Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 2:51 AM
24 online now:
CosmicChimp, Heathen, Pressie, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 61 of 220 (271170)
12-20-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
12-19-2005 12:59 PM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
OK Randman a little bit of advice. Quit relying on Newsmax for your sources.
As for echelon here you go.
The Echelon Myth
Testimony given to Congress in 2000 (back when Republicans pretended to care about this sort of thing) by then FBI Director George Tenet would seem to indicate (surprise!) that NewsMax and the other apologists are wrong:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

This message has been edited by Theodoric, 12-20-2005 04:29 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 12-19-2005 12:59 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 220 (271178)
12-20-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tal
12-20-2005 1:19 PM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tal, posted 12-20-2005 1:19 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 63 of 220 (271222)
12-20-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Modulous
12-20-2005 4:51 PM


Interesting, how can he be resonsible when he didn't start it?


"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2005 4:51 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 1:34 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 4:53 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 12-21-2005 5:53 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 220 (271242)
12-21-2005 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tal
12-20-2005 10:37 PM


quick, shift the blame!
Interesting, how can he be resonsible when he didn't start it?

that same way that in grade school it took two people to fight, and two people got suspended.

did he participate in it? did he make it worse? george bush is a big boy now, i think he can take responsibility for his own actions without someone blaming the guy before for everything. clinton isn't president anymore; bush is. clinton is not responsible for bush's actions; bush is. clinton doing something mildly obnoxious doesn't make bush's unconstitutional actions okay.

clinton got enough flack when he was in office, i assure you. mostly from you guys. how about you concentrate on the issue at hand, not something unrelated that someone did more than 5 years ago.

was clinton granted special executive powers to locate the people responsible for 9/11 and bring them to justice? did clinton circumvent the court system (which is apparently ridiculously easy to get through anyways)? becuase that echelon thing? they need a warrant first. so how about you explain why it's related in the slightest to 9/11 exuctive priviledges, or bush ignoring the fourth amendment?

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 01:38 AM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tal, posted 12-20-2005 10:37 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 220 (271257)
12-21-2005 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tal
12-20-2005 10:37 PM


Interesting, how can he be resonsible when he didn't start it?

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tal, posted 12-20-2005 10:37 PM Tal has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 220 (271264)
12-21-2005 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tal
12-20-2005 10:37 PM


Interesting, how can he be resonsible when he didn't start it?

In the same way that if I moved in to a murderer's house and committed murder I'd be responsible for murder.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tal, posted 12-20-2005 10:37 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 220 (271268)
12-21-2005 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
12-18-2005 5:07 AM


Re: time of war
Holmes,

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?

Wow, Bush, a politician, is a hypocrite. Chalk that one up as a first for the record books. Does anyone have any idea who the last Pres was who DIDN'T break a law? Truman?

2)Bush and Co appeal to that same philosophy when arguing about how activist judges are wrong in legislating from the bench.

Dude, you, and everyone else who is up in arms about this needs to reacquaint themselves with the War Powers Act, how it came to be, and how our past executives have pretty much done whatever they felt like doing 'in time of war' or national crisis. Presidents as far back as Jefferson, heck Adams even, were accused of bypassing the constitution and ignoring the other branches of govt.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is, has been, and will be. I think you're just makin' a fuss cuz you don't like Dubya.

3)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?

How about a Dem forcing Americans into "internment" camps just because they were of Japanese decent? Did FDR and co have 'the right' to do that? They did it anyway. Congress agreed - much like the joint intel committee agreed with GWB here.

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.

In theory I agree, in practice it's impossible to prevent the executive branch from stretching the limits of its power ESPECIALLY when Congress doesn't oppose it. Almost every single president (I can think of) has done it in one form or another.

Do YOU think it was a good idea for him to do this?

No I don't. I think allowing this type of intrusion outside of legal guidelines (e.g. WARRANT) is abominable and I am dubious as to the need or effectiveness of this tactic.

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?

It depends. How ambiguous is that? :P In this particular case, however, I am glad the whistleblowers spoke up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 12-18-2005 5:07 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 10:07 AM custard has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 220 (271271)
12-21-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
12-19-2005 1:05 PM


Re: War or No, Bush has too much power
The biggest difference is, as usual, in actions not desire. Many Presidents have wanted power, but when told it was wrong, dropped the issue. But the Bush administration behaved differently. They simply ignore whatever stands between them and their preconcieved notions of reality, or look for loopholes to get around the law.

Actually I think the 'naughty' list is just as long as the 'nice.'

Just off the top of my head:

Jefferson - initiated his own war with barbary coast pirates without consent of Congress (pre- War Powers Act)

Lincoln - suspension of habeus corpus, detained or jailed Maryland govt officials to prevent a vote of secession from the union, etc. etc.

FDR - Internment of Americans

JFK & LBJ - deployment of US troops to Vietnam for a period longer than allowed in War Powers Act

Nixon - deployment of troops and bombing of VC targets in Laos/Cambodia, don't forget Watergate and the plumbers

Reagan - Iran/Contra

Clinton - bombing 'suspected' terrorist targets such as pharmacological factories without provocation

I'm pretty sure John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Wilson, and Ike had charges of presidential abuse levelled at them as well, but can't remember the details. I'm sure the list is quite long.

It is the most dishonest, immoral administration in US history since Ronald Reagan.

Say what? Clinton gets the award for most times busted lying to the public. Not misinterpretation, not different point of view, just straight out lying to our faces and expecting us to believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 12-19-2005 1:05 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 220 (271308)
12-21-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by custard
12-21-2005 7:13 AM


Re: time of war
Does anyone have any idea who the last Pres was who DIDN'T break a law? Truman?

How about Carter? I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't think of anything he did that was anything like this.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is, has been, and will be. I think you're just makin' a fuss cuz you don't like Dubya.

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.

How about a Dem forcing Americans into "internment" camps just because they were of Japanese decent? Did FDR and co have 'the right' to do that? They did it anyway. Congress agreed - much like the joint intel committee agreed with GWB here.

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.

in practice it's impossible to prevent the executive branch from stretching the limits of its power ESPECIALLY when Congress doesn't oppose it

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 7:13 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 10:20 AM Silent H has responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 220 (271316)
12-21-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Silent H
12-21-2005 10:07 AM


Re: time of war
How about Carter? I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't think of anything he did that was anything like this.

Yeah somehow 'lusting in his heart' just doesn't seem like a breach of constitutional authority - especially after Clinton (ba dum bum!) :P

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.

Well I'd like to see your list of the committe members claiming that. Smacks of rats fleeing the sinking ship to me. So far all I'm aware of is one Dem claiming that while he didn't go on record opposing the decision, he did oppose it verbally and even wrote himself a note about it as proof. You know, for later.

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.

Dude, I think you are way off here. What about the 14th ammendment?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not to mention the second, fourth, sixth, and ninth.

No way can you argue that throwing native born American citizens into internment camps simply because they were Nisei is legal or that unauthorized wiretaps are anywhere near as abominable as what amounts to arrest and imprisonment without a trial.

This message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 10:21 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 10:07 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 10:49 AM custard has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 220 (271332)
12-21-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by custard
12-21-2005 10:20 AM


Re: time of war
Well I'd like to see your list of the committe members claiming that.

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.

Dude, I think you are way off here. What about the 14th ammendment?

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.

unauthorized wiretaps are anywhere near as abominable as what amounts to arrest and imprisonment without a trial.

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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 10:20 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:22 AM Silent H has responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 220 (271365)
12-21-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
12-21-2005 10:49 AM


Re: time of war
Right Rockefeller! Ha ha ha, what an idiot! I heard that on the newswire.

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.

OK, gotcha.

unauthorized wiretaps are anywhere near as abominable as what amounts to arrest and imprisonment without a trial.

To be fair, Bush is doing that as well.

Yeah, but the US imprisoning non-US citizens is a LOT different in my book than the US imprisoning its own citizens. And lets be honest, those guys in Gitmo are suspected terrorists. The poor sods in the US during WWII were average citizens, women and children. Guys like a five-year-old George Takei for crying out loud! You don't put Sulu in prison without a trial!! :mad:

This message has been edited by custard, 12-21-2005 11:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 10:49 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 12-21-2005 11:26 AM custard has responded
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 12-21-2005 11:40 AM custard has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-21-2005 11:42 AM custard has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 11:50 AM custard has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 73 of 220 (271372)
12-21-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by custard
12-21-2005 11:22 AM


Re: time of war
Yeah, but the US imprisoning non-US citizens is a LOT different in my book than the US imprisoning its own citizens.

First, under the new laws we have no way of knowing if US citizens are been detained or not.

Second, past lapses of legality have absolutely nothing to do with current lapses of legality. We cannot change what happened in the past, only what is going on now.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:22 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:55 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 74 of 220 (271382)
12-21-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by custard
12-21-2005 11:22 AM


Re: time of war
those guys in Gitmo are suspected terrorists

Based on what evidence? No one even knows who most of them are. The administration has done everything in such secrecy we do no know what they are using for evidence to justify saying they are suspected terrorists. What about Jose Padilla? He is a US citizen.

Why is ROckefeller an idiot? What is the basis for that opinion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:22 AM custard has not yet responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 220 (271384)
12-21-2005 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by custard
12-21-2005 11:22 AM


Re: time of war
Yeah, but the US imprisoning non-US citizens is a LOT different in my book than the US imprisoning its own citizens.

Such as José Padilla?

(Edit: whoops, just got beaten to that point. Man, my web-fu is slow lately.)

This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 12-21-2005 11:42 AM


"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:22 AM custard has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019