George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

For those not in the know, George Bush as admitted to granting secret eavesdropping rights to the NSA allowing them to act without court warrants. Here is an article from which all quotes will be taken. And with an incredible sense of irony... So does this make sense to anyone? And I am particularly looking toward the conservatives at EvC. Supposedly Bush and conservatives are strict constructionists. Where do they find this justification? If not, what does this say about Bush?Are people so scared of terrorists they are willing to allow this direct violation of civil rights by a single man?What do people who have studied the NSA and such legal issues have to say? Apparently some congressmen (rep and dem) knew about this. What do dems feel about those who knew and did not disclose this activity?Final question, if all of these people felt it was worthy and they had the information required to make and assessment, why did they not avail themselves of the court system in place to protect our rights?For a guy that says courts should not legislate, why is the executive and legislative branch being judicious? Do conservatives not see the irony?Oh please let this blow up into something big. Maybe congress and the courts will give me something I want for the holidays.AbE: I forgot to mention that Bush is blasting people for revealing this activity claiming that it risks national security. Another irony since he doesn't seem to are about leaking names of actual intelligence agents.In any case, I'm wondering if people believe it is a bad thing for people to leak this kind of story (when it involves secret activities by the govt)? Is this something that should be stifled in the name of national security? Or is this important to protecting liberty regardless of the fact that the activity is secret and in the name of security?It seems to me we are worse off the less transparent of govt we have (the very thing we argued about with Iraq), and the govt should not be doing things for our benefit which violates our rights. Isn't that the beginning of dictatorships and oppression?This message has been edited by holmes, 12-17-2005 06:12 PMThis message has been edited by holmes, 12-17-2005 06:50 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Stop right there. How does that address at all what I am asking? I don't think you hit even one of my questions.1) Bush and Co are self-claimed constructionists. If that is true, you find me where "time of war" grants him such rights, or that all constitutional rules revert to the whim of the President. If not, doesn't this suggest patent hypocrisy on their part?2) Bush and Co appeal to that same philosophy when arguing about how activist judges are wrong in legislating from the bench. The Constitution is quite clear who is to interpret the laws and Constitution and that is the Judicial branch. It does not disappear in a time of war. Doesn't his acting as both judicial and executive violate this position that Reps are claiming is a solid wall?3) Following from what you said above... Do you truly claim that if another war happened while a dem was in office, that president would have the right to outlaw all guns and station troops in people's homes? If not, why not?4) What past presidents do or have done is irrelevant. This is our turn on watch. What we allow to happen is what is important. I am unsure exactly what Lincoln may have suspended (I'd be interested in hearing it) but that does not get Bush off the hook. That just means that I'd have held Lincoln responsible. Our Presidents are not Gods nor Kings. They are Men, and it is OUR RIGHTS which stand above THEM. Otherwise it is just words on paper. But assuming what you say has relevance, could you explain what connection there is between Bush's actions and what Lincoln did? It seems to me they were in vastly different circumstances.5) Do YOU think it was a good idea for him to do this? If so, why? As in why did he need to go around a court if his evidence was as good as he said? (Indeed we are now entering Boy Who Cried Wolf Territory as he has made previous claims of intelligence only to be shown to be 100% wrong.)6) Do you believe that people outing secret actions by our govt which patently violate our rights are more of a danger, than those who engage in secret actions to violate our rights?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Although I agree with your assessment that whatever happens, it is just another black mark on the inkiest presidential seatwarmer in our history, I am unclear how this is not a violation of the Constitution.He himself admits that he is acting in secret council which theoretically enough should be odious to people who believe in a transparent govt.But more pointedly, he says that he has this power in time of war. Where is this power granted? Indeed that is self-interpretation of the Constitutional powers which is completely off limits by the Constitution. At the very least if he had had the SC deliver a ruling that that was avalid interpretation of his war powers that would have made sense.Instead he (and perhaps a couple members of congress) interpreted the Constitution (in violation of Judicial powers as stated in the Constitution) to grant him powers of the Judiciary, not only including further interpretations of the Constitution, but applying legal formula to specific cases.As far as I know there is no concept within the Constitution which suggests that "time of war" abolishes the separation of powers, and invests all power in the executive who will act as a King.That to me is blatantly antiConstitutional in nature.In addition, we have laws providing for the right to bear arms and not to have troops quartered in our homes. If the rights overridden by the president so far are valid, then those fall away as well, and then what was the meaning of their writing in the first place?I don't see wiggle room here. And frankly, even if it were technically allowed, then that to me would be something we should be closing as a loophole very quickly.We are very quick to remove the rights of individuals, this is one case where the rights of the govt need to be removed even quicker. That is of course if it is a valid loophole which I just don't see being the case.I had quotes from two people arguing it was clearly not kosher, and ran around current law regarding such activity. Why were they not suggestive to you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Isn't it clear? You obviously meant "doesn't" otherwise I wouldn't have replied as if you had. The fact that you wrote "does" only shows how devious you are!Heheheh... sorry about that.AbE: Just so everyone is clear, the first paragraph is a joke. I made a HUGE mistake while reading Jar's post. The apology is real.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-19-2005 06:06 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Very true. Thanks for the general backup.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well that's pretty clearly not true. What's the first example you have from its inception?But as I have already stated, that does not make a difference. The founding fathers did warn us such things eventually would be tried and that they should be fought.So here it is, shall we fight it or let it happen? Okay, so you are in agreement that he is not a strict constitutionalist and is hypocritical when claiming such things. Its well known that they have. I'm not that naive. The point is that it gets stopped when it is found. Torture also gets used, should it not be stopped when found? Politicians have always attempted to get around the laws to defeat their opponents in some way. That should be stopped right?We agreed that this kind of thing was wrong in the soviet union and Iraq, right? That it needed to be stopped? Or like someone upset that a president would violate their powers. I realize the technical possibility is there. That it is going on is not necessarily proven. But if so, is this not something we should be concerned about and fighting? Where I currently live they have already given away their rights to law enforcement. There is absolutely no concept of freedom of communication here. I am fretting because it is not possible, I am fretting over unabashed abuse of power.Where are your principles as a conservative? Govt out of people's lives? Where is your outrage?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That was a joke. I was kidding around because I had obviously made a HUGE error.I think why I made the mistake I did is that he started the sentence with "while", and that led me to believe the second part of his sentence would be negative in nature. The presumption led to me reading it as doesn't. What's funny is that I thought it was weird he'd be saying that and DID reread the post, AND I STILL GOT IT WRONG!Just goes to show I can really make some stupid mistakes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh Gods... I hope Jar didn't think that.I guess this is a sign to edit the post to make it more clear. But I STILL refuse to use smiley faces damn it!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe I should be more specific. When a person is caught doing it publicly he gets stopped. And that includes presidents. They may not get as much as they deserve punishment wise but the behavior is ended. Nixon and Reagan are two good examples. The disctinction I am making is between can and does. If it is as routine as you say, provide the evidence. I would be interested in seeing it.And that would not argue for its continuance, but rather for greater pressure to end the programs and destruction of such facilities.I'm still not getting the "they have done so so it's okay" argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

And so NOT making any deal out of it will somehow generate the end of the larger problem? What kind of logic is that?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Same as it ever was...1) Where did that first quote come from? I didn't see it in either of your cites.2) The transcript is about an echelon program that monitored based on use of keywords. I disagree with that, however it was apparently a technically lawful method. It did not allow for intentional tapping of people without a warrant.3) The case mentioned in your newsbusters article was about sharing of information between govt orgs when a secondary org did not have a warrant. Frankly I disagree with that ruling, but it again has nothing to do with this case. You would know that if you bothered to read further on that page.4) Whether Clinton or anyone else might have done bad things does not create a shield around Bush. I disagreed with Clinton on many things and believe he did do some bad things (including international law violations) he ought to be held accountable for.5) Unlike Clinton and the others, Bush has engaged in behavior that is not only unConstitutional but specifically against laws covering surveillance which allow it to be conducted within (semi arguable) Constitutional scope. He took it all on himself and declared it okay because it is time of war and he is president. Big difference.6) So are you against this or what? Do you think this is good? I see you trying to pass the buck to Clinton, but does that make it good? I note that your transcript had Reps ripping into the program and so Clinton (indeed so was "liberal" 60 Min). Where are these Reps now?7) How does this square with strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution, and division of powers?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So according to you, as long as a crime was commited BEFORE you by someone else, when the reigns are handed to you there is no longer a crime being commited?In any case, while Clinton may have been responsible for the echelon spy program, the activities of Bush take a different shape. He added still more power to the exec branch, by taking power away from the judicial branch (and to some extent the legislative) and reducing further the privacy of citizens. It was not status quo.You still haven't answered my question... do you believe this is right? Are you now claiming that if Clinton did something that makes it right?As I pointed out your own citation was of the so called "liberal media" busting Clinton's nuts over echelon. And it included (backed) Republicans skewering Clinton for the program. So where are you now that it is Bush in the hotseat? The "iberal media" is still in the same position, looks like you guys are the ones changing your principles.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

How about Carter? I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't think of anything he did that was anything like this. Yes, and I have already stated in this thread, members of the govt will try to accumulate power. Many have. The founding fathers said this would happen. The question is not will it happen, but what to do about it when it is found on your watch.The idea that I am complaining because the man holding the bloody knife is W, is a bit far fetched. Why would I want anyone else to be doing this? I have complained about incidents involving Clinton too (you can even see one in this thread). That argument is simply a way to dismiss a valid criticism. It is a fallacy. Although no I did not like it, it is still not the same. You yourself are showing why. Approval of Congress is much different than approval of a few people in a commitee. And I might point out that members of that commitee are already coming out and saying Bush is lying about getting their approval.The internment camps were also known about and there were no laws specifically regarding how such issues should be dealt with. Its not just that there was a void and Bush created a solution. There were already laws about this very thing and he broke them. He says that they needed to make quick decisions but that is no answer as the laws we have allow for that with a post review. He was wanting to act with no review of his actions. Not impossible, just very painful. If the people get upset enough they can defy a president, even if congress is weak or supportive of the president.I might add that we could put in place oversight to avoid such things in the future.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-21-2005 10:07 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There are at least two. I just read the damn thing on CNN a couple hours ago and now its gone. Rockefeller is the one you are thinking of who kept his notes. The other is I believe a female Senator... sorry I cannot remember her name. The news report was that she is requesting clearance for her letters which questioned the proposed activity so that she can release them. I don't think I made myself clear. I wasn't saying the internment thing was great and constitutional. It was wrong.What I was saying is that the subject of taps, these specific taps, had already been addressed by the Legislative and Judicial branches. Through rulings and laws they had set up a system, which even if questionable, was the only approved system for use for tapping. It was in place to minimize or remove Constitutional issues arising from taps.That is different than the internment thing which was simply unConstitutional and a unique situation the govt was facing.In this case the president violated the Constitution (regarding powers) by doing an end run around both other branches, in order to violate existing laws developed by both other branches to create wholly new and unwritten mechanisms for himself, so that he could violate the Constitution (regarding civil rights).We can agree both were bad, and that the effects of the former were worse on those who were violated. But as far as violation of the office and the Constitution by the perp, this latter is worse. To be fair, Bush is doing that as well.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That is slightly true, but as Jar says under current rules there is no way to determine who is being held. Directly after 911 there were round ups and detentions for times without hearings of US citizens. That may be over now, but that doesn't mean Bush didn't do it.In any case, let's get back to the Constitutional under discussion now. It seems as if George Bush has something to say on this. What's that George? From a speech on the US Patriot act, given April 20, 2004. Now you aren't going to argue with W are you?Please let the press pick that up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)