yikes... is somebody about to sell the Statue of Liberty in this thread?
__________________ Learn as much as you can. Do what you think is right. Don't fear losing. When down, pick yourself right back up. Do not give up. Do not give in. Keep going forward. If you can do all of that and like what you see in the mirror, you are where you want to be... and ahead of most.
there were orginally 12 amendments in the bill of rights only 10 of them passed. look it up.
No, there weren't. There were two amendments proposed along with the ten that we know today, but those two that were rejected had to do with congressional apportionment and compensation, not rights.
In regards to the domestic Sypying, as it has been called:
It says "MAY violate", not does.
Because the news media is well paid to couch everything in weasel wording, so as to avoid the appearence of taking sides that might result from actually telling the truth. In this case, a plain-text reading of FISA shows warrantless wiretapping to be illegal if there is a US citizen or permanent resident involved. Try checking out the law instead of a news organization's interpretation of the law.
Quote:
If you consider that there are more Iraqis killing Iraqis, Fighters from every surrounding nation streaming into Iraq adding their chaos to the picture, Infighting between various political/religious sects, Bombs blowing up in police recruiter lines, and Muslim Imams preaching intolerance and revolt; it is a sticky situation. One that will not go away peacably regardless of our withdrawl in the region.
And it won't go away peacably if we stay there, either--that should be self-evident from the last three years. They sold this war on the claim that we'd be in and out in weeks, not months. Remember that? If they were wrong about that, wrong about weapons of mass destruction, and wrong about the war only costing 1 billion dollars, why should we accept the idea that things will get better if we keep going?
Quote:
Everyone likes to mention the now 2100+ US servicement that died in this conflict.
Actually, it's 2,304, according to the last Pentagon count. Do try to keep up. I know it's just meaningless statistics to you, but to those of use who've watched people lose children, husbands, brothers, it's a lot more than that.
Quote:
Far more Iraqis were killed in insurgency related bombings and killings.
And? They'd still be alive if we weren't there.
Quote:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with why or how the invasion occured, it happened and the only thing to do is to assist the new government to establish order as quickly as possible and resist "terrorists" and "insurgents" and "revolutionaries", especially those from neighboring countries.
Yes, officer, I did shoot a man in the chest after mistakenly believing he had a gun, but that's not important right now. The only thing to do is follow through and shoot him in the head in order to complete my mission.
Yes, your honor, I did beat my wife because I thought she was cheating on me. She wasn't, but the only thing to do is keep on beating her until some nebulous point when I'll be satisfied that she isn't going to cheat on me in the future.
The Iraqis seem pretty hell-bent on rejecting anything that we may have to offer, so why would we want to stick around and have more US troops come back dead, maimed, crippled, and mentally disturbed? Not to mention killing more Iraqis ourselves, which is a pretty big number in its own right, and generating yet more anti-Americanism.
Quote:
I doubt that Al-quida had 40 members, they are world wide. They were all over Afghanistan.
Actually, the Taliban was all over Afghanistan. They're all over there again, now, because we diverted troops and resources to Iraq, but that's beside the point. Nobody said that Al Qaeda (whatever that meant in the days before it became a generic franchise name for every five guys with a bomb and a grudge) had 40 members. Bin Laden, however, specifically bragged that he had a full 40 men that were willing to die in his name--suicide attackers, in other words. Now if we had spent out time and effort hunting down the remnants of those 40 guys, we could have avoided all of this. Instead we went off and invaded the wrong country, causing--paraphrasing the words of a high-ranking military intelligence officer--the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for.
OK lets not let this thread degrade to complaining about the US foreign policy.
I am surprised that no one has pointed out about the fact that this article points out that the goverment has decided to go after newspaper people who are trying to report things (it doesn't matter who leaked what or when for the purpose of this arguement)
Quote:
Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use "whatever means at your disposal" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems "detrimental to the war on terror."
Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying "the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,"
Now I do apologise for being a Brit who is posting in this thread relating to the USA but :
I personally dont understand why there is not an outcry about this - I could understand if they were phone taping the people who they thought were leaking things and not the people who are reporting this.
I also would understand if they were using the phone taps on the journalists in an attempt to trace these leaks - but surely this should be done through normal procedures (ie a warrant from the courts)
sorry but just my 2cents worth
NOW I WAIT FOR THE INSULTS AGAINST ME/BRITAIN TO START
__________________
Save The World - One Click At A Time
On each of these websites, you can click a button to support the cause
each click creates funding, and costs you nothing! Bookmark these sites, and click once a day
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
all the experts out there, YES all the knowledgably superior experts out there, please tell me you are correct on wiretaping by the president and the justice department and judges and top congressional members with security clearances are wrong(and don't forget that the dems that reviewed this every 45 days, the same dems that are today slamin bush on this allllllll "ALL" approved this as constitutional.???
come one you experts, prove them wrong. .... ....???
here is reality:
authority has been given to bush under the presidential powers in Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
authority has been given to bush in 2001 when congress authorized the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks
and authority has been given to bush at the Supreme Court's decision in the 2004. they were tring enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi
so come on EXPERTS, facts have been provided, wheres the expert opinions on this??????
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
all the experts out there, YES all the knowledgably superior experts out there, please tell me you are correct on wiretaping by the president and the justice department and judges and top congressional members with security clearances are wrong(and don't forget that the dems that reviewed this every 45 days, the same dems that are today slamin bush on this allllllll "ALL" approved this as constitutional.???
come one you experts, prove them wrong. .... ....???
here is reality:
authority has been given to bush under the presidential powers in Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
authority has been given to bush in 2001 when congress authorized the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks
and authority has been given to bush at the Supreme Court's decision in the 2004. they were tring enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi
so come on EXPERTS, facts have been provided, wheres the expert opinions on this??????
Follow this link to a letter from 14 legal scholars and former government officieals, including a former director of the FBI, who believe that President Bush broke the law in this case:
Follow this link to a letter from 14 legal scholars and former government officieals, including a former director of the FBI, who believe that President Bush broke the law in this case:
Although the program's secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance
this is from the link you provided.
They(the peps who wrote this) don't know exactly what this program is, what its doing, how its doing it, when its doing it,.........
Congress approved of this plan, judges approved of this plan on a monthly basis, everyone approved of this plan to be lawfull and correct to the constitution untill someone leaked it.
the very people in the congress who are now against this(the people that really hate bush) are the one's who approved of this. they are playing on the dumb masses to do what they've always wanted to do and thats too get rid of bush.
why would these people approve of this program(and they knew all the details) if they are now saying its illegal?
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
They(the peps who wrote this) don't know exactly what this program is, what its doing, how its doing it, when its doing it,.........
Congress approved of this plan, judges approved of this plan on a monthly basis, everyone approved of this plan to be lawfull and correct to the constitution untill someone leaked it.
the very people in the congress who are now against this(the people that really hate bush) are the one's who approved of this. they are playing on the dumb masses to do what they've always wanted to do and thats too get rid of bush.
why would these people approve of this program(and they knew all the details) if they are now saying its illegal?
Congress did not apporve this plan unless you are suggesting that they apporved it with the authorization for use of force against Iraq. The link I suggested you read presented a detailed legal argument as to why the authorization for use of force in Iraq did not authorize the NSA wiretapping program.
There have never been any judges involved in reviewing this plan. Bush refused to ask for warrents for the spying from the secret court setup under the FISA law for the very type of program that Bush is operating.
How can you say "everyone" apporved of the plan and then changed their minds. Only a handful of people were even aware of the plan before it was leaked and many of them were only given the scantiest detail There are a good number of Republicans questioning the legality of this plan so it is hardly a partisan political strategy.
You seem only willing to see things that support what you believe. I wonder whether you even attempted to read the entire article I referenced before.
sorry i wasn't specific on this. there was a select group on congress men and women who reviewed this plan and authorized it multiple times up untill the time that it leaked.
Quote:
There have never been any judges involved in reviewing this plan. Bush refused to ask for warrents for the spying from the secret court setup under the FISA law for the very type of program that Bush is operating.
i'm not talking about the judges that issue a warrant. before this plan went into place it was reviewed by multiple judges, all accepted it as being lawfull.
Quote:
How can you say "everyone" apporved of the plan and then changed their minds. Only a handful of people were even aware of the plan before it was leaked and many of them were only given the scantiest detail
yeah sorry i wasn't more specific before. "everyone" that look at this plan before it was implimented approved of it. and those who did look at it looked at it multiple times and were given the oppurtunity to review the plan as a whole.
the only people who don't know all of the specifics on this plan is the people who wrote that letter(that you provided) and the rest of america and the world who aren't the ones involved in this plan. look you don't know all the specifics. the people who wrote the letter even said hey we don't know all the specifics. how can they accurately judge a plan if they don't know it?
how can they say it is illegal if they don't know what it is exactly? how can anyone say that it is illegal if they don't fully understand what the plan is?????
Quote:
You seem only willing to see things that support what you believe. I wonder whether you even attempted to read the entire article I referenced before.
I read the link you provided. they went into all the talking points, i've read it and already heard it. they provided some good information.
i've looked at alot of information on this subject and heard of alot of different sides, hey this is my position. we are in a war, and all wars are won and lost on inteligence. how are we to win the war on terror and protect the homeland(which I think bush is doing just a pathetic job on) if we can't collect intelligence?
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
So, as I understand it JMJSelect, you believe that a small number of congressmen and judges were consulted about the spying plan and gave approval and that means that is is lawful. If that is what you are saying, well I would hardly say that makes Bush's actions legal. Especially since we now have mamy people including both Republicans and Democrats questioning the legality of that action. So he consulted some people so what. The letter I referred you to explains why he doesn't have constitutional authority to do the spying per se and it also explains why the resolution for use of force in Iraq does not give him authority. So if neither of these things give him that authority, he doesn't have the authority for those actions and broke the law.
And yes, there are not many people at all that know the details of the spying plan and most of us never will. That doesn't mean that we can't debate the legality of his actions and the discussion of that legality is really about one part of the program that we do know something about. We do know that the plan involves at a minimun wiretapping phone conversations where at least one party in located in the United States. Under those conditions many people are arguing that Bush should have obtained warrants under the FISA law from the special FISA court to listen in on those conversations. From what I have read I agree with the 14 legal scholars that he should have and by not doing that broke the law.
It seems to me that you inherently trust Bush. So, when he says he has a secret program and is wiretapping individuals in this country who are communicating with people overseas (terrorists as he says), you are willing to accept his statement at face value and trust that his program is only targeting those that should be targeted, ie terrorists. Let me ask you this. Let's say a democrat is elected in the next presidential election (I know this may be distasteful to you but go with me for a moment). And let's say that you don't trust him and in fact think he is very likely to abuse his power for his own ends. How would you feel then if he carries on Bush's secret spying porgram and perhaps even expands it and make it even more secret and many people suspect that he is actually using it to spy on his political rivals and when he is challenged offers the precedent set by Bush as legality for his actions? Would you wish in this case that there were some modest checks and balances in place to control this president's alarming and growing abuse of power?
One of the main issues here is why didn't Bush seek warrants from the secret FISA court for the spying activities that are apparently coverend by that law. From what I have read those warrants are fairly easy to get and he actually has 72 hours after he starts wiretapping someone to actually get the warrents. He hasn't explained why he didn't use the system. That makes me uncomfortable.
I started this by responding to your request for some experts explaining why Bush broke the law and I supplied you with 14 "experts" explaining why they believe Bush broke the law. I wasn't trying to change your mind, I was only responding to the challange you posted. You obviously have made up your mind on this which is fine. However, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion since you seem to have done your own reading and are set in your opinion and don't seem interested in considering any new information on this issue. All the best to you.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
