President Bush

[HeightsGuy]

Redscare, that's where you and I part on this one. While I don't respect Bush, I respect the office of the Presidency. The President has every right to enact secret policies such as this. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it lawful. The judiciary can rule at a later date that the policy was unlawful, but it can't prosecute the people who enacted it. It doesn't work that way.

[Jeebus]

Ah. I get it now. Act like a good American (as defined by the right-wing), talk like a good American and work for the collective good of the state and the government will leave you alone. I understand completely now commrade.

Remember West20th: "Civil Disobedience.. is still Disobedience."

[RedScare]

HeightsGuy, this is exactly what the debate is about. The president swears an oath to uphold the law and the Contitution. The office of the president gives him wide range and powers, but not the power to ignore the law or Constitution. Hopefully, we shall see if he has the power to ignore this particular law or not.

There are clearly people on both sides of this issue, and I respect yours. The opinions I have no use for are the ones merely supporting or bashing the president. They add nothing to the debate. That is what useless opinion polls are for.

[TJones]

What I meant by "as defined by the right wing" is that the right wing is now in power. If these illegal (if they are deemed illegal) wiretaps are allowed to continue through 2008 into Hillary's presidency (sorry to make you toss your breakfast TJ) then they will be left wing. What does my owning a business have to do with anything?

Please disregard the business question, I misread your statement about working for the collective good, I thought I saw "Corporate" in there . And, yes, I threw up just a little in my mouth over Killary, I mean Hillary statement.

[eelimon]

Please disregard the business question, I misread your statement about working for the collective good, I thought I saw "Corporate" in there . And, yes, I threw up just a little in my mouth over Killary, I mean Hillary statement.

So are you afraid of strong women? or just Hillary....

[dbigtex56]

Red, Patriot Act clearly states the option that the Government has in obtaining a wiretap. In waiting the 72 hours everytime to get the wiretap, don't you find it to be a little overkill on a warrant that would be granted "after the fact" anyway.

TJones, I'd see your point if you were correct. Unfortunately, you have it exactly backward.

The government can wiretap anyone, anytime...so long as they get court approval at least 72 hours after the fact. After the fact. After the fact. Is that now understood? See my earlier post and follow the link if you don't believe me. The time allotted to get this approval was expanded from 48 to 72 hours; the House Judicial Committee asked if this extra time was even really needed.

It would have caused no delays, no loss in intelligence gathering to comply with the law - yet Bush supports people flouting the law for no apparent reason. Why are you defending him?

BTW, the news today reported that a judge on the special judicial committee who oversees approval of these warrents has resigned in protest. Doesn't that tell you something?

[skwatra]

Note this has nothing to do with the argument in this thread:

bush on global warming

ok, actually a will ferrell clip...

[sevfiv]

Note this has nothing to do with the argument in this thread:

bush on global warming

ok, actually a will ferrell clip...

oh come on, everyone knows this is the favorite!

okay, someone bring us back on topic

[TJones]

So are you afraid of strong women? or just Hillary....

Afraid of strong women ? I'm married chief, I know what a strong woman is !

TJones, I'd see your point if you were correct. Unfortunately, you have it exactly backward.

The government can wiretap anyone, anytime...so long as they get court approval at least 72 hours after the fact. After the fact. After the fact. Is that now understood? See my earlier post and follow the link if you don't believe me. The time allotted to get this approval was expanded from 48 to 72 hours; the House Judicial Committee asked if this extra time was even really needed.

It would have caused no delays, no loss in intelligence gathering to comply with the law - yet Bush supports people flouting the law for no apparent reason. Why are you defending him?

BTW, the news today reported that a judge on the special judicial committee who oversees approval of these warrents has resigned in protest. Doesn't that tell you something?

So, he was forced to resign ?

edit) to answer eelimon, YES, it tells me that 1 out of 11 justices decided to call it quits after 30 years on the bench.

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[uncertaintraveler]

Hopefully, Congress has the guts to address the issue. This strikes at the heart of our Constitutional right to privacy.

Depending on where and the circumstances in which a "tapped" telephone call is taking place, the right to privacy may not even apply. And, even in those limited circumstances in which such a right would apply, why would the present Congress even want to take up the issue? Chances are, the majority in Congress would prefer to further limit one's right to privacy, rather than expand such a right. And, in any event, I don't think basing a legal argument on a right to privacy is particularly wise unless you have nothing else to use....

[sevfiv]

So, he was forced to resign ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051221/ap_on_...estic_spying_30

[TJones]

The reporters are going on hear-say. They report he has NOT given a reason for quitting. Apparently from what I've read so far, he is totally agaisnt the war on terrorism, I'm sure he was a good judge, he was appointed by Clinton for pete's sake. So you know he is stellar ! But can't we wait for what HE has to say before we assume anything? Surely there will be a press conference today.

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[HeightsGuy]

The reporters are going on hear-say. They report he has NOT given a reason for quitting. Apparently from what I've read so far, he is totally agaisnt the war on terrorism, I'm sure he was a good judge, he was appointed by Clinton for pete's sake. So you know he is stellar ! But can't we wait for what HE has to say before we assume anything? Surely there will be a press conference today.

What's your point, that he's a lib? Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist placed him on the secret court. Also, in the same breath you said the reporters were going on heresay and that he didn't give a reason for leaving, then you point out that he is totally against the war on terrorism? Where did you get that little tidbit, hm, maybe heresay??

[TJones]

What's your point, that he's a lib? Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist placed him on the secret court. Also, in the same breath you said the reporters were going on heresay and that he didn't give a reason for leaving, then you point out that he is totally against the war on terrorism? Where did you get that little tidbit, hm, maybe heresay??

His record speaks for him. My point was let's hear his side of it first.

[nmainguy]

it tells me that 1 out of 11 justices decided to call it quits after 30 years on the bench.

TJ,

I think he only resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

I understand he is retaining his District Court judgeship.

If this is true, I'd be surprised to see any Federal District Judge do a press conference. His action may be his statement.

[TJones]

TJ,

I think he only resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

I understand he is retaining his District Court judgeship.

If this is true, I'd be surprised to see any Federal District Judge do a press conference. His action may be his statement.

I understand it must be a stressful job, maybe he was in over his head, or maybe he just doesn't like the fact that Bush gets to make these decisions. Yes, Heights, he is a staunch lib, and it just has to urk him, that everything the President said would happen in Iraq, is happening. Maybe he is of the belief that what our Gov. has done with the taps is wrong and illegal in his mind, Maybe it is a statement to say "I'm tried of you, so I'm taking my ball and going home !" Until he gives a reason, one can only speculate.

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[editor]

There was an interesting story on the local noon news. It talked about how what Bush did with the executive order and the spying and stuff is nothing new. That Clinton ordered the same thing, I think in 1993. And that Carter did it in 1977. I guess Clinton might have been responding to the first World Trade Center attack. I don't know what Carter was responding to. Iran hostages? I can't think of anything big around that time. There was no mention of anything in the Reagan era.

It doesn't excuse what's happened, but I think it's important to put things in context. To have Democrats and liberals in Congress falling overthemselves to find fault is like the police chief in Casablanca, "I am shocked! Shocked to find there is gambling in this establishment!"

[RedScare]

Spying on American citizens is NOT new. It has been done with a warrant and probable cause for decades. However, the last president that was suspected or known to spy on Americans WITHOUT warrants was Richard Nixon. HE is the reason FISA was passed. The source of the story suggesting other presidents is a "60 Minutes" story on the NSA aired in 2000. Some consevative blogs have used a portion of the story where a former Canadian analyst talked of some mistakes in the software that flagged innocent Americans for scrutiny as proof that Clinton approved it. Not only is that former analyst suspected of gross exageration, it is not evidence that any president approved or ordered the spying, only a flaw in the software.

It is important to understand that NSA's equipment intercepts EVERY communication worldwide. It is then filtered, and ONLY the communications that are legal to be intercepted are listened to. The others are destroyed. It is also VERY INTERESTING that conservative bloggers would use a "60 Minutes" episode as proof of anything.

[nmainguy]

There was an interesting story on the local noon news. It talked about how what Bush did with the executive order and the spying and stuff is nothing new. That Clinton ordered the same thing, I think in 1993. And that Carter did it in 1977. I guess Clinton might have been responding to the first World Trade Center attack.

It doesn't excuse what's happened, but I think it's important to put things in context. To have Democrats and liberals in Congress falling overthemselves to find fault is like the police chief in Casablanca, "I am shocked! Shocked to find there is gambling in this establishment!"

The law was passed in 1978, making Carter's use of it in 1977 impossible.

Clinton's use of it was legal-confirmed by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Do you really think if the Clinton haters had an inkling he had done what Bush has done they would have let him get away with it?

It seems when the far-right wingnuts get tangled in their own web, it's time to drag out Clinton, Vince Foster, etc...in an attempt to deflect from and defend their own screw-ups.

Get the Clinton monkey off your backs, people. He's been out of office for 5 years.

Or is it like the line from Brokeback Mountain:

"I wish I could quit you"

[TJones]

^^^broken record alert^^^ Let me ask you, if it turns out that any former or future Dem. Pres. has used the same powers during time of war, will it be ok with you then ?

BTW,please everyone do yourselves a favor and read this article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/c...ack=1&cset=true

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[west20th]

future Dem. Pres.

Aaaah. One can only hope.

[TJones]

Aaaah. One can only hope.

Not to worry, you got (cough) Hillary (cough) coming up, you should do fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnneeee, no, reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllyyyyyyyy.

[west20th]

Not to worry, you got (cough) Hillary (cough) coming up, you should do fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnneeee, no, reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllyyyyyyyy.

And you will bow before Maddam Clinton!!!

[nmainguy]

^^^broken record alert^^^ Let me ask you, if it turns out that any former or future Dem. Pres. has used the same powers during time of war, will it be ok with you then ?

BTW,please everyone do yourselves a favor and read this article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/c...ack=1&cset=true

Noooooo, Mr. Jones,

It would not be OK with me if any president past, present and/or future-Republican or Democrat- broke his Constitutional oath. You know why? Because if we let one guy get away with it, it makes it easier for the next guy and so on and so on.

Then you know what happens? You and I don't get to butt heads and come out friends anymore. One of us get's...how should I say? Muzzeled. I'm not up for any tyranny from the right or left.

Now while I'm away I better not come back and find that you and west have bloodied each other. I will stop the car and separate you two...and it won't be pretty! >

[TJones]

Noooooo, Mr. Jones,

It would not be OK with me if any president past, present and/or future-Republican or Democrat- broke his Constitutional oath. You know why? Because if we let one guy get away with it, it makes it easier for the next guy and so on and so on.

Then you know what happens? You and I don't get to butt heads and come out friends anymore. One of us get's...how should I say? Muzzeled. I'm not up for any tyranny from the right or left.

Now while I'm away I better not come back and find that you and west have bloodied each other. I will stop the car and separate you two...and it won't be pretty! >

You didn't read that article did you, it was written by a Clinton bootlicker.

[west20th]

Now while I'm away I better not come back and find that you and west have bloodied each other. I will stop the car and separate you two...and it won't be pretty! >

He started it!

[TJones]

And you will bow before Maddam Clinton!!!

I will be ok with it, if it indeed happens. I believe every President should have a big set of "Clankers", and she has 2 sets, her's and her husband's.

Edited December 21, 2005 by TJones

[johncoby]

I wonder what the NRA would have to say about this? In 1998 the FBI was keeping the informaiton on those who went through background checks for gun purchases. The NRA sued and had the practice stopped. The FBI has to destroy the information immediately.

Now.....Bush has circumvented the 4th Amendment of the Constitution with most thinking "I dont have anything to hide". Well, now gun owners and collectors and dealers, all are law abiding citizens and have nothing to hide, could be put on a list and the government can keep it.

Of course only to stop another 911 from happening.

[HeightsGuy]

^^^broken record alert^^^ Let me ask you, if it turns out that any former or future Dem. Pres. has used the same powers during time of war, will it be ok with you then ?

BTW,please everyone do yourselves a favor and read this article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/c...ack=1&cset=true

Yep, another broken record alert. The Republican spin machine tried super-hard today to make it seem like the past two dems Presidents did the same thing, but factchecks have caught up and rendered that story bunk.

What a weird twisted time we live in where libs are arguing for less government oversight and conservatives are arguing for more. When are you guys going to stand up for conservatism, that guy in the White House took your party away from you and you haven't even noticed.

[RedScare]

What a weird twisted time we live in where libs are arguing for less government oversight and conservatives are arguing for more.

And how strange indeed, that the party of John Wayne and Arnold and Cowboys and assorted other tough guys is in a near panic to give up all of their civil liberties and rights that made this country unique in the world because they are so terrified of some guys living in a cave, while the wimpy libs say they'd rather die a free man than live a prisoner in his own country.

I said it after the London bombings, and I'll say it again here. If some 2-bit terrorist is going to blow me up, he better be damn lucky figuring out which cafe I'm in...cuz I'm not staying home worrying about it. All of you people falling for the Administrations' fear mongering are pawns. And all of you who use the "We have to do it to beat the terrorists" argument to justify every intrusion on our rights as Americans must know that as the rest of us read your panicked posts, we are thinking to ourselves, "what a bunch of p*ssies."