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 3:14 AM
18 online now:
CosmicChimp, dwise1, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 14 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
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 220 (271431)
12-21-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by custard
12-21-2005 12:47 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
That's life. Not like it's unique to the US.

This is what I don't get. You keep comparing it to other things and especially past events in an apparent attempt to suggest it isn't important.

Theft goes on all the time, has and will. That does not make me say we should stop arresting thieves.

Should Bush get impeached? Dunno. I need more info about who was involved approving this and see what the courts say.

This is not more important than a blow job, and spying on an even smaller number of rival politicians?

Given that Bush said himself that court warrants are necessary to keep those activities Constitutional, doesn't that show that according to his own statements he ought to be impeached? Or at least charged with something?

I think you also miss that one has to stop it when one finds it so that it can't get worse.


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 90 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 12:47 PM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 1:06 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Tal, posted 12-22-2005 9:18 AM Silent H has responded

    
custard
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 220 (271432)
12-21-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Theodoric
12-21-2005 12:35 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
Then he deserves a day in court on why they originally held him.
He's getting one, he's been indicted. Should it have happened sooner? Of course.

AS for Iraq. There is nothing, anywhere, that mentions he went to Iraq.

Well wikipedia DOES mention he went to Iraq here .

If you have credible evidence to the contrary, post away.

In any case, if it's true he went to Afghani terror camps, it doesn't really matter anyway.

But you truly miss the whole point. There are laws, there are rules. Yes they have not always been followed in the past, but that in no way justifies what is happening now. If the gov't has such a good case against him, they should have charged him a long time ago. Not three years after he was detained.

NO, you are missing MY point. My point is that the US should have charged him when they first grabbed him AND that I won't lose a wink of sleep over some piece of garbage having his rights violated. If it were my neighbor or someone I served in the Gulf with then yeah, I'd be up in arms.

But this guy should have been executed for murder before any of this happened. I'm not some twenty-something idealist who thinks everyone is equal under the law and that everyone is treated the same.

Rich get better justice than poor. Repeat felons get treated worse than average folks who make a mistake - i.e. Misdemeanor. And people with a murderous past who become Islamic fundamentalists, hang out with suspected terrorists, and travel to the terrorist centers of the world after 9/11 will be treated differently than everyone else.

That's reality. There is no morality here. It just IS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 12-21-2005 12:35 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Theodoric, posted 12-21-2005 1:10 PM custard has not yet responded
 Message 96 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-21-2005 1:27 PM custard has not yet responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 220 (271434)
12-21-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
12-21-2005 12:58 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
This is not more important than a blow job, and spying on an even smaller number of rival politicians?

NOTHING is more important than a blowjob. ;)

But I wasn't an advocate for the Clinton impeachment either.

Given that Bush said himself that court warrants are necessary to keep those activities Constitutional, doesn't that show that according to his own statements he ought to be impeached? Or at least charged with something?

I think you also miss that one has to stop it when one finds it so that it can't get worse.

You make a good argument. I am honestly too ignorant of the situation - i.e. who needed to sign off on what, or how the courts will rule on the 'one party was out of the country' argument.

If the courts say he broke the law, then he should get impeached. No argument there.

And yes, when you find it you should stop it so it doesn't get worse. Absolutely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 12:58 PM Silent H has not yet responded

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


Message 94 of 220 (271437)
12-21-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by custard
12-21-2005 1:01 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
I will give you Iraq, since this is the only source I have see it listed I will grant it to you.

I pity your world view. THat world view is part of the problem we have now. We live in a society that is supposed to believe in "innocent until proven guilty". People like you ahve allowed the current administration to hijack our ideals, because YOU do not believe that.

But this guy should have been executed for murder before any of this happened. I'm not some twenty-something idealist who thinks everyone is equal under the law and that everyone is treated the same.

Why and how can you condemn him to death when there has been no evidence presented yet? And dont give me the BS about twentysomething idealist. That has nothing to do with any of this and is just an attempt by you to deflect. I am no twentysomething and no idealist. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the RESPONSIBILITY of citizens to demand they be followed. Just because something is done doesnt make it right and we shouldn't just accept it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 1:01 PM custard has not yet responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 220 (271441)
12-21-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by custard
12-21-2005 11:55 AM


Re: time of war
Jose Padilla? You mean the gang member and convicted murderer who palled around with Al Qaeda buddies, went to Iraq and was just charged with "providing - and conspiring to provide - material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas".

That Jose Padilla? Yeah, I'm all broken up over what happened to him. I mean, if the govt can do that to a guy like him, then it can... wait a second, I'm nothing like him nor is 99.9% of the US.

So it's not that you're against the US imprisoning its own citizens without trial, it's that you're against the imprisonment of citizens who are like you.

Wow.


"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 77 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:55 AM custard has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 96 of 220 (271442)
12-21-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by custard
12-21-2005 1:01 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
Well wikipedia DOES mention he went to Iraq here .

can we ban the use of wiki like that?

IT'S AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. IT HAS NO STANDING AS PROOF.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 1:01 PM custard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-21-2005 1:37 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 97 of 220 (271444)
12-21-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by macaroniandcheese
12-21-2005 1:27 PM


Wiki is a valid reference
Not that it must be trusted as being accurate and reliable information. Other sources to back up Wiki are a good thing. Maybe a topic specific to Wiki would be a good thing.

I again encourage all to strive for well thought out, quality postings, not exchages of (more or less) "one liners".

I can't help but think that a topic pegging the activity meter is not a good sign that quality debate is happening.

Please, no replies to this message in this topic. If one feels the need to reply, please take it to the "General..." topic, link below.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-21-2005 1:27 PM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 3:24 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1132 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 98 of 220 (271465)
12-21-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
12-21-2005 11:50 AM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
The New York Times had the story of warrantless surveillance of US citizens prior to the 2004 election and sat on it at the request of the White House. They took it to press because they were about to be scooped by their own reporter's book.

The high irony is that Republicans in Congress are accusing the NYT of running the story just before Congress voted on the Patriot Act (standard pure puking hypocrisy naming convention) renewal in order to undermine its passage.

The NYT sat on a story about high crimes and misdemeanors by an American president prior to his reelection because he asked them to...just effin' unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 11:50 AM Silent H has not yet responded

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


Message 99 of 220 (271473)
12-21-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Adminnemooseus
12-21-2005 1:37 PM


Re: Wiki is a valid reference
[moved]

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 03:25 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-21-2005 1:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

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


Message 100 of 220 (271646)
12-22-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
12-21-2005 12:58 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
Given that Bush said himself that court warrants are necessary to keep those activities Constitutional, doesn't that show that according to his own statements he ought to be impeached? Or at least charged with something?

No.

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.

Speaking of impeechments for blowjobs...

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

Washington Times

WHAT? President Clinton was spying on US Citizens that he KNEW had no foreign intelligence value? Why, this is a direct assault on our civil liberties! IMPEECH HIM!

Hmm...I don't remember hearing that from liberals at the time. But now they sure are shouting it. Luckily, all that is needed to show you for the fools you are is recent history.

So, Homles, for you to be consistent you must have supported the impeachement of the former disgraced, disbarred, President William Jefferson Blithe Clinton.

This message has been edited by Tal, 12-22-2005 09:24 AM


"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 91 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 12:58 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 9:54 AM Tal has responded

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


Message 101 of 220 (271654)
12-22-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Tal
12-22-2005 9:18 AM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
You know for a second I was going to congratulate you on the FIRST citation you have ever made which did not contradict you assertion. But then I made it to the end of the article. Do you ever actually read entire articles?

You provided the quote from Gorelick, but toward the end of the article the Washington post article you quoted had this SECOND quote from Gorelick...

   

In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
    "The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said.

And this is of course if care two bits what Clinton's administration thought of anything, Once again, Bush and Reps constantly used him as an example of what NOT to do. Now you guys hail him as some example?

So, Homles, for you to be consistent you must have supported the impeachement of the former disgraced, disbarred, President William Jefferson Blithe Clinton.

Ahem... You simply cannot be this much of a dumbass can you? I have repeatedly... repeatedly told you I was NOT a fan of Clinton's. I think he SHOULD have been charged with a number of things. The BLOW JOB was not one of them.

The searches under discussion were slightly different than what is being mentioned now, but yes I would not have liked them either. The fact that you are citing in some parts things he suggested but did not do, does not help your case.

How many times do I have to tell you that I did not like Clinton and wished he had been indicted for other things... he did overstep laws... before you stop responding to me as if I liked Clinton and thought he should have been given a free pass?

I AM consistent... How about you? You guys beat Clinton to death for everything he did. Indeed your first citation was to a 60 Minutes piece (aka liberal media) knocking Clinton's activities, and included REPUBLICANS decrying those actions. Where are you guys now?

No.

Care to explain that better? He specifically said to the american people that warrants WERE necessary, and he was guaranteeing they would be used for all taps. He said this was necessary for consistency with the constitution. Where exactly does that give him room to maneuver?

Frankly that's a bit more fraudulent (and embarassing if he had an honest bone in his body) than "I did not have sex with that woman".

And have you answered yet whether this is something good that you would like for america? Wiretaps for any and all, ordered by a single man with no chance for review?


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 100 by Tal, posted 12-22-2005 9:18 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Tal, posted 12-22-2005 10:06 AM Silent H has responded

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


Message 102 of 220 (271657)
12-22-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Silent H
12-22-2005 9:54 AM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
I AM consistent... How about you? You guys beat Clinton to death for everything he did. Indeed your first citation was to a 60 Minutes piece (aka liberal media) knocking Clinton's activities, and included REPUBLICANS decrying those actions. Where are you guys now?

Carter did it, Reagan did it, Bush 41 did it, Clinton did it. I guess we should have impeeched them all. Now that Bush is doing it, it is somehow illegal? The law is clear on this issue, but somehow it is a MAJOR news story. This will go the way of the Koran-Flusing, Bush-was-AWOL, Rove-leaked-CIA-name, Delay-broke-the-law, and every other failed attempt to get Bush or his administration.

This message has been edited by Tal, 12-22-2005 10:07 AM


"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 101 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 9:54 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by FliesOnly, posted 12-22-2005 10:36 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 10:43 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2309 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 103 of 220 (271669)
12-22-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tal
12-22-2005 10:06 AM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
Tal writes:

Carter did it, Reagan did it, Bush 41 did it, Clinton did it.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah...None of them did what this President is doing. But even so, why is it ok now? What sort of defense is "he did it first"?

Tal writes:

This will go the way of the Koran-Flusing,

Which turned out to be true.

Tal writes:

Bush-was-AWOL

Which has never been answered.

Tal writes:

Rove-leaked-CIA-name

Which is still being investigated.

Tal writes:

Delay-broke-the-law

He has been indicted.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you hate this Country so much, Tal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Tal, posted 12-22-2005 10:06 AM Tal has not yet responded

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


Message 104 of 220 (271676)
12-22-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Tal
12-22-2005 10:06 AM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
By which you mean to say you are that much of a dumbass?

Carter did it, Reagan did it, Bush 41 did it, Clinton did it.

YOUR article said the exact things being done were different, merely parallel. YOUR article said that Congress tightened the FISA law during the Clinton administration in a way that could very well have stopped it during that administration.

Given the fact that Reps were up in arms about Clinton and his powers, according to YOUR article specifically about increased tapping procedures, that's sort of likely, right?

And if you haven't figured it out yet, the answer is YES. Any administration putting such a power in its hands, specifically with no oversight and review would be an enemy of the Constitution and the nation and they should be censured in some way, if not wholly removed. The practice should end.

I don't like it no matter who it is. The reason it is happening now with Bush is that the SECRET has become PUBLIC, regarding his activities.

I am consistent... you are not. You guys tried to impeach Clinton for a blowjob. You guys do nothing when a person lies to Congress and the American people regarding policy.

This will go the way of the Koran-Flusing, Bush-was-AWOL, Rove-leaked-CIA-name, Delay-broke-the-law, and every other failed attempt to get Bush or his administration.

Maybe, of course I never cared about any of those stories. The closest would be the leak case, whether Rove was involved or not.

Your denials of reality will go the way they usually do... like with the WMDs.


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 102 by Tal, posted 12-22-2005 10:06 AM Tal has not yet responded

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


Message 105 of 220 (271702)
12-22-2005 11:51 AM


Tal or other conservatives.
Although I do believe this is something that Bush ought to be held accountable for, including the possibility of impeachment, that is not the sole point of this thread.

For those that can't seem to blame Bush for anything, lets put that aside and deal simply with the issue of branches of govt acting alone, with no oversight or review from the people in some form (usually from the othetr branches), as well as wiretapping of citizens.

Regardless of punishing someone, what about changing the system to make sure it does not happen in the future?

Personally I am less threatened by a national security system which is NOT secret. Sure specific ongoing actions may be covert to some level, some mechanisms could be secret. But the system of who is in charge at the top level and how oversight is handled should not be. There should be a mechanism by review from the people and not isolated completely in ONE PERSON, or ONE BRANCH.

The problem that this shows is that the executive becomes in all ways a monarchy or dictatorship as long as the FEAR of war exists. And now that we have reduced war to terrorism, the FEAR of terrorism. Thus, as always, dictatorship put into effect and propagated through fear of the other by the public.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Tal, posted 12-22-2005 2:08 PM Silent H has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019