TREASON

[volinbham]

Are you only referring to one out of three mentioned or are you referring to all 3? I am responding to the original post. And a few members of Congress, not even the full committees as required by law, are not my ideal of consulting Congress. The fact they cannot say anything even if wrong was committed is even more a joke.

And why did the GOP merely say 'hold off'? Why say hold off, implying to try later, if this was so wrong? And why is W waiting until Monday to come out attacking?

Last I checked the 9/11 COmmission was not a branch of government. Who cares if they were consulted? And that still avoids the courts. What about review by the courts? Or can we now ignore them?

I was referring to the latest leak and least controversial (in terms of legality) leak.

"Hold off" was my term - I would imagine they asked that it not be disclosed at all (while in operation).

My mention of the 9/11 Comission was again in reference to the latest leak. It is not a branch of the government to be sure but neither is the press. It's simply a reference to another "group" that has seen the program and felt very strongly that it was effective, should remain classifed and that it's effectiveness would be compromised by public disclosure.

Obviously we don't ignore the courts. However there is a process for involving them. It appears that the phone record program will be getting a court review. As far as I know, no one (or no entity) has shown any cause (damages, etc.) to bring the other two programs to the courts.

 

[volinbham]

That's not how it should work. The Bush administration is attempting to act under the theory that forgiveness is easier to get than permission. Once the rights of citizens have been violated, you can't unring the bell. "We're sorry" won't suffice. The Bush administration could have easily applied for the wiretaps from the federal juduciary. They didn't because they don't believe in the strength of the legal arguments undepinning their policies.

The revelation of classified information cannot be "unrung" either.

 

[therealUT]

And are you now defending the great 'socialist' FDR?

Just stating that the precedent was already set.

 

[therealUT]

So, FDR went about his surveillance programs legitimately???

In Roosevelt’s Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage, Joseph Persico writes that “[f]ew leaders have been better suited by nature and temperament for the anomalies of secret warfare than FDR.” He quotes Roosevelt: “You know that I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does.” As Persico demonstrates (pages 34-36), President Roosevelt’s enthusiasm for intelligence extended to prewar domestic wiretapping of “diplomats, journalists, labor leaders and political activists” in the face of newly enacted statutory bans on wiretapping that had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

“I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court relating to wiretapping in investigations,” Roosevelt instructed J. Edgar Hoover. “However, I am persuaded that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.” Persico summarizes: “In short, never mind Congress, the Supreme Court, or the attorney general’s qualms. The nation was in peril.” (Persico’s reference to Roosevelt’s attorney general is of course to future Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson.)

 

[CSpindizzy]

As far as I know, no one (or no entity) has shown any cause (damages, etc.) to bring the other two programs to the courts.

It's quite difficult to bring something to the court when you know nothing of it to begin with. There are a few instances where some lower courts have denied the defendants the ability to find the origins of the evidence against them in case it came from one of these programs. it seems that 'national security' overrides 'due process' according to these judges.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So, FDR went about his surveillance programs legitimately???

I am not saying he did or didn't. I am saying you need to identify some for one. It's hard to argue a point when you make ambiguous references to cases 50+ years ago.

The argument against Bush from a legal standpoint is that many things he is doing can be upheld PROVIDING he used legal and constitutional methods of oversight and approval. Warrants for one go far in supporting the legality here. Considering Bush has dodged this route, people start questioning him on his methods.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Just stating that the precedent was already set.

In case you haven't learned politics, precedent don't mean anything. The current court is already throwing precedent out the door. So precedent obviously isn't a term taken too kindly by those up top.

 

[therealUT]

I am not saying he did or didn't. I am saying you need to identify some for one. It's hard to argue a point when you make ambiguous references to cases 50+ years ago.

The argument against Bush from a legal standpoint is that many things he is doing can be upheld PROVIDING he used legal and constitutional methods of oversight and approval. Warrants for one go far in supporting the legality here. Considering Bush has dodged this route, people start questioning him on his methods.

Warrants are only required to uphold evidence in courts. These programs are designed to avert future terrorist attacks, not to put try American citizens.

 

[therealUT]

In case you haven't learned politics, precedent don't mean anything. The current court is already throwing precedent out the door. So precedent obviously isn't a term taken too kindly by those up top.

Glad to see you contradicting yourself, CSpin...

Few realize that the precedents being set by this man are now set for life. Unchecked powers of the presidency will continue to become larger and be abused even more.

CSpindizzy, about 10 minutes ago

 

[CSpindizzy]

Warrants are only required to uphold evidence in courts. These programs are designed to avert future terrorist attacks, not to put try American citizens.

Where do you get that? Ever since this country was founded warrants have been a basis for the 4th Amendment. I am not sure where you get your information but warrants are to exist on the front end TO ESTABLISH LEGALITY on the back end such as a trial.

So you agree with mass police powers by one branch that are unchecked? I would say you need to go live in one of those third world countries with that sort of authoritarian mentality. But you're actually getting what you want here in the US.

 

[therealUT]

As long as the evidence they are gathering is not being used against the citizen, then there is nothing wrong with it. Heck, every single store you enter is gathering way more surveillance and data on you then the federal government is gathering through these programs.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Glad to see you contradicting yourself, CSpin...

There is no contradiction. There are people who believe in precedent. And there are some such as Bush who think precedent is nothing. If it is standing in their way, regardless of precedent, they'll push it aside.

So there's no contradciting here from me....only from your boy in charge...he likes to claim precedent and then violates it if it obstructs his methods.

 

[CSpindizzy]

As long as the evidence they are gathering is not being used against the citizen, then there is nothing wrong with it. Heck, every single store you enter is gathering way more surveillance and data on you then the federal government is gathering through these programs.

How can it prevent an attack if it is not being used against a citizen? in order to stop an attack, they have to use it against a citizen. if they detain a person caught by this system, it is used against him.

That store is not using it to detain you as well. There is a difference. When you walk in that store, you create a contract or relationship with that store. Notice when you sign up for many things such as phone service, they specifically state this information cannot be shared with ANY other entity without expressed authorization.

 

[therealUT]

I didn't realize that all that existed in the U.S. were citizens and the only people they made international calls to were U.S. citizens.

 

[therealUT]

There is no contradiction.

If you can't even admit the contradiction in your own arguments, that in plain fact I laid right in front of your face, then you have no authority whatsoever to debate anything else. At least be man enough to admit that you blatantly contradicted yourself there.

 

[CSpindizzy]

If you can't even admit the contradiction in your own arguments, that in plain fact I laid right in front of your face, then you have no authority whatsoever to debate anything else. At least be man enough to admit that you blatantly contradicted yourself there.

How did I contradict myself? Are you clearly missing where I distinguish my own personal feelings and beliefs with what Bush is doing? Catch on better than that. Instead of rushing off to type insults like questioning my manhood, it would benefit you to read the posts and understand the context. Admit you completely ignored my posts and the contexts and we'll call it a day...how about that?

 

[Orange-Neck]

This thread: :disappointed:

 

[volnuts]

the realut is something else

 

[therealUT]

How did I contradict myself? Are you clearly missing where I distinguish my own personal feelings and beliefs with what Bush is doing? Catch on better than that. Instead of rushing off to type insults like questioning my manhood, it would benefit you to read the posts and understand the context. Admit you completely ignored my posts and the contexts and we'll call it a day...how about that?

I just love how people think just because W does something, it must be legal. People have forgotten Watergate and similar scandals where executives have abused their authority all in the name of their own agenda. I guess unchecked power in this country no longer means tyranny. The government spies on you with phone calls, emails, and financial transactions.....20 years ago that would have been the USSR. Now it is in the name of the 'war on terror'.

Few realize that the precedents being set by this man are now set for life. Unchecked powers of the presidency will continue to become larger and be abused even more. And the people will just follow along like good little patriots as their government erodes their rights.

In case you haven't learned politics, precedent don't mean anything. The current court is already throwing precedent out the door. So precedent obviously isn't a term taken too kindly by those up top.

If you state that precedents do not mean anything, then why are you upset that few people realize that the precedents being set by Bush are set for life???

 

[smokedog#3]

I didn't realize that all that existed in the U.S. were citizens and the only people they made international calls to were U.S. citizens.

in a couple of years, your president will make sure everybody is american. so you sort of contradicted yourself.

 

[OrangePappy]

That's not how it should work. The Bush administration is attempting to act under the theory that forgiveness is easier to get than permission. Once the rights of citizens have been violated, you can't unring the bell. "We're sorry" won't suffice. The Bush administration could have easily applied for the wiretaps from the federal juduciary. They didn't because they don't believe in the strength of the legal arguments undepinning their policies.

Oh give me a break from the holier than thou crap. They all do or would do it if they could get elected. The partisan crap is what got the country to where it is now and will continue to hold us back in the future. That is the problem I have with the article, they could care less what is best for the citizens of this country they simply see it as an opportunity to attack someone that beat their candidate. Truth be known, they are just working on getting ready for the next election but they sure sound like they think the bad guys are in the White House and not the ones blowing up buildings in New York. :aggressive: :banghead:

 

[milohimself]

Abandon thread! Abandon thread!

 

[GAVol]

This is great.

 

[hatvol96]

Oh give me a break from the holier than thou crap. They all do or would do it if they could get elected. The partisan crap is what got the country to where it is now and will continue to hold us back in the future. That is the problem I have with the article, they could care less what is best for the citizens of this country they simply see it as an opportunity to attack someone that beat their candidate. Truth be known, they are just working on getting ready for the next election but they sure sound like they think the bad guys are in the White House and not the ones blowing up buildings in New York. :aggressive: :banghead:

A right winger accusing someone of being "holier than thou." That's rich.

 

[GAVol]

The partisan crap is what got the country to where it is now and will continue to hold us back in the future.

Got to disagree with that. People love to villify partisanship, but it survives only because it works.