor is it a Clinton quote like "It all depends what "is" is." Personally I don't think they will, that's all. Then it would be something they would have to prove instead of insinuate. If they do I'll be surprised....but i'll still support it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice. Why should Marines and soldiers die for this country if the very people who sent them into harm's way are unwilling to do the same? " I don't expect cities to start painting bullseyes on their buildings or the average citizen to start wearing them on their clothes. TARGET stores are enough. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Because several people in this thread, Mike, as I already quoted, said it? You, of course, have only implied it, but others have directly said they didn't care if the law was broken if it was done to save lives. Perhaps you should make your own position more clear, Mike. Does it matter to you if the law was broken? Do you feel the means justify the ends? Bottom-line it for us, Mike. Do you trust Bush enough to let him make up his own rules? While I'm not unconcerned about laws being broken by Nixon, Clinton, Hillary, Gore, or Bush, my deepest concerns aren't for the people in power -- because I still trust the system to handle them, if perhaps sometimes badly -- but, rather, for the people who put them in power. BTW, not that an understanding of the law matters a whole lot, but your local sheriff doesn't usually wait until he's caught breaking into a citizen's home before asking the judge for permission. He has to get the warrant first, not a year or two down the road when someone complains. In the case of FESA, as I understand it, Judicial review can be postponed until after the fact, but only a limited time after the fact. At this point, a Judge is never going to be asked to determine what was or wasn't "unreasonable" search and seizure. At this point, the checks and balances pass from Judicial review to Congressional review, and they won't be trying to determine probable cause. Their job will only be to determine guilt. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"but others have directly said they didn't care if the law was broken if it was done to save lives." It's a heavy burden to bear. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act quote: Where I think the administration has made a salient argument Ron is that it takes the AG quite some time to issue permission and reams of paperwork have to be done before he (or she) can or will approve the type of surveillance that can be done for up to 72 hours without permision of the FISA court. Again -- if that's the problem -- why didn't they ask the Congress to fix it for them in 2001? It was amended just recently in 2004: quote: If the executive can do anything he wants as long as we're in a time of 'war' (which is now forever) -- why bother with all these laws anyway? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Perhaps you should make your own position more clear, Mike. Does it matter to you if the law was broken? My position, Ron, is not to deal in hypotheticals. My position is that the law was not broken. There are those on this thread whose inference is that Bush is guilty and we are all losing our freedoms due to his actions. It's very easy, and a bit of escapeism, to simply say, "Well, I don't know but what if........" and then take off on any tangent one wishes, such as loss of freedom, the country's loss of morality, Bush assuming the role of dictator or anything else. Why not - if it's all hypothetical? You prefer to say "what if..." and I prefer to deal in actuality. Do I feel the means justify the ends? LOL...not even congress will touch that one. When faced with the "doomsday" scenario example of torturing one man to save they lives of thousands, they simply refuse to answer and avoid it like the plague. What is my position? my position is that, immediately following 9/11 the congress gave Bush almost full carte blanche to take whatever actions necessary to insure the security of the country. Bush immediately chose to wiretap overseas calls whenever it was determined there was a possibility they could be terrorist-related. Did he check with Congress first? No..why should he have? This was right after 9/11. He wanted to know if the terrorists were communicating with agents in the United States. Did he feel the need to wait 72 hours or however long it would take to get approval for something that would unquestionably be approved? No - he was doing his job. I feel, as do many Americans, I believe, that it was an excellent plan. I would expect him to be applauded for it. You may not believe me but, if Clinton had been president at the time and implemented the same procedures in the same way, I would have applauded it also.....and you KNOW how I feel about Clinton. Gonzales quote to the Judiciary Committee: Throughout the hearing, Gonzales kept coming back to two key points: That the president has the authority to order the warrantless eavesdropping program under the Constitution as commander-in-chief; and that, after Sept. 11, Congress authorized the president to use all necessary force to prevent future attacks. Gonzales defended those points in his opening statement. He said only international communications are authorized for interception. And he said the program is triggered "only when a career professional at the NSA has reasonable grounds to believe that one of the parties to a communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. "As the president has said, if you're talking with al Qaeda, we want to know what you're saying," Gonzales said. I see nothing wrong with that, Ron. I think it was a clear-headed decision, the right one, and one that was not unlawful. Democrats are using it as they have used many other things in the past - throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. If it doesn't, forget it and move on to something else. They have thrown it out for public opinion, effectively destroying the program if that matters to them - which I'm sure it doesn't - and when public opinion says "So what?", I expect to see it dropped from view as another thwarted attempt to discredit the administration. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Thank you Deer and all others who go along with this. After posting this thread, I had a discussion with head of security at work, and he explained to me, that Bush didn't break any law...not if he stayed within the guidlines, he had the full right to do what he did. Bush is not interested in listening to my telephone converstion or yours, what he is interesed in is curbing attacks on us by getting hold of information before the act is put into place. Denise, thank you also for your input...opinion and gathered information. Again, I'm not in favor of this Administration, quite frankly I deem them as an embarrasement to the US and think that Bush will go down in history as the worst President of the US, and let me remind you, I'm registered Independent. I think both sides are corrupt and our government serioulsy needs a good house cleaning. But on this subject, I stand firm on what Bush did, until specific information/proof renders that he did break the law. Again, sometimes you need someone who is not afraid to act...you need leaders who are not afraid to make a decission, in time of war, and in these times of a threat of another attack. Until this country wises up and gets all the illegals out of this country...rising up a brand new set of immigration rules adhered to...we've got to do something. And the proof of what I speak of might ring loud and clear, if there is another attack on us. Folks, they are right here in this country...and with all that is going on now, regarding the cartoon of their God, it's just starting to get warm, I'm afraid. We can debate this issue to the cows come home...those against Bush will find reason to abolish him, those for him, will find reason to send him forth...due to our divided country of repuplicans and democrates....we've become a miserable bunch of people who claim each of our sides are right/forth right...they are not. A country is only as good as it's leaders...and prospers by it's leaders or fails by it's leaders..it's a trickle down effect...unfortunately...this country, right now is a mess, and it's been happening, little by little all along. So we can keep on fighting between us, or get our act together and demand our government set forth some new parties...give us good people to vote for. And for any one of you guys, who want proof, written proof, there's plenty out there, look at who does our manufacturing, sews our cloths, manufactures our automobiles, furniture, even medications...not to mention, technology...we're a declining nation folks, and we'd better do something about it...not continue to be divided, by two parties, it's what they want...it is dividing us, we the people, instead of pulling us together... we need to humble ourselves a little more and not be afraid to face the facts...or vote for a party, simply b/c our fathers did or b/c we're afraid of dishonoring our party b/c we switch? I mean, we could really all make one heck of a statement if we all registered independent...you could still vote for the person of your choice, but one thing for certain...you wouldn't then, feel obligated to defend a party you voted for...yanno? If we had more parties to choose from, it would most certainly force our politicians a little more to be honest ones... sorry, I'll get off my soap box now... [This message has been edited by LeeJ (02-15-2006 11:06 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Ron, it seems to me you may be mistaking caution with blind acceptance. Putting it in the terms of foregoing ideals in lieu of accepting a law broken is too black and white. I stand by the statement of mine you quoted, but you garnered it a bit out of context. You'll also find in my statements where I wholeheartedly agree that if it is determined President Bush has broken the law, he should be made to answer for it. Ideally, he would have requested and been granted the power to fulfill his mission with the law behind him (this is based on the assumption that his actions are illegal, which it seems to be the opinion of the overwhelming majority, including the ABA). It didn't happen and something that I feel is necessary was done. Does that mean it's just an easy step to the next broken law? No, of course not. You might argue that, like Anakin Skywalker, it's a little easier the next time to accept some unjust action, or to commit one more crime against the Republic, but that's fiction and this is real. People don't accept the Dark Side so easily. Some can actually recognize a legitimate time to “break the law.” Like any action, however, one must also face the proverbial music. I don't think Bush will end up in front of a firing squad (realistically or metaphorically), but I have no doubts whatsoever that he will be forced to answer for his decisions. I uphold that, I will always uphold that - even if I agree that the actions were in our best interest. What we have to wonder, though, if when he faces the music, he'll be sentenced to a hunting trip with Cheney! |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
hehehehe, Christopher, now that's funny.... not so funny for the attorney friend I'm afraid. did you notice how light the media made out of this inncident? At first they said he was lightly sprayed with buckshot. Didn't make sense to me...you know some of that buckshot had to penetrate????? but that's another thread, isn't it? |
||
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
  |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
rofl Marge. that's great! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yeah, that is hilarious, Marge! Ron, Checks and balances are a good safeguard, to be sure. But I think that sometimes the President/Commander in Chief has to be given a little extra latitude (which I think the Constitution gives and which I think the Congress gave him right after 9/11 [whether they meant to or not, they essentially did when they gave him the authority to prevent another attack by any and all means necessary]. So Congress was using its checks and balances power. Some of them just don't like the outcome of it now. Or they are just playing politics by using the 1978 domestic spying law in order to try to convince the public that he broke the law and are hoping for his impeachment, when in fact the other issues (the Constitution and the empowerment of Congress after 9/11) override the domestic spying law. Brad, No, I didn't think you were trying to put anyone or anything into a corner. No, I don't think Bush broke the law, because of the reasons above. I'm not saying that if he did break the law that it wouldn't matter. Absent the powers granted to the President during times of war and absent the vote of Congress following 9/11, he probably would have been in violation of the letter of the 1978 law. And if he were in violation, even at that point, I would think that you would have to weigh out the situation when considering possible sanctions against him if the evidence indicated that he acted out of a moral imperative for the greater good of the country. Especially if by the time Congress was finished with grandstanding, filibustering, and obstructing, we'd all be blown to smithereens! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
