Howard Dean: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Ace of Base:

Have you been asleep during the whole spying scandal?

Because that is what it is all about.

The Presidents abuse of power and breaking the law.

If you want to do a little research be sure to learn about W's feelings on executive orders.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ace of Base:[/quote]

You almost got it. This time you were in the ballpark, we've made real progress over these past few posts. I know you can do it right next time if you set your mind to it!

If you want to do a little research be sure to learn about W's feelings on executive orders.
Click to expand...

Even if I let it slide that the surveillance program was indeed illegal, which is a huge concession that I would be remiss to do, you'd still be wrong.

You can dodge all night chief, the choice is still and always will be yours.

I lost track of how many times I've had to call you on it, but I'll reiterate as you're having some trouble staying on topic: Can. you. find. one. article. that. quotes. President. Bush. saying. he. can. break. any. law. he. wants?

I'll put it in multiple choice form for you:

A. Dodge some more.
B. Admit you're wrong about your ridiculous assertions (you won't choose this)
C. Drop the issue and walk away (you won't choose this)
D. Act like an idiot. (A and D are not mutually exclusive)
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Even if I let it slide that the surveillance program was indeed illegal, which is a huge concession that I would be remiss to do, you'd still be wrong. [/QUOTE]

It would be wrong of you to admit facts?
 
[quote name='Msut77']It would be wrong of you to admit facts?[/QUOTE]

You chose A and D... again.

If you'd like to start a discussion on the terrorist surveillance program in another thread, be my guest. I'd prefer to stay on topic.
 
So anyway, you really seem to have zero knowledge of the wiretapping scandal and W's use of executive orders and his wanton breaking of laws.

How about you not post again until you educate yourself on these matters.

Im not trying to be a dick but your ignorance is troubling.
 
The only dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise is in your posts.

Did you do your research?

Or do you prefer ignorance?
 
So, then, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why it is not only perfectly legal to wiretap conversations without FISA granted warrants, but necessary to do so? Since you are so reticent to claim that they are behaving illegally, back it up. What is the problem with FISA?

Now, as far as Bush is concerned, let's go back to the beginning, and think of how he framed his initial campaign on several things, including the notion of "transperancy in government."

What evidence of transperancy have we seen? Abu Ghraib, indeterminate sentences for people charged with nothing after years, a completely and utterly misinformed justification for the war in Iraq (and you can ask Pat Roberts just how much of "Phase II" has been completed), denial of secret prisons (and later admitted to, but the focus has been on "who leaked this" rather than "why are we doing this" and "is this legal"), rendition of captives to countries notorious for grand breaches of human rights, the failure of social security reform publicly, and its later quiet inclusion into the next year's budget despite the public disapproval of it, putting Michael Brown in charge of FEMA, putting John "you could blow up the UN building and it wouldn't matter" Bolton in as the US delegate to the UN, Cheney's energy panel (plenty of transparency there, right?), insufficient arming of our troops ("you go to war with the army you have," eh?), insufficient troop deployment in Iraq, an expected cost of the war in Iraq less than 1% of what we've allocated to there thus far, the decree that we would be greeted with roses in Iraq, the lack of expectation of the insurgency in Iraq, evidence of cherry-picking intelligence to comprise the "rock-solid" case against Iraq, evidence that Cheney himself authorized Scooter Libby outing Valerie Wilson as a means of political retribution for Joe Wilson's substantiated case that the government cited evidence it knew to be false about Hussein's attempts to purchase WMD materials from Niger, and the continued use of trickle-down economics theory as forming the US fiscal policy, despite the fact that the 1980's under Reagan served as concrete proof that supply-side is a sham, and the debts we've accrued make us more and more beholden to non-US vested financial interests...well, that was off the top of my head, so I'm certain there are dozens more examples. Oh, there's plenty of transparency in the administration's refusal to make public the correspondence in and out of the White House during Katrina; evidence, many believe (including ol' Brownie) that proved the president was well aware of the levee breaches that, according to him, "nobody could anticipate."

So, there's not only the absolute lack of transparency, but boundless examples of near-criminal incompetence. There are your facts. If you would like, perhaps you can tell us, simply, how you reconcile the fact that the language of our 4th amendment seems to clearly state that the warrantless wiretap program is illegal with your assertion that it, in fact, is.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, then, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why it is not only perfectly legal to wiretap conversations without FISA granted warrants, but necessary to do so? Since you are so reticent to claim that they are behaving illegally, back it up. What is the problem with FISA?[/quote]

Because any President, Democrat and Republican, has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the United States of America as the popularly elected leader of our country. Intercepting enemy information during a war is perfectly acceptable and warranted for the executive to do, to prevent the ability to fight the enemy is the real problem.

If you would like, perhaps you can tell us, simply, how you reconcile the fact that the language of our 4th amendment seems to clearly state that the warrantless wiretap program is illegal with your assertion that it, in fact, is.
Click to expand...

Depends on how much evidence you want.

For starters, since the Supreme Court has yet to really decided upon the issue, we could go by U.S. Circuit Court precedent, yes?

The Fifth, Third, Ninth, Fourth, and Second Circuit Courts have all had rulings providing exceptions for electronic surveillance when it comes to requiring a warrant.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Because any President, Democrat and Republican, has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the United States of America as the popularly elected leader of our country. Intercepting enemy information during a war is perfectly acceptable and warranted for the executive to do, to prevent the ability to fight the enemy is the real problem.[/QUOTE]

So you really are arguing that the president can break the law in the name of national security at time of war? Remember, this is a war that has been defined as being long-term and taking place everywhere on Earth. Thus, logically, you are arguing that the president can break the law anytime, anyplace he wants, as long as he uses the reason of national security?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So you really are arguing that the president can break the law in the name of national security at time of war? Remember, this is a war that has been defined as being long-term and taking place everywhere on Earth. Thus, logically, you are arguing that the president can break the law anytime, anyplace he wants, as long as he uses the reason of national security?[/QUOTE]

Listening to enemy conversations during a war isn't breaking the law, it's protecting the nation.

If Hitler was talking to citizens in the United States in 1942 you're going to tell me that intercepting that information is breaking the law?

Edit: With that I'm going to bed, but you people never fucking leave do ya'll?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Because any President, Democrat and Republican, has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to protect the United States of America as the popularly elected leader of our country. Intercepting enemy information during a war is perfectly acceptable and warranted for the executive to do, to prevent the ability to fight the enemy is the real problem.



Depends on how much evidence you want.

For starters, since the Supreme Court has yet to really decided upon the issue, we could go by U.S. Circuit Court precedent, yes?

The Fifth, Third, Ninth, Fourth, and Second Circuit Courts have all had rulings providing exceptions for electronic surveillance when it comes to requiring a warrant.[/QUOTE]

So, one of my original questions in the above post was in regards to FISA. Why can't we simply use those courts to obtain warrants, monitor the same people, and be happy with that?
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Why can't we simply use those courts to obtain warrants, monitor the same people, and be happy with that?[/QUOTE]

I don't know either. If the court is set up to basically rubberstamp all of your wiretaps and gives you 72 hours AFTER THE FACT, I don't see the problem here of not, at the very least, having a record of who's been spyed on as evidence.

The only reason they would need to circumvent FISA is if there were a security leak in the court and they needed to wiretap a judge. Requesting an approval of a wiretap form the target would be counterproductive, to say the least.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Listening to enemy conversations during a war isn't breaking the law, it's protecting the nation.

If Hitler was talking to citizens in the United States in 1942 you're going to tell me that intercepting that information is breaking the law?[/QUOTE]

Sure it's breaking the law, if there is law in place that says intercepting such communications is illegal. Don't you know how laws work? They aren't magically abolished because the president says we're at war.
 
I'd like to hear the extrapolation of "constitutional authority," considering that nobody seems to be able to go beyond that; what's more, of course, is that there is a part of the constitution that seems to counter the idea of its legality.

It almost seems as if people defending Bush's actions here are using the term "constitutional authority" as a deus ex machina, an irrational last minute effort to end all the trouble we are in. I, for one, have been well past my limit in terms of suspension of disbelief with this administration.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sure it's breaking the law, if there is law in place that says intercepting such communications is illegal. Don't you know how laws work? They aren't magically abolished because the president says we're at war.[/QUOTE]

Well, actually, that's exactly the point. The Congress has granted that magic power to the president. Everything is subject to interpretation, though.

READ:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag6_user.html#art2_sec2
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd like to hear the extrapolation of "constitutional authority," considering that nobody seems to be able to go beyond that; what's more, of course, is that there is a part of the constitution that seems to counter the idea of its legality.

It almost seems as if people defending Bush's actions here are using the term "constitutional authority" as a deus ex machina, an irrational last minute effort to end all the trouble we are in. I, for one, have been well past my limit in terms of suspension of disbelief with this administration.[/QUOTE]

Duh, it's the president's "constitutional" authority to do anything he wants in the name of "protecting" us!
 
I don't know who to answer, you're all asking the same things.

I mean we can kill enemies but we can't listen to them talk? Is that your rationale, elprincipe? I mean for goodness sakes, what's it going to take to get the left to take terrorism seriously? Civil liberties are very important, they set us apart from every nation in the world, but you must, all of you must, get this notion out of your head that President Bush is sitting in the Oval Office with a headset on listening to you talk to your wife. For God's sake, why is wiretapping only illegal when President Bush does it? Why was it not illegal when the NSA authorized data capturing of random Americans under President Clinton's watch? Why is it not illegal when President Carter directly authorizes electronic surveillance of two men allegedly spying on behalf of Vietnam? No, not in these cases, you know why? Because those are Democrats, and they're infalliable. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. When Democrats argue they have inherent Constitution authority to protect this nation, everyone agrees, but when Republican's do it, "OH fuck NO BUSH KILLS ALL OUR CIVIL LIBRETIES OMG DR. DEAN WE ARE IN IRAN BUSH U EVIL BITICHCHHCC"

Now, if ya'll would quit being so damn partisan/ignorant for two seconds, maybe I could tell you my take on the whole thing. Do I think it is illegal? No, precedent after precedent proves this. The Constitution proves this. Do I think it is a just law? No. I'm consistent about it though, I don't like either President Bush or former President Clinton or any politican doing it. If I could change it I would.

I would rather argue the issue on those guidelines, people who support surveillance on purely the merits of this issue and not the legality of it.

[quote name='Msut77']So Ace has admitted he has been jerking off the whole time and Bush has and will break any law he wants any time.[/quote]

Still waiting for you to show me where you found President Bush saying "on the record" that he can "break any law he wants" you liar.
 
Civil liberties are very important, they set us apart from every nation in the world
Click to expand...

I never realized what an oppressive place canada was. And to think, all that time I was contributing to a society lacking civil liberties! I must go and warn all the married same sex couples about this immediately!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yep, I know the argument, Congress authorized war with al Qaeda. But does that power give the president power to ignore other laws in its prosecution? I'd say plainly no.[/QUOTE]

Scholars would disagree with you. Especially with legal precedent to back them up. I, for one, don't think unbridled presidential power is a good thing and relies solely on whether the president is an honest man. Lincoln was, but not many would have thought that in 1860, north or south.

Congress could do something about it if they chose to. They have the power to change the laws governing presidentail power. The rhetoric machines have been cranking out propoganda as if they really care, but they don't. Democrats will shout about it for political reasons and make idle threats to please their constituents but you can be damn sure they don't really want to take away this power. They'll want to use it when they eventually retake the White House. After all, the president's job is to protect us from enemies, foreign AND domestic.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Scholars would disagree with you. Especially with legal precedent to back them up. I, for one, don't think unbridled presidential power is a good thing and relies solely on whether the president is an honest man. Lincoln was, but not many would have thought that in 1860, north or south. [/QUOTE]
ANd, yet, many of Lincoln's moves in the civil war were found to be unconstitutional after the fact.
 
[quote name='kakomu']ANd, yet, many of Lincoln's moves in the civil war were found to be unconstitutional after the fact.[/QUOTE]

Lincoln did a lot crazier things than wiretap some potential terrorists. Of course, he had the benefit of CNN, television, and the internet having yet not been invented. Roosevelt did some pretty crazy things too yet he is regarded as one of the greatest presidents of all time, by some.

I see the situations of yesterday's fascism and todays fascism as similar situations. Some in Congress don't feel that way and begin with this premise to paint the presidents actions as outrageous. If you say there is no threat, then you can't justify using war powers. There is, however, a threat and an active enemy that needs to be exposed, no matter how hard our spineless congresspeople would like to deny it.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I mean we can kill enemies but we can't listen to them talk? Is that your rationale, elprincipe? I mean for goodness sakes, what's it going to take to get the left to take terrorism seriously?[/QUOTE]

I never said we can't listen to our enemies' communications, nor would I suggest we not. Of course we should. I don't think anyone is arguing this. So nice set up on that strawman. And of course I take terrorism seriously. It is one of the most serious problems in today's world and a scourge upon all of mankind.

But look at what the actual complaint is here, that the president (executive branch) didn't follow the law in getting warrants for wiretaps. The FISA law stipulates that such warrants must be obtained. It even grants 72 hours after making the wiretap to explain it to a judge, for heaven's sakes. Your argument is that the president can just wiretap whenever he wants because it is for national security. That line of reasoning not only ignores the letter of the FISA law, but it ignores the entire reason for the FISA law's existence. It was put into place in the '70s in response to executive abuse of power when J. Edgar Hoover was in charge of the FBI and wiretapped people like Martin Luther King Jr. to try and dig up dirt on them and discredit them for political reasons.

So bottom line, wiretapping is okay when following the law and getting a warrant. Such warrants have been sought and are rarely denied. Warrants can even be obtained after the fact if a wiretap is needed immediately for national security reasons. It is wrong to try and circumvent a law specifically passed by Congress to prevent executive abuse of power. Note that I'm not even arguing that anyone was wiretapped incorrectly because I don't know that, just that the way it was done was wrong. I don't know if it was illegal by the letter of the law, but it damn well violated its spirit.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I never said we can't listen to our enemies' communications, nor would I suggest we not. Of course we should. I don't think anyone is arguing this. So nice set up on that strawman. And of course I take terrorism seriously. It is one of the most serious problems in today's world and a scourge upon all of mankind.[/quote]

To be honest, you could've fooled me. It's not like this program is anything new. I realize the mainstream media and Congressional leaders have really been sensationalizing the whole thing, but you've got to put it into perspective. Just think about it logically for a minute before you make outrageous claims: if someone is actively accepting or making calls abroad to phone numbers of known enemies of our nation, don't you think it's the duty of our government to at the very least see what's going on? I know I do, the government's first job is to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.

But look at what the actual complaint is here, that the president (executive branch) didn't follow the law in getting warrants for wiretaps. The FISA law stipulates that such warrants must be obtained. It even grants 72 hours after making the wiretap to explain it to a judge, for heaven's sakes. Your argument is that the president can just wiretap whenever he wants because it is for national security. That line of reasoning not only ignores the letter of the FISA law, but it ignores the entire reason for the FISA law's existence. It was put into place in the '70s in response to executive abuse of power when J. Edgar Hoover was in charge of the FBI and wiretapped people like Martin Luther King Jr. to try and dig up dirt on them and discredit them for political reasons.
Click to expand...

As simple as I can say it, FISA cannot override the Constitution of the United States. The powers assigned to the executive branch within the Constitution can be interpreted by the judicial branch, and they have several times. Time after time the court has ruled that electronic surveillance conducted with the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence is not subject to either the Fourth Amendment or FISA warrant restrictions. FISA is nice, but it's ultimately the President and the Attorney General serving the President who make the decision about whether they will or will not go to FISA. The President will always have a greater authority vested with him directly from Article II of the Constitution than a Congressional act has to check him. That's the way it's been since our country took form as a Constitutional Democratic-Republic, and if you do not think the executive branch should have the explicit and unique responsibility of enforcment, then you should certainly write your Congressperson and ask them to amend the Constitution.

That still sounds a little civic heavy. Let me give you a quote, you read it and then I'll tell you who said it and in what context it was said, okay?

[quote name='Case Number: 02-001. FISA Court of Review, 2002 (Truong v. U.S.)']The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.[/quote]

So bottom line, wiretapping is okay when following the law and getting a warrant. Such warrants have been sought and are rarely denied. Warrants can even be obtained after the fact if a wiretap is needed immediately for national security reasons. It is wrong to try and circumvent a law specifically passed by Congress to prevent executive abuse of power. Note that I'm not even arguing that anyone was wiretapped incorrectly because I don't know that, just that the way it was done was wrong. I don't know if it was illegal by the letter of the law, but it damn well violated its spirit.
Click to expand...

Even Congress cannot pass a law the overrides the Constitution. They can AMEND the Constitution, assuming they have the support to do so, and have it so the legislative branch will have the power to both make and enforce said laws. That would be a nice debate, but I feel it's going into a whole different discussion that's far more technical and U.S. specific.

You got it right at the end though. It wasn't and isn't illegal, but I can't be the judge of how you view the system of government we have in place. If you feel that the legislative should exist to both make the laws and enforce them, that's your position. The way it currently stands though, the executive enforces our laws and the legislative can only make them.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I never realized what an oppressive place canada was. And to think, all that time I was contributing to a society lacking civil liberties! I must go and warn all the married same sex couples about this immediately![/QUOTE]

You know what I meant, no reason to act like an ass.

[quote name='Msut77']Hey Ace why dont you try responding to what I actually wrote (or hell even just read it).[/QUOTE]

Why should I respond to a liar who doesn't really care about the truth and would rather just make things up? Admit you lied and I'll consider giving you the time of day.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']To be honest, you could've fooled me. It's not like this program is anything new. I realize the mainstream media and Congressional leaders have really been sensationalizing the whole thing, but you've got to put it into perspective. Just think about it logically for a minute before you make outrageous claims: if someone is actively accepting or making calls abroad to phone numbers of known enemies of our nation, don't you think it's the duty of our government to at the very least see what's going on? I know I do, the government's first job is to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.[/quote]

Saying it is nothing new starts with the easily discredited accusation that Clinton and Carter both did the same thing that Bush is doing. I'll let someone else take care of that, as I found a different quote more fascinating.

As simple as I can say it, FISA cannot override the Constitution of the United States. The powers assigned to the executive branch within the Constitution can be interpreted by the judicial branch, and they have several times. Time after time the court has ruled that electronic surveillance conducted with the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence is not subject to either the Fourth Amendment or FISA warrant restrictions. FISA is nice, but it's ultimately the President and the Attorney General serving the President who make the decision about whether they will or will not go to FISA. The President will always have a greater authority vested with him directly from Article II of the Constitution than a Congressional act has to check him. That's the way it's been since our country took form as a Constitutional Democratic-Republic, and if you do not think the executive branch should have the explicit and unique responsibility of enforcment, then you should certainly write your Congressperson and ask them to amend the Constitution.

That still sounds a little civic heavy. Let me give you a quote, you read it and then I'll tell you who said it and in what context it was said, okay?
Click to expand...

Truong versus U.S., huh? Just to be clear, here's the quote you mention again:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.
Click to expand...

Could you provide a citation for that quote, as it does not read like a judicial document, but rather, a blog oir legal scholar's interpretation of it. Anyway, that's not what I find fascinating.

What I do find fascinating are the contingencies that follow the statement you used. Your quote is selectively, perhaps intentionally, misinterpreted. Consider the following:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
Click to expand...

Link

And, just so we're totally kosher, let me quote the same code's definition of a "United States person":

(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Click to expand...

So the legislation you're quoting does much harm, and no good, to the logical foundation you're trying to develop to support the legality of what the administration is doing.
 
I heard a good point on the Sunday shows (via Podcast-great way to get your politics in). If the president has the authority to do what needs to done to protect us, why was Bush pushing the renewel of the Patriot Act provisions?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Why should I respond to a liar who doesn't really care about the truth and would rather just make things up? Admit you lied and I'll consider giving you the time of day.[/QUOTE]


Why would I admit to something that isnt true?

You are almost dishonest as you are ignorant.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']To be honest, you could've fooled me. It's not like this program is anything new. I realize the mainstream media and Congressional leaders have really been sensationalizing the whole thing, but you've got to put it into perspective. Just think about it logically for a minute before you make outrageous claims: if someone is actively accepting or making calls abroad to phone numbers of known enemies of our nation, don't you think it's the duty of our government to at the very least see what's going on? I know I do, the government's first job is to defend this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.[/quote]

Did you even read what I said? I have never said we shouldn't be wiretapping people with a warrant, or under FISA even wiretapping and then getting a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. Are you still reading, I hope? Because you didn't read it last time I wrote it.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']As simple as I can say it, FISA cannot override the Constitution of the United States. The powers assigned to the executive branch within the Constitution can be interpreted by the judicial branch, and they have several times. Time after time the court has ruled that electronic surveillance conducted with the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence is not subject to either the Fourth Amendment or FISA warrant restrictions. FISA is nice, but it's ultimately the President and the Attorney General serving the President who make the decision about whether they will or will not go to FISA. The President will always have a greater authority vested with him directly from Article II of the Constitution than a Congressional act has to check him. That's the way it's been since our country took form as a Constitutional Democratic-Republic, and if you do not think the executive branch should have the explicit and unique responsibility of enforcment, then you should certainly write your Congressperson and ask them to amend the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

You speak of "foreign intelligence" as if this weren't a program involving Americans on home soil, which it most certainly is. Why are you trying to change the subject?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Prince I know we dont get along much.... But Ace is a dishonest ignorant waste of life.

Dont bother.[/QUOTE]


Is it possible for you to get along with anyone ? Or write more than 2 sentences per post? Or NOT be completely and unabashedly insulting ?

Your recent diatribes are a complete waste of bandwidth and are giving the liberals here a bad name.
 
Talk about a dishonest, ignorant waste of life and I automatcally think of you.

BTW, you forgot your comma between ignorant and dishonest. In fact, you have a chronic problem with punctuation, sentence construction, and general communication skills. Keep hurling the insults, they are a perfect reflection of yourself.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Saying it is nothing new starts with the easily discredited accusation that Clinton and Carter both did the same thing that Bush is doing. I'll let someone else take care of that, as I found a different quote more fascinating.[/quote]

I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to say that because prior Presidents supervised unwarrented wiretaps often, in former President Clinton's case far more regularly and pervasively than President Bush, it does not mean I think it gives President Bush a pass. It does however, show that there is an obvious loathing of this administration in the mainstream media that goes beyond investigative journalism. Those who willingly give out military secrets to the press for all eyes to see are not whistleblowers, but they are treasonous. Thankfully I do believe the Department of Justice is pursuing the case to the full extent of the law as our very nation's security simply cannot be sold away for dangerous partisanship.

Could you provide a citation for that quote, as it does not read like a judicial document, but rather, a blog oir legal scholar's interpretation of it. Anyway, that's not what I find fascinating.
Click to expand...

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

So the legislation you're quoting does much harm, and no good, to the logical foundation you're trying to develop to support the legality of what the administration is doing.
Click to expand...

Do you have an actual question or do you just plan to link to something I'm sure we've all read over several times? If you have a specific question or allegation you want to put forward against the administration's position I'll gladly set you straight, but until then I will stay general: No act passed by Congress can override the Constitution. The only way for Congress to override the Constitution is by specifically amending it. Period. I suppose we could argue hypotheticals, but our country was built in such a way that the Constitution supercedes all other laws or acts passed by any governing body within the United States.

[quote name='Msut77']Why would I admit to something that isnt true?

You are almost dishonest as you are ignorant.[/QUOTE]

You said you have President Bush on record, those were your words. I want to see the record. Provide it or admit it was an idiotic fabrication.

I won't let you off the hook simply because you're at that stage where socialism is "cool" and you hate the establishment. (I know you won't fess up, but at least try to act mature while you're around people like me, bmulligan, elprincipe, and mykevermin)

[quote name='elprincipe']Did you even read what I said? I have never said we shouldn't be wiretapping people with a warrant, or under FISA even wiretapping and then getting a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. Are you still reading, I hope? Because you didn't read it last time I wrote it.[/quote]

Well, all due respect, try to read what I've been saying as well. I'll try to write it as clearly as I can. Terrorism is, in all instances, an immediate danger according to this administration. I agree with this assessment, but apparently the left and more specifically the former administration do not. Another way to view terrorism is as a criminal threat that needs to be brought to task in our courtrooms and fought legally. While former President Clinton, right or wrong, stood by these notions, President Bush does not. Admittedly it's a bit of a drastic change, because this administration takes terrorism more seriously, in the sense that it is a more pressing issue, and is adament about preventing it from ever amassing enough power to do as much damage as it did on Sept. 11th, 2001. This administration has gone to great lengths to do so while respecting the civil liberties of our citizens, but FISA or not, this country is at war. Not only does the President have the support of the people, but also of the Congress, to fight this enemy with extreme force. Even with all of that aside, the executive branch has powers under Article II of our Constitution to protect this nation. FISA is not a Constitutionally recognized check on the executive branch. The checks on the executive branch are as follows: The legislative branch may decide to override a Presidental veto, impeach, approve Presidental appointments, or cut funding, and the judicial branch has the power of judicial review to rule actions as Unconstitutional. You can look up and down the Constitution all you like, you will not find that the executives power may be shrunk by legislative acts. They can impeach a President under extreme conditions, stop his appointments, cut funding to something, or override his veto, but they cannot simply take away his powers to defend this nation otherwise.

Nevertheless, if you'd like to argue in favor of a different system of government (from what I gather you'd perhaps prefer a pure Republic) then you may do so at your own disgression. The President's power comes from the Constitution and the public who put him in office, NOT the legislative branch.

You speak of "foreign intelligence" as if this weren't a program involving Americans on home soil, which it most certainly is. Why are you trying to change the subject?
Click to expand...

These are international calls taking place within the United States at any given time. These are direct connections to Al-Qaeda or similar known terrorist organizations. I asked you before if you would prefer our government turn an apathetic eye toward American citizens actively talking to our enemy and you scolded me and implied I put words in your mouth. Make up your mind.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I want to make it clear that I'm not attempting to say that because prior Presidents supervised unwarrented wiretaps often, in former President Clinton's case far more regularly and pervasively than President Bush, it does not mean I think it gives President Bush a pass. It does however, show that there is an obvious loathing of this administration [/QUOTE]

Unwarranted? Never seen any evidence of that, I seriously doubt it is true.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Do you have an actual question or do you just plan to link to something I'm sure we've all read over several times? If you have a specific question or allegation you want to put forward against the administration's position I'll gladly set you straight, but until then I will stay general: No act passed by Congress can override the Constitution. The only way for Congress to override the Constitution is by specifically amending it. Period. I suppose we could argue hypotheticals, but our country was built in such a way that the Constitution supercedes all other laws or acts passed by any governing body within the United States.[/QUOTE]

Please. What I did was point out that the quote you used either erroneously or intentionally omitted the statements immediately following what you cited. Since you took this from a page containing the entire document, I can reasonably conclude that you were aware of the provisions of the quotation you cited to defend the president's wartime powers very clearly stated that they do not cover the area in which he, and the NSA, have been treading. You were simply dead wrong, and instead of conceding as such, just retreat to some bland statement.

Take, for instance, the "if al qaeda is talking to someone in the US, I want to know." Well, why bother making that statement? What it implies by the necessity of its statement is the corollary, "those who do not support this wiretapping don't want the United States to know al qaeda's plans." That's an absurdity, and what people in the logic biz call a "straw man" argument; easily refuted, but sufficiently distracting enough to divert the discussion away from a particular point.

Seriously, why bother saying "if al qaeda is talking to someone in the US, I want to know"? You're like a political Ralph Wiggums sometimes, I swear. "My cat's breath smells like cat food," and all that jazz.

Let me ask you this, since you retreated into the realm of straw men instead of admitting that you were either accidentally mistaken about the quotation you used, or intentionally misleading (and thus aware of the falsehood of your ideological posture from the beginning, since you had to rely on something that says "not X" to argue "is X"). I'll even put it in bold, so you won't miss it:

Treat me like a Freshman in your Political Science class. It's day 1, and I think "bicameral" is some sort of new porno filming technology. I think Martin Van Buren is one of the guys from the film "Cocoon." Tell me, give me citations and spell it out for me as plainly as you can, just what sections and articles of either the constitution or its amendments tell me that the president can do damn bloody well whatever he wants in wartime. Back it up; proof, fact, factorum: you keep saying "constitutional authority," but you've done nothing to show any of us where it is located. The only quote you've given us defending it was a major gaffe on your behalf at best, and maliciously lying at worst. Here's your chance to show us you're not just an echo chamber for Sean Hannity.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Well, all due respect, try to read what I've been saying as well. I'll try to write it as clearly as I can. Terrorism is, in all instances, an immediate danger according to this administration. I agree with this assessment, but apparently the left and more specifically the former administration do not. Another way to view terrorism is as a criminal threat that needs to be brought to task in our courtrooms and fought legally. While former President Clinton, right or wrong, stood by these notions, President Bush does not. Admittedly it's a bit of a drastic change, because this administration takes terrorism more seriously, in the sense that it is a more pressing issue, and is adament about preventing it from ever amassing enough power to do as much damage as it did on Sept. 11th, 2001. This administration has gone to great lengths to do so while respecting the civil liberties of our citizens, but FISA or not, this country is at war. Not only does the President have the support of the people, but also of the Congress, to fight this enemy with extreme force. Even with all of that aside, the executive branch has powers under Article II of our Constitution to protect this nation. FISA is not a Constitutionally recognized check on the executive branch. The checks on the executive branch are as follows: The legislative branch may decide to override a Presidental veto, impeach, approve Presidental appointments, or cut funding, and the judicial branch has the power of judicial review to rule actions as Unconstitutional. You can look up and down the Constitution all you like, you will not find that the executives power may be shrunk by legislative acts. They can impeach a President under extreme conditions, stop his appointments, cut funding to something, or override his veto, but they cannot simply take away his powers to defend this nation otherwise.

Nevertheless, if you'd like to argue in favor of a different system of government (from what I gather you'd perhaps prefer a pure Republic) then you may do so at your own disgression. The President's power comes from the Constitution and the public who put him in office, NOT the legislative branch.[/quote]

I see now, you are just making things up like "You can look up and down the Constitution all you like, you will not find that the executives power may be shrunk by legislative acts." If you read the Constitution, you'll find that the president's job is mainly to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and of course to lead the military as commander in chief. Your interpretation of the Constitution installs the president as dictator and somehow above the law during wartime (which of course is designated by the president). Your interpretation of the Constitution goes against everything the Founding Fathers fought for and stood for.

You also try to make it seem as if I'm minimizing the danger of terrorism or disregarding necessary tools to fight it, which I'm not and never have done.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']These are international calls taking place within the United States at any given time. These are direct connections to Al-Qaeda or similar known terrorist organizations. I asked you before if you would prefer our government turn an apathetic eye toward American citizens actively talking to our enemy and you scolded me and implied I put words in your mouth. Make up your mind.[/QUOTE]

Evidently in your mind there are two ways things can be done: not wiretap at all or extrajudicial wiretaps. You evidently fail to realize that there is a third way, which happens to be the legal way: wiretaps with court approval. You seem to suggest that wanting the executive branch to follow the law and get FISA court approval for wiretaps is the same as wanting the government to ignore al Qaeda and other terrorist communications. I don't know where you got that idea or what reasons you have for thinking it, but it's 100% wrong.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Please. What I did was point out that the quote you used either erroneously or intentionally omitted the statements immediately following what you cited. Since you took this from a page containing the entire document, I can reasonably conclude that you were aware of the provisions of the quotation you cited to defend the president's wartime powers very clearly stated that they do not cover the area in which he, and the NSA, have been treading. You were simply dead wrong, and instead of conceding as such, just retreat to some bland statement.

Take, for instance, the "if al qaeda is talking to someone in the US, I want to know." Well, why bother making that statement? What it implies by the necessity of its statement is the corollary, "those who do not support this wiretapping don't want the United States to know al qaeda's plans." That's an absurdity, and what people in the logic biz call a "straw man" argument; easily refuted, but sufficiently distracting enough to divert the discussion away from a particular point.[/quote]

That's the problem with you guys, you think I'm arguing politically, like this is all just some game of Republican v.s. Democrats. If that's what you think then you honestly need to wake up. National security shouldn't be a political issue, and I'm trying to level with both of you the best I can. I specifically said that I don't agree with the process and I also feel it is too much of an encroachment on our civil liberties, but I will refuse to jump on the bandwagon of attacking this administration because the leader is President Bush. Open your eyes, the politicans on both sides of the aisle have no intention of dismantling this program, not one politician has actively campaigned on how intercepting enemy intelligence during war is wrong. They won't do it because of two things:

1. The left knows if they ever get back into power (which seems less and less likely every day the way they play their hand) they'll want to be able to use domestic surveillance. The same goes for the moderates on the right side of the aisle who have criticized President Bush.

2. The left knows that they are just as guilty of wiretapping as President Bush is plain and simple.

I'm not putting up straw men or red herrings, I'm trying to get us all on the same page when it comes to national security. Disagreeing with this wiretapping is fine, but to call it illegal is either ignorant or purposefully partisan (most probably the latter) out of unprecedented hatred of President Bush. So you can continue to insult me and my rhetoric, but the fact of the matter is you're the one who must provide strong evidence that this program is indeed illegal. The fact that you fail to do so shows that you have no legal ground to stand upon when making such claims and only goes to strengthen my point.

Treat me like a Freshman in your Political Science class. It's day 1, and I think "bicameral" is some sort of new porno filming technology. I think Martin Van Buren is one of the guys from the film "Cocoon." Tell me, give me citations and spell it out for me as plainly as you can, just what sections and articles of either the constitution or its amendments tell me that the president can do damn bloody well whatever he wants in wartime. Back it up; proof, fact, factorum: you keep saying "constitutional authority," but you've done nothing to show any of us where it is located. The only quote you've given us defending it was a major gaffe on your behalf at best, and maliciously lying at worst. Here's your chance to show us you're not just an echo chamber for Sean Hannity.
Click to expand...

I would refer you to my earlier explaination of the way the branches coincide to create our unique form of government. I would then give you a verbatim reproduction of the oath the President must swear to upon entering office:

[quote name='"Constitution"']I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.[/quote]

I would also refer you to various quotes from the Federalist Papers that are really the great insight into how the Constitution and our government was founded and on what principles were they established:

[quote name='"Paper 51"']But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.[/quote]

Most specifically concentrated from number 70, where Alexander Hamilton explains beautifully and precisely why the executive must retain a certain degree of authority similar to that of a tyrant or despot. You would be remiss at labeling a President of the United States with such labels, and if you choose to do so you are merely highlighting your own ignorance. If you do choose to dispute it however, I would inform you now that your attacks no doubt have root with the foundation of this government and not necessarily with a specific President or administration.

[quote name='Paper 70']T[size=-2]HERE[/size] is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome. There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.[/quote]

[quote name='Paper 70']The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers. The ingredients which constitute safety in the repub lican sense are, first, a due dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility.[/quote]

Take note to how Mr. Hamilton didn't list respect to the majority wishes of the legislative within his listings of proper ingredients to safeguard our civil liberties.

I'll stop there, but as you know there are several more Federalist Papers that we can discuss, but I feel this adequately proves my point for the time being. While our founding fathers were vehemently against a king, dictator, despot, or tyrant in all cases, they were understandably supportive of a powerful executive branch of government in instances of defense of our nation. They recognized that while bueraucracy is the best safeguard of civil liberties to date, it is not acceptable as an institution of national defense. I think Madison said in one of his papers that if all men were angels we wouldn't need a government to begin with. In a similar fashion, if there was no foreign threats to our state we wouldn't need an executive. To, finally, tie it back in to the topic at hand, the executive need not be restricted in defense of our nation unless if done so by warranted impeachment and removal from office. If wiretapping foreign enemy's phone calls into the United States is considered illegal in your book, then that is your prerogative. I feel it is my duty to point out to you that you have little support in that claim other than in the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party as it stands today.

[quote name='elprincipe']I see now, you are just making things up like "You can look up and down the Constitution all you like, you will not find that the executives power may be shrunk by legislative acts." If you read the Constitution, you'll find that the president's job is mainly to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and of course to lead the military as commander in chief. Your interpretation of the Constitution installs the president as dictator and somehow above the law during wartime (which of course is designated by the president). Your interpretation of the Constitution goes against everything the Founding Fathers fought for and stood for.[/quote]

I would love to cite for you the same quotations I have cited for mykevermin, but if you only look above your quote you will see that you are wrong.

I'll shorten a quote from Federalist Paper 70 for you though:

[quote name='Paper 70']Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks
. . .
Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator[/quote]

Again though, you are sadly mistaken if you believe that anyone would refer to a President of the United States as a dictator in any way shape or form. A popularly elected, term-restricted executive that can be voted out of office WILL NEVER be anywhere close to having the absolute power a dictator has. Unfortunately the propoganda the those on the left feed you (Howard Dean) would have you believe that President Bush would come kill and rape your wife if he had the chance. That is a low-point in American politics and the Democratic party, and I can only hope, preferably through my assistance, that you open your mind up to the reality that is President Bush just another President with his own ideology that you either support or you don't.

If you'd like to argue the Constitutionality of creating Japanese concentration camps and attempting to pack the Supreme Court so that it wouldn't ever be disloyal like FDR did, then you might have the makings of a valid argument. ;)

You also try to make it seem as if I'm minimizing the danger of terrorism or disregarding necessary tools to fight it, which I'm not and never have done.
Click to expand...

I hope I am wrong in that assumption, and I hope you are just committed as I am in recognizing Islamo-fascism as the evil that it is.

Evidently in your mind there are two ways things can be done: not wiretap at all or extrajudicial wiretaps. You evidently fail to realize that there is a third way, which happens to be the legal way: wiretaps with court approval. You seem to suggest that wanting the executive branch to follow the law and get FISA court approval for wiretaps is the same as wanting the government to ignore al Qaeda and other terrorist communications. I don't know where you got that idea or what reasons you have for thinking it, but it's 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

It's an unnecessary mingling of the branches that need not be respected should national security be a more pressing issue at the time.

As I've said a number of times, if you'd prefer the legislative branch have the real say in defending this nation and enforcing our laws then you would certainly be an advocate for a pure Republic. As our government currently stands the legislative branch does not have the authority to circumvent the executive's Constitutional authority with any act passed by any party. It's like saying that if Congress should pass a law that says all Presidental appointments to federal courts must be split as to where the legislative branch makes 50% of the appointments and the executive branch makes 50% of the appointments. It's completely going over our Constitution into a territory that it cannot be. I've already told you the powers the legislative branch has in preventing the President from exercising powers, but tearing out a piece of the Constitution is not one of them (notwithstanding Constitutional Amendments.)
 
[quote name='Msut77']Well she made a post, it just doesnt make sense or answer anything.

Ace truly is a Bush supporter.[/QUOTE]

i kno rite? wtf is fedrlaist paperz? and constutision doesnt make sennse! only a newb has contstituion on his side.

ahaha ya or a bush suporter. only bsuh supporters support constituion nad federalist whtever paper!!!
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']i kno rite? wtf is fedrlaist paperz? and constutision doesnt make sennse! only a newb has contstituion on his side.

ahaha ya or a bush suporter. only bsuh supporters support constituion nad federalist whtever paper!!![/QUOTE]

You think they're the same thing?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Unwarranted? Never seen any evidence of that, I seriously doubt it is true.[/QUOTE]

Since Carter (and most likely before I just have no knowledge of it) presidents have been assertings their right to warrantless wiretaps and searches. Under Clinton, for instance Aldrich Ames house was searched without a warrant.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
Just so you know it is legit, here's another story pertaining it:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

I think it is a very touchy issue, and I would never want to free Bush of any blame in this regard but I do think that Clinton is getting a free pass for doing some of the same things while Bush is being crucified. I shouldn't have to go to obscure internet sites or the drudge report to see that Carter and Clinton both defended their "right" to warrantless actions. If Bush is guilty, so is Clinton. I am not here to defend either, but it is rather unfair to let one get off so easy while the other is held responsible.
 
Crazy we were discussing warrantless wiretaps/electronic surveillance ignoring FISA. Which was/is as you know concerning multitudes of people.

You are reffering to one specific case, with no doubt of probable cause. It was in compliance with FISA.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']The fact that you fail to do so shows that you have no legal ground to stand upon when making such claims and only goes to strengthen my point.[/quote]

So, to be square: I cite US Code that states, quite clearly, that the government can not spy on "United States Persons" without a warrant; I don't even have to cite the 4th amendment to show it's illegal.

On the contrary, your citations (well documented, by the way) are The Federalist Papers. Documents that, written by some of our founding fathers and that do put forth a decent argument to what you are arguing, are not, to my knowledge, a part of what our government is beholden to. It is political philosophy, rather than a concrete piece of legislation (such as the constitution itself) to which people may feel amicable, but no legally precedented loyalty. Your argument for "constitutional authority" was supported only by documents that are not only not the constitution (though, admittedly, those that helped *frame* the constitution, but documents to which the United States is not obliged to obey. It's an olde tyme op-ed, in other words.

Most specifically concentrated from number 70, where Alexander Hamilton explains beautifully and precisely why the executive must retain a certain degree of authority similar to that of a tyrant or despot. You would be remiss at labeling a President of the United States with such labels, and if you choose to do so you are merely highlighting your own ignorance. If you do choose to dispute it however, I would inform you now that your attacks no doubt have root with the foundation of this government and not necessarily with a specific President or administration.
Click to expand...

The office of the executive, as a sole representative, certainly must have this kind of character; I'd call it "charismatic authority," in a nod to Max Weber, although it's also "legal-rational authority" as well (and that's getting beyond the point). Shall the executive act in a "tyrannical" way, for want of a better phrase? Certainly; and one can act as a tyrant in accordance with the law, as I'm willing to wager most presidents have. One can act as a tyrant in opposition to the law, and end up leaving office as a consequence (Nixon). The magna carta, a document that the United States isn't beholden to, is almost one millenium old, yet you're arguing that such philosophy be disbanded in favor of permitting our executive to have carte blanche to do as they please?

Take note to how Mr. Hamilton didn't list respect to the majority wishes of the legislative within his listings of proper ingredients to safeguard our civil liberties.

I'll stop there, but as you know there are several more Federalist Papers that we can discuss, but I feel this adequately proves my point for the time being. While our founding fathers were vehemently against a king, dictator, despot, or tyrant in all cases, they were understandably supportive of a powerful executive branch of government in instances of defense of our nation. They recognized that while bueraucracy is the best safeguard of civil liberties to date, it is not acceptable as an institution of national defense. I think Madison said in one of his papers that if all men were angels we wouldn't need a government to begin with. In a similar fashion, if there was no foreign threats to our state we wouldn't need an executive. To, finally, tie it back in to the topic at hand, the executive need not be restricted in defense of our nation unless if done so by warranted impeachment and removal from office. If wiretapping foreign enemy's phone calls into the United States is considered illegal in your book, then that is your prerogative. I feel it is my duty to point out to you that you have little support in that claim other than in the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party as it stands today.
Click to expand...

Oh, such a shame to end such a thoughtful post with the biased rationale in the form of the logical error of affirming the consequent. As I said earlier, The Federalist Papers are sound philosophy, but they are no substitute for legislation. If you feel that the ponderings of our founding fathers have more legal weight than our legal code, well, I suppose that is your prerogative.

In the meantime, I suppose I'll spend time with my liberal colleagues, including the numerous liberal Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee that want to examine this program for breaches of legality: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/politics/17nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
 
[quote name='Msut77']Crazy we were discussing warrantless wiretaps/electronic surveillance ignoring FISA. Which was/is as you know concerning multitudes of people.

You are reffering to one specific case, with no doubt of probable cause. It was in compliance with FISA.[/QUOTE]

Well, as you can see this was proof of one case but also a assertion of the President's "right" to do this in other cases as well. The FISA court did not approve this, and as such no court of any sort approved this hence it was warrantless.

This issue is not just one of whether or not the FISA court approved wiretaps/if they should have to (since it is a point of contention of if they should have to at all). The issue is at heart a civil rights issue. Secondly, one could easily argue that the wiretapping was with probable cause, once again I am not here to defend the actions but trying to differentiate between the right that Clinton asserted and used vs Bush's actions is just semantics.

Furthermore, much of the public is not aware of Clinton's warrantless searches or that both Clinton and Carter as well as Reagan asserting the right of the President to conduct warrantless searches (in other words every president in power after FISA was made into law). When contrasting the two, it is obvious that civil rights are equally infringed upon by warrantless searches and wiretaps, in fact is is easy to argue that a warrantless search is both more intrusive and a greater violation. Wiretapping is obviously not even addressed in the Bill of Rights.

As a matter of fact, the 4th amendment deals directly with searches and explicitly refers to warrants:
"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."

Yet, you have to go to the 1978 FISA act to get something that laws the groundwork on wiretaps. So, I ask you which is a greater violation of our civil rights? Once again, not to defend either but it is entirely unreasonable to only question Bush in this regard. It is a much deeper issue that goes back decades and should be dealt with as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top