Supreme Court says Bush acted illegally

[rickysals]

Note: Hope you're views on the two issues are consistant, b/c 90% of the public that follows party lines wouldn't be!

I was more presenting that point of view - than stating my own. I don't necessarily have an opinion, just thought that's an interesting way to look at it.

As far as partylines go - me, personally - I don't have party lines because I am not associated with either. I feel that in some cases it's limiting as to what point of view I can associate with. Maybe I'll be one of the other someday, but not right now. :biggrin:

You mentioned gun control - and I don't know much of anything about that issue, so I won't pretend to.

 

[ekin95]

Personally, I don't care if they take away a few civil liberties to protect myselt and others. Let them listen, what do I have to hide?

I could not have said it better myself.

 

[Jimbo]

I do care about civil liberties and I am concerned about losing any of my rights.

I also care strongly about our government abiding by our laws and the constitution.

Having said that, I understand that this war is different. You have enemy combatants living in this country, either legally as citizens, or illegally, and they are communicating with al Qaeda outside of the country. And these people are actively trying to exploit weaknesses in our systems.

There's an obvious difference of legal opinion on whether this surveillance has been pre-authorized by Congress or not when Congress authorized the use of force after Sept 11. Here's what the Atty General says...

"...Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence..."

Some say, that it's flat out illegal. Well, in this country we have a mechanism to argue points of law. Whether or not this surveillance is illegal or not, can only be determined after a review and legal decision, perhaps by the Supreme Court. Maybe the court will find this to be illegal or maybe they will say it's legal.

If it is deemed illegal, then I would suspect (and hope) that the administration (or any administration) would try to enact/modify laws to give the gov't the tools they need to combat terrorism, while ensuring our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

It just seems to me that so much of this issue comes down to whether or not an individual hates GWB. If you despise Bush, then he's breaking the law - end of story, Bush is just spying on innocent Americans. And unfortunately, because of this, common sense debating and analysis gets thrown out the window.

 

[DonPablow]

I think the liberals will ruin this country way before Osama will get a chance at total destruction. He'll manage to kill a few more thousand before we implode. But the communist left is doing far more damage than he will in his next attack!
The last lier president was impeached and what good did it do? His sorry arse stayed in office full term. I'll bet he even got a few hummers in the oval office after that.

 

[ChopsJazz]

Originally Posted by johnny010
Personally, I don't care if they take away a few civil liberties to protect myselt and others. Let them listen, what do I have to hide?

I could not have said it better myself.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

 

[White92]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Exactly. I'm not paranoid about somebody listening to what toppings I order on my pizza. Like most, I have nothing to hide, but where does it end? Obviously war on terror will never end. There will always be someone wanting to harm someone else.

Let's say the war on terror is won though. Are they going to stop listening? How will we know? They started doing it without saying anything and only got mad when they were caught.

If we let this slide, what else are we going to be ok with later on?

 

[magictooth]

Personally, I don't care if they take away a few civil liberties to protect myselt and others. Let them listen, what do I have to hide?

It seems the new age fear propagandists have done their work well. I hope you take Ben Franklin's words to heart...

<i>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. </i> Benjamin Franklin.

 

[magictooth]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Geez beat me to it. Good for you.

 

[KooLaid]

But it's neither little nor really temporary. It's a part of the whole solution to the big fix.

I don't see GW's "illegal" wiretaps or any tool used to hunt down local terrorists as being that bad. He's doing it for the benefit of us and our fellow americans, Brits, Canadians and allies. NOT to fill his pocketbook or extend his term, when obviously he's already maxed out his terms and stuffed his coffers a long time ago.

Constitutionally though, maybe it is wrong..... Probably right. But I can't agree with the idea that it is set in stone. Constitution was amended before and it can be again. Times have changed, like they did in the past. It's a great baseline to base off, but it's like the NSX platform..... it needs some tweaking even though it's pretty damn good.

 

[rickysals]

Once again... the issue really isn't whether the wiretaps are hurting John Commonperson Doe, it's the issue of civil liberties and the constitution.

If they're allowed to break amendments and laws, and can justify it by "it's for your own good" - it can open the floodgates.

Benjamin Franklin's quote is a good one. I had never seen that one.

 

[White92]

It's a great baseline to base off, but it's like the NSX platform..... it needs some tweaking even though it's pretty damn good.

You mean we're finally getting a 6 speed 3.2L constitution?! :biggrin:

 

[ekin95]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

I guess that was easy to say when there was no such thing as international terrorism or A-hole terrorists that wil kill you given the chance. Second this is not temporary saftey, this is long term safety for our country. So until Ben comes back from the grave his statement does not mean much in todays world of fighting terrorism and protecting our country and its citizens.

All I'm saying is that I feel that our CIA, FBI, etc. should have the ability and permission to what they need to do to track down these scumbags and protect our country.

 

[ChopsJazz]

I guess that was easy to say when there was no such thing as international terrorism or A-hole terrorists that wil kill you given the chance. Second this is not temporary saftey, this is long term safety for our country. So until Ben comes back from the grave his statement does not mean much in todays world of fighting terrorism and protecting our conutry and its citizens.

Yes, the world is a very different, dangerous, and constantly changing place, but the tyranny from abroad should not be answered with tyranny from within. It is common knowledge that this administration has turned a dangerous world situation into political leverage through fear.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Bush Administration disagreed with the ruling and has appealed.

"We believe that the program is lawful," he said in Washington.

Alberto Gonzales is a Bush hand-puppet who owes his job to the President. He was a major architect of most of these policies (torture, wire tapping, etc.). Of course he says they're legal, he wrote them.

 

[White92]

I guess that was easy to say when there was no such thing as international terrorism or A-hole terrorists that wil kill you given the chance. Second this is not temporary saftey, this is long term safety for our country. So until Ben comes back from the grave his statement does not mean much in todays world of fighting terrorism and protecting our conutry and its citizens.

Isn't that how this country was settled though? There were people trying to take away their freedoms across the pond. They came here and still had to deal with it.

 

[Ski_Banker]

I'm really quite surprised that no one has responded to my comparison to the gun control debate. It's VERY applicable here, except the political sides were opposite.

Be afraid of when people tell you to be afraid.

 

[lrsudog]

That sounds to me like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. It still doesn't explain why they couldn't get a court order. They can get a court order in about 5-10 minutes any time they need one - far less time than it takes to set up a wiretap.

Additionally, they can start a tap prior to actually getting a warrant in FISA cases. There is no ticking timb bomb scenario. FISA has a mechanism to allow a warrant to be issued after the fact.

 

[nsxtasy]

It just seems to me that so much of this issue comes down to whether or not an individual hates GWB. If you despise Bush, then he's breaking the law - end of story

By the same token, if you're a Bush supporter, you apparently believe the administration should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want, even if it's absolutely against the law.

Of course, the roles were reversed when Bill Clinton was President, and Republicans were insisting that no President was above the law. That total flip-flop proves my earlier point - the security of this country, and the integrity of its judicial system, has become too political, when it is something that should be subject to LAWS, rather than based on which party happens to be in power. It's exactly the same thing as when you cite that the judge in this case was a Carter appointee, thereby alleging that all judges will always rule in favor of their own political party, regardless of whether the case is right or wrong. To the extent to which that's true - and we certainly saw an example of it in the resolution of the 2000 presidential election - that's just plain WRONG. Cases should be decided on their merits, not on the basis of politics.

So tell me this - if it's okay for the administration to break the laws regarding the need to obtain court orders before spying on people, does that mean that any other laws can be broken as well? Just to cite one example, does that mean that they can assassinate their political opponents, and then claim it was necessary for national security? If it's okay to break some laws, why not others?

 

[DonPablow]

What is so funny is CLINTon had more surveillance powers than the Bush admin. Nobody, including the Repubs complained! CLINTon had the power to intercept faxes, e-mails, and phone calls. All he did was to look to get laid as much as he could! I think we should make it as easy as the terrorists need it. Open borders, free cell phones, unlimited internet. After that, we all deserve the nukes they bring!! Why even bother with airport security? The Muslims just want to Love us. Get real people! They would love to slice your throat in one second! This is a war admit it!
Have you read the Qur'an? The 72 virgins they mention? Odd number? That is because the other 28, for a total of 100, is "pre-pubescent BOYS! They just want to Love you!!

By the same token, if you're a Bush supporter, you apparently believe the administration should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want, even if it's absolutely against the law.

Of course, the roles were reversed when Bill Clinton was President, and Republicans were insisting that no President was above the law. That total flip-flop proves my earlier point - the security of this country, and the integrity of its judicial system, has become too political, when it is something that should be subject to LAWS, rather than based on which party happens to be in power. It's exactly the same thing as when you cite that the judge in this case was a Carter appointee, thereby alleging that all judges will always rule in favor of their own political party, regardless of whether the case is right or wrong. To the extent to which that's true - and we certainly saw an example of it in the resolution of the 2000 presidential election - that's just plain WRONG. Cases should be decided on their merits, not on the basis of politics.

So tell me this - if it's okay for the administration to break the laws regarding the need to obtain court orders before spying on people, does that mean that any other laws can be broken as well? Just to cite one example, does that mean that they can assassinate their political opponents, and then claim it was necessary for national security? If it's okay to break some laws, why not others?

 

[Ski_Banker]

Since this is wandering off topic... I'm going to make one fundamental point.

YOU CAN'T KILL AN IDEA

There is nothing on the planet more powerful than a strong belief. Look at any religion, look at stories passed down from generations. You want to stop Muslim terrorists? Find out why they're so pissed off at you, and try - slowly - to change their minds or your behaviors. Our current approach uses the same asinine ideology as trying to build a wall to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. Walls, in the history of mankind, have never worked in the long run. You want to keep Mexicans out of the U.S.? Figure out why they're coming here in the first place (hmm, our unskilled citizens are on welfare perhaps?).

A few wackjob Muslims were pissed off at us before the Iraq war - before we invaded their country and killed thousands - guess how many Muslims are pissed at us now? Take a guess, genius. Look at the Cold War. Did the U.S. win because we killed all the commies? No (we "lost" the only times we tried) - we proved, eventually, to have a superior economic system which changed the Russian's minds. How about the "War on Drugs?" How many drug dealers and lowlifes have been killed, jailed, etc. - and yet, our country's drug problem is UNCHANGED. Not one thing has been accomplished.

In 2003, the U.S. dropped a Daisy Cutter on Baghdad, and out flew an entire nation of future terrorists.

If you believe that this War on Terrorism can be won by "killing all the terrorists", you are as stupid as the keyboard I'm typing on. My NSX is smarter than you (and it doesn't need a Shepherd). Bring on the flames, I can't wait.

 

[Jimbo]

By the same token, if you're a Bush supporter, you apparently believe the administration should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want, even if it's absolutely against the law.

No. I don't believe that at all. If something is ABSOLUTELY against the law, then it's pretty clear cut.

Of course, the roles were reversed when Bill Clinton was President, and Republicans were insisting that no President was above the law. That total flip-flop proves my earlier point - the security of this country, and the integrity of its judicial system, has become too political, when it is something that should be subject to LAWS, rather than based on which party happens to be in power. It's exactly the same thing as when you cite that the judge in this case was a Carter appointee, thereby alleging that all judges will always rule in favor of their own political party, regardless of whether the case is right or wrong. To the extent to which that's true - and we certainly saw an example of it in the resolution of the 2000 presidential election - that's just plain WRONG. Cases should be decided on their merits, not on the basis of politics.

I did not allege any such thing. You might have inferred that, but I did not allege it. I agree cases should be decided on their merits, and in this case there's obviously a different interpretation of the law.

So tell me this - if it's okay for the administration to break the laws regarding the need to obtain court orders before spying on people, does that mean that any other laws can be broken as well? Just to cite one example, does that mean that they can assassinate their political opponents, and then claim it was necessary for national security? If it's okay to break some laws, why not others?

I don't think it's ok for any administration or individual to break the law. In this case, I don't believe it's clear that any law was broken. If someone assassinated a political opponent, it's pretty cut and dry that a law was broken.

Here, in this case, you have different legal opinions and different points of view, so I don't think anyone can say with certainty that the law was broken. That's why I quoted the Atty General...

"...Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence..."

If, in your opinion, this administration broke the law, then that's your opinion. It's certainly not reality until the title of this thread becomes a reality.

 

[Ski_Banker]

No. I don't believe that at all. If something is ABSOLUTELY against the law, then it's pretty clear cut.



I did not allege any such thing. You might have inferred that, but I did not allege it. I agree cases should be decided on their merits, and in this case there's obviously a different interpretation of the law.



I don't think it's ok for any administration or individual to break the law. In this case, I don't believe it's clear that any law was broken. If someone assassinated a political opponent, it's pretty cut and dry that a law was broken.

Here, in this case, you have different legal opinions and different points of view, so I don't think anyone can say with certainty that the law was broken. That's why I quoted the Atty General...

"...Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence..."

If, in your opinion, this administration broke the law, then that's your opinion. It's certainly not reality until the title of this thread becomes a reality.

You're delusional. What this administration has done (that we know of so far...) in the name of terrorism is unparalleled in recent history. Heck, even tossing Japanese into internment camps makes "more sense" when you are fighting a declared war against the Japanese. If you want to break this into very specific semantics of what is *currently* legal/illegal - go ahead. You're missing the point entirely, in the meantime.

I'm not democrat.

But, at least Clinton was impeached for a BJ (and lying about it, just like you would in the same situation). In 20 years, when the Iraq war is "settled" and we have/not been nuked - we'll know if George Bush Jr. is an adequate President or the worst one in history. And I'll say that DESPITE the fact that I'm in the tax bracket that favor his economic policies. All I can say is "I feel for Hank Paulson" because his new job as Treasury Secretary is the dream position for guys like me, and as an intelligent Goldman guy - he knows his new boss is dumber than West Texas Intermediate crude.

 

[Jimbo]

You're delusional. What this administration has done (that we know of so far...) in the name of terrorism is unparalleled in recent history. Heck, even tossing Japanese into internment camps makes "more sense" when you are fighting a declared war against the Japanese. If you want to break this into very specific semantics of what is *currently* legal/illegal - go ahead. You're missing the point entirely, in the meantime.

I'm not democrat.

But, at least Clinton was impeached for a BJ (and lying about it, just like you would in the same situation). In 20 years, when the Iraq war is "settled" and we have/not been nuked - we'll know if George Bush Jr. is an adequate President or the worst one in history. And I'll say that DESPITE the fact that I'm in the tax bracket that favor his economic policies. All I can say is "I feel for Hank Paulson" because his new job as Treasury Secretary is the dream position for guys like me, and as an intelligent Goldman guy - he knows his new boss is dumber than West Texas Intermediate crude.

Hey, no reason to get all testy and start name calling. :tongue:

What currently is legal and or illegal is exactly the point, and the issue at hand, isn't it? The legal world is often a game of semantics. It's rather simple.

Does the administration's argument that the authorization to use force granted by the Congress constitute an approval for this government to listen in on domestic communications to al Qaeda members overseas, with controls and oversight, but without a court approved warrant?

BTW: Clinton was not impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for lying under oath. The BJ was incidental. And I would have not put myself into such a position in the first place, so don't presume, OK?

I find it interesting when people dismiss this issue of the BJ so cavalierly. In that whole sordid affair, the thing that bothered me most about the BJ issue wasn't the moral implications, but rather the potential issue of blackmail. It was incredibly stupid for Clinton to put himself into a position where the possibility of blackmail, security breaches, etc could have taken place.

Let me also add, legality and morality don't have to coincide. FDR and the Congress made the Japanese internment camps legal, but some would say the interment was immoral. Just like today, abortion is legal but some would say it is immoral.

 

[WingZ]

What I don't understand about the warrantless wiretapping is this: The country already has a confidential procedure under which the government can get search warrants secretly, from federal court judges, to conduct wiretaps. This system was established via legislation a few years ago, for this precise purpose, i.e. to deal with terrorist threats. So why should it be necessary to conduct any wiretapping without a warrant, when it's already possible to get warrants on a secret basis?

What he said!

 

[WingZ]

Sounds like political games to me..point of the matter..I would want the wiretaps to prevent any chance of another 9/11 from happening. Sometimes, we are our worst enemies.

Good old fashioned intel was used on the 9/11 hijackers it just wasn't acted upon. By an administration who said and I quote " We had know way of knowing what they would do" of course they did know that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

Fear politics would makes you think that these wiretaps would prevent another catastrophe.

 

[WingZ]

I guess that was easy to say when there was no such thing as international terrorism or A-hole terrorists that wil kill you given the chance. Second this is not temporary saftey, this is long term safety for our country. So until Ben comes back from the grave his statement does not mean much in todays world of fighting terrorism and protecting our country and its citizens.

All I'm saying is that I feel that our CIA, FBI, etc. should have the ability and permission to what they need to do to track down these scumbags and protect our country.

No offense, but they already did have the authority to do so. They could/can do wiretaps and then get a warrant 36 hours later. So they can/could get a warrant 36 hours after the fact and a special court to get approval. The special court was needed because or government had been abusing it's authority. Now the current administration says that court takes to long ( yes that's exactly what Bush said ). That's just stupid talk ,but it works because the majority of the country is stupid. How can we talk about terrorism in our country when we just destabilized an entire country.

How many innocent Iraqi's have died ,because of our illegal occupation of Iraq? This is scary to me because as an American I know if some outside country came over here and did the same thing we'd all be looking for some retribution. Would we be terrorists ,because we wanted revenge for our loved ones??? It's uncomfortable when your right shoe is on your left foot:wink:

You know I love ya bro ,but don't believe the hype!