TREASON

[Vol423]

So by your logic a President can do what he wants until he is told it is illegal?

Of course, the Executive Branch covers up all of these illegal programs and never consults courts set up specifically to address such issues. That way, they can never be told that the programs are unconstitutional.

 

[Vol423]

Reading through this thread it's really scary how many Americans don't believe in the separation of powers, which is the absolute bedrock principle of the Constitution.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Reading through this thread it's really scary how many Americans don't believe in the separation of powers, which is the absolute bedrock principle of the Constitution.

What really scares me to death is the way all the Bush bobbleheads crawl out of the woodwork and accuse everyone who dosen't worship him of being unpatriototic, of treason, of ading the enemy. Sounds alot like the support that Hitler recieved in the early 30s.

 

[therealUT]

What really scares me to death is the way all the Bush bobbleheads crawl out of the woodwork and accuse everyone who dosen't worship him of being unpatriototic, of treason, of ading the enemy. Sounds alot like the support that Hitler recieved in the early 30s.

I cannot help but be humored by your continual reference to Nazi Germany while referring to conservatives.

 

[smokedog#3]

What really scares me to death is the way all the Bush bobbleheads crawl out of the woodwork and accuse everyone who dosen't worship him of being unpatriototic, of treason, of ading the enemy. Sounds alot like the support that Hitler recieved in the early 30s.

wow great minds think alike. i agree.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I cannot help but be humored by your continual reference to Nazi Germany while referring to conservatives.

Not all conservatives. As a matter of fact most of my friends are conservatives. The only ones I have problems with are the ones who continually refer to anyone who is opposed to this president in any way, no matter what the reason, as a traitor. I think that is a VERY facist attitude. And yes, I would feel the same way if it were liberals who were calling conservatives traitors.

 

[therealUT]

Not all conservatives. As a matter of fact most of my friends are conservatives. The only ones I have problems with are the ones who continually refer to anyone who is opposed to this president in any way, no matter what the reason, as a traitor. I think that is a VERY facist attitude. And yes, I would feel the same way if it were liberals who were calling conservatives traitors.

There is a huge and distinguished difference between being opposed to this president and publicizing covert operations which directly concern national security.

 

[Vol423]

There is a huge and distinguished difference between being opposed to this president and publicizing covert operations which directly concern national security.

The press has an obligation to report unconstitutional covert programs initiated by the government, and they did so. That's a job well done.

Quote: "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law" - George W. Bush (Nov. 22, 2000).

This is our problem, not the press. We have a President that couldn't pass a sixth grade civics class deciding that he is capable of interpreting the law in any manner he sees fit to further his political agenda. The United States Constitution is a hindrance to him, so he chooses to ignore it. Anyone that chooses to voice a concern about his unconstitutional acts is labeled unpatriotic and a threat to national security.

 

[utvolpj]

Please explain how the money tracking program was illegal...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Someone seems stuck on just one item here being legal/illegal. They're ignoring quite a few other things mentioned being quite questionable.

For some good bathroom reading, consult the Federalist Papers, Democracy In America, and read up on the media in the war between Hamilton and Jefferson. You'll see what is happening now is child's play and how the media is the fourth estate basically with its own agenda and checking the government. You see the Constitution was designed to protect the people from the government. They came from a time where a leader (monarch) had sole control over the affairs of the courts and Parliament. This monarch abused such powers to his fancy. People rebelled against that. The media of the time was a huge driving force of checking that excessive abuse of power. It was also crucial in establishing the government we have today.

As I have said before, if what the papers did was illegal, then go after them. Don't whine and cry and use it solely for stirring up the mob with great soundbites. The funny thing is that the Administration was told prior to this story it would run. They could have called for an injunction in a court stacked by W. Instead they did nothing. They instead chose to use it to score points with their base and stir up people against some vast left wing media conspiracy. If it was wrong, why did they do nothing? Why didn't they go through the courts? Or is Bush somehow too afraid of going to a court for anything? He's spent enough time packing them...why does he avoid them?

 

[GAVol]

Afraid? Avoiding courts? Come on . . . You and I both know that a sitting President going to court to seek an injunction against a newspaper to stop them from printing a story would be like pouring kerosene on an open flame.

 

[volinbham]

Reading through this thread it's really scary how many Americans don't believe in the separation of powers, which is the absolute bedrock principle of the Constitution.

Spare us the drama. I seriously doubt anyone in this thread doesn't believe in the separation of powers. I personally don't see the current situation as the crisis others are making it out to be. It is simply pushing at the edges. The judicial has done it at times, the legislative has done it at times and the executive has done it at times. When it goes too far, the other branches reel it in.

 

[therealUT]

The press has an obligation to report unconstitutional covert programs initiated by the government, and they did so. That's a job well done.

Quote: "The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law" - George W. Bush (Nov. 22, 2000).

This is our problem, not the press. We have a President that couldn't pass a sixth grade civics class deciding that he is capable of interpreting the law in any manner he sees fit to further his political agenda. The United States Constitution is a hindrance to him, so he chooses to ignore it. Anyone that chooses to voice a concern about his unconstitutional acts is labeled unpatriotic and a threat to national security.

And which part of these programs is unconstitutional?

 

[CSpindizzy]

You and I both know that a sitting President going to court to seek an injunction against a newspaper to stop them from printing a story would be like pouring kerosene on an open flame.

Pouring kerosene on open flames seems to be no problem for Bush. If these leaks are illegal and if pursuing this is the RIGHT THING TO DO, then why NOT do it? DOing nothing means Bush is complacent in allowing this. I thought he was about the rule of law. So you'd rather have them posture by whining and complaining and stirring up their base only to do absolutely nothing about this? Doesn't bode well for a President who positioned himself on the opposite side of action.

 

[CSpindizzy]

And which part of these programs is unconstitutional?

There are not enough legal details about this last process. But the other ones violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

I'll flip it around for you. What makes them constitutional?

 

[volinbham]

Pouring kerosene on open flames seems to be no problem for Bush. If these leaks are illegal and if pursuing this is the RIGHT THING TO DO, then why NOT do it? DOing nothing means Bush is complacent in allowing this. I thought he was about the rule of law. So you'd rather have them posture by whining and complaining and stirring up their base only to do absolutely nothing about this? Doesn't bode well for a President who positioned himself on the opposite side of action.

Do nothing? Let's see his administration asked them not to run it. Members of Congress asked him not to run it. Members of the 9/11 Commission asked them not to run it. These are all efforts to head off the story.

An attempt to get an injunction (as you suggest) would be over the top and by the administration NOT doing so shows they understand their limits and the role of the press. I know that conflicts with his image as a power hungry maniac that is destroying the constitution and installing a dictatorship.

As for posturing via whining and complaining there certainly is a lot of that going on but you and I would differ on who it is that is whining and complaining... :biggrin2:

 

[volinbham]

There are not enough legal details about this last process. But the other ones violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

I'll flip it around for you. What makes them constitutional?

There aren't enough details on any of these for you or I to determine constitutionality. That hasn't stopped many from declaring them wholly unconstitutional (which I continue to find ironic since due process is part of the constitution as well).

The reason why these things will only be sorted out by the courts is that many laws and elements of the constitution overlap. The Telecom Act says one thing whereas areas of the constitution say another whereas other laws say something else. Reading one law and one part of the constitution is not sufficient to determine that the programs are constitutional or not. If it were, we'd all be constitutional lawyers and there would'nt be much need for the Supreme Court.

 

[hatvol96]

And which part of these programs is unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court obviously wasn't too impressed with the military tribunals at Gitmo.

 

[volinbham]

The Supreme Court obviously wasn't too impressed with the military tribunals at Gitmo.

See -- the separation of powers works :biggrin2:

More seriously, I don't believe they found them "unconstitutional" but rather the tribunals fell outside other laws and they suggested that Congress write new laws so that tribunals could be used in these situations.

 

[therealUT]

There are not enough legal details about this last process. But the other ones violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

I'll flip it around for you. What makes them constitutional?

Why don't you find me the section and line number in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which was solely aimed at keeping telephone companies from monopolizing) in which it addresses government surveillance.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Do nothing? Let's see his administration asked them not to run it. Members of Congress asked him not to run it. Members of the 9/11 Commission asked them not to run it. These are all efforts to head off the story.

An attempt to get an injunction (as you suggest) would be over the top and by the administration NOT doing so shows they understand their limits and the role of the press. I know that conflicts with his image as a power hungry maniac that is destroying the constitution and installing a dictatorship.

As for posturing via whining and complaining there certainly is a lot of that going on but you and I would differ on who it is that is whining and complaining... :biggrin2:

Awww....pwease don't run this story....good effort. Don't go for above and beyond or anything. And as for whining, read all of the conservative blogs and listen to talk radio. See what's the talk of Congress. So yeah, I'd say the defenders of this are the ones doing all of the whining.

So if something is illegal (as some here claim), don't pursue it because it could rock the boat? So national security according to you must come second to not causing conflict? Uh oh. How do all of the lynch mob types deal with that logic? I mean after all we can't let this keep happening can we? Are we just going to let the liberal media keep releasing all of our national security secrets? :biggrin2:

 

[CSpindizzy]

Why don't you find me the section and line number in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which was solely aimed at keeping telephone companies from monopolizing) in which it addresses government surveillance.

Check the section that refers to NO release of ANY information unless the customer has given consent. In your spare time, read that. Quite interesting. It was NOT solely to keep the telephone companies from monopolizing. Clearly you need to go back and read the act. It covers radio, phone, television, phone, etc. It is quite broad ranging. Title V even dabbled in restricting online porn. The SC shot that aspect down.

And read up on unlawful searches and seizures...you know...warrants. Something that is typically required to gain access to private information?

 

[therealUT]

Check the section that refers to NO release of ANY information unless the customer has given consent. In your spare time, read that. Quite interesting. It was NOT solely to keep the telephone companies from monopolizing. Clearly you need to go back and read the act. It covers radio, phone, television, phone, etc. It is quite broad ranging. Title V even dabbled in restricting online porn. The SC shot that aspect down.

And read up on unlawful searches and seizures...you know...warrants. Something that is typically required to gain access to private information?

Section and line numbers please, I do not feel like reading through 128 pages of deregulation law to get there.

 

[hatvol96]

See -- the separation of powers works :biggrin2:

More seriously, I don't believe they found them "unconstitutional" but rather the tribunals fell outside other laws and they suggested that Congress write new laws so that tribunals could be used in these situations.

Ask the folks who have been illegally held in Cuba under the guise of a lawful tribunal process how well it's worked for them.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Section and line numbers please, I do not feel like reading through 128 pages of deregulation law to get there.

Do the research. It's there I promise. Google works as well. And I see no response to your off-base assertion that it was only focused on monopolies.