George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Yeah I got that. My main point was that US citizens can very well get arrested and so your worst case is possible and pretty much has been done. I'm still trying to figure out what one thing has to do with another. I am "hung up" because an obvious crime has been commited by a person who is unrepentant, and wishes to continue. It is both an overt crime (FISA and another) and breaks the Constitution in two places.When you have a clip of Bush stating quite clearly that that is what is expected because Americans do expect that protection under the Constitution, it shows that even his press people understood that it is a hot button issue.It was a hot button issue during the Clinton administration as well as can be seen in the link Tal provided (as ironic as that is).Yes I do not like Bush. I certainly didn't start that way (I prefered him to Gore), but I hate him now. I think he should have been removed for many things already and have said so. But that does not mean I am making any more out of this than what it is. It IS a crime, it SHOULD be dealt with.Remember what got Nixon handed his walking papers? How does that compare to the internment camps? How does that compare to this?

---

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

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. 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)

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...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? 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? 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)

By which you mean to say you are that much of a dumbass? 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. 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)

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)

Terrorism is real and must be faced with realism.However, it is being used by some to scare the public into giving the govt, and specific members of the govt powers that they do not, or SHOULD not have.You little list doesn't scare me Tal. The US is bigger than that. It needs to deal with those threats, yes. But it doesn't mean we need to throw away the rights we enjoy.I am more frightened of a govt which does not recognize my rights, more than some assholes which might or might not engage in isolated incidents of terror. I couldn't get to the link you gave (I don't have a "subscription"). Is there a reason I should believe it is any different than what has already been presented here already showing that in fact he has no definite right to do what he did, and that he himself said it would not be?You still have not dealt with the fact that he himself said that to do so would be unConstitutional, and worse than that... he said he was not doing it. Violating FISA as well as the Constitution. I've already stated this. I do not believe the oversight is adequate. Clearly something failed here as some on the Commitee were not happy. Yes, the FISC. A judge is resigning from the FISC over the potential damage Bush has done for subsequent cases arising from the unreviewed warrants.Are you incapable of forming your own opinion? Of discussing something based on your principles, rather than posting what someone else has to say?Slavery was allowed by the govt for some time. It was upheld by administrations. It was brought to an end by people standing up for the underlying principles of freedom and human rights and democracy.

---

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

Look if you were really against it then you wouldn't be discussing anything except what is going on. Instead you keep reaching back to appeal to past incidents to try and set in come context to make it look not so bad.It is or it is not. It is that simple.I am just as much against Dems doing it as Reps, and I haven't seen anybody in here yet trying to give Dems a big pass. The only thing I have seen is Reps saying that anyone who is critical of Bush is a Dem who doesn't really care about the issue, proof being your assertion they'd give Dems a pass on the same thing.Prove you care about the issue by addressing what this singular person is doing right now.

---

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

Where are you Randman? Even the Bush administration is admitting that what he did is different, even if necessary.Yes, parallel things have occured, but not exactly the same thing.And regardless, I am not worried about whether this is new or not. I did not say hey lets get him because this is NEW. I said what is happening is WRONG. That's why I wanted it stopped. I'm sorry, a lie? You are accusing me of lying? You and Tal are must be some of the thickest people I have ever met...1) I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT! I SUPPORT SOME REPUBLICANS! THIS CANNOT BE PARTISAN POLITICS!
2) I ALREADY SAID I DEPLORED SIMILAR STUFF NO MATTER WHO IT WOULD BE FROM!
3) I ALREADY SAID I DISLIKED CLINTON AND THOUGHT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT FOR CERTAIN RIGHTS ISSUES!I'm hoping the caps will help you read what I have already told you many times before.What you could do to remove the illusion of your partisanship, would be to quit refering to precedent, or to misrepresentations of what authors are politically and what they think, and deal with the present issue.It appears you are arguing that you don't have to deal with the issue, discussing it factually, because you can pick on strawman forever and ever regarding accusors.

---

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

Bush's official defenders have stated that his powers were newly acquired, or settled. That inherently means that he is doing something that is not exactly like what has gone on before... even if it is defensible.James Woolsey (former head of the CIA), while suggesting the debate of whether he should be able to have the powers he took upon himself, states that the defense for far given is weak and not clear at all. I fully admit he disagrees with my position that it is clearly wrong, but he equally holds in contempt that it is clearly valid. In any case that suggests that even a CIA head believes the actions are not business as usual.

---

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

Which is amazing because that's pretty much all they use to solve problems. Perhaps it is better stated as:Their words and rhetoric have never been good enough to compensate for their failures.

---

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

Thanks for the info on Lincoln. I'll have to look into that more. At first glance I'd have to agree with Tanney.I also agree with you that the situations are completely different between then and now. Perhaps his actions might at least have seemed credible (even if wrong) based on the threat the nation was faced with. There simply is no excuse in this instance for what Bush did. For all the talk of what he had a right to do, he has never explained why he would have needed to exert that "emergency" right. He could have gone to the court to get the warrants.And of course there is one other factor which mitigates what Lincoln did. He was successful. Not only was there an emergency, but he successfully dealt with it. Bush has been one disaster after another. There really was more freedom after Lincoln. There really is less freedom after Bush.Indeed was lincoln calling for a permanent suspension of habeus corpus, as Bush is asking for suspension of rights for the eternal War on Terror?

---

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

You still on the payroll?We've told and shown you countless times already, the material you are citing was known and under control. The Bush was talking about OTHER MATERIAL. He has since admitted the material he was claiming existed and we were going after did not exist. As far as your articles go, from USAToday... I'm not sure how much clearer that can be. It was under UN control. The US went in and not only could not find the extra material it was claiming to "know" about, but lost control of the already sealed material.But thank you for alerting people to yet another issue. The US has now stolen WMD material from Iraq, removing it from UN supervision once again, not to mention careless attitude in accounting such that materials may still be a threat... Again, that's what we said would happen. No sorry that's not true. It's actually more botched than we had estimated possible.Your other cites were about chemical weapons being created by groups after our invasion. They have NOTHING to do with materials Bush was discussing, and only point to how bad the situation has become as there are now MORE WMD type labes than existed before. From the Post article... So we introduced the possibility of manufacture that was not there before. Your other cites included even more disturbing prospects of terrorists openly bidding for material that was once under UN seal. Right, we know that we've found many examples of Bush and Co screwing up.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-28-2005 11:21 AM

---

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

I suppose I will only repeat the obvious points already made:1) He does not explain how the process would have actually interfered with obtaining the surveillance... unless he is implicitly stating that they knew such requests would be rejected.2) The FISA requirements are pretty clearcut and not exceedingly hard to determine, and so no reason why a request could not be processed quickly. It is patently obvious that if the request is retroactive, they do not have to be absolutely correct in issuing the surveillance, just reasonably certain. If time was such an issue, they could have simply signed off, rather than defying the law in violation of both that and the Constitution.3) If it was denied then they could appeal (something he did not mention), and in any case the data would have been obtained and usable by intel (even if not in a court of law). Here he never discusses what rejection means and treats it as if the surveillance would magically disappear or be unusable. I would specifically like to hear him address a direct question on the Moussaui example. Lets say they signed off and got the laptop and found out what was on it and then were denied (and somehow the appeal failed as well)... they couldn't have used the knowledge to stop 911? This only argues for bolder use of warrants even if rejection is possible, not to sideline the court altogether.4) I might add that citing lack of evidence to initiate a search of moussaui does not argue retroactively for rights to search under all conditions, just because he was part of 911. If we agree with the level of evidence necessary for a search then that is all we can go on. To lower it would only mean that many others who were not linked to 911 could have been searched, and indeed we may have missed the plot due to extended search programs. As it stands there was enough info out there to stop or hinder 911 from occuring which did NOT require searching M's laptop. Break laws or improve communication? Hmmmm.5) If paperwork is getting in the way, and I do believe obtaining physical signatures on time in this day and age is a little silly, then they could have put in a request to change the law. To remain silent and create your own law through secret actions is illegal and unconstitutional.I am upset that this has not drawn more ire from republicans. This is a serious issue and one which will make or break separation of powers for some time in the future, as well as actual civil liberties. To support one man just to make the party look good at this point in time will have repercussions against what that party supposedly holds dear.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-31-2006 12:04 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

You realize that that was a reference to YOUR charges right? I guess I do hope you are admitting that. But in case it isn't I want to understand your position.You are claiming that anyone who stands against ANY plan which MIGHT result in losses for the enemy, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy? That seems rather odd.After all a plan to jail and or summarily execute all people who have travelled or talked to anyone of mideast descent, or are islamic, will likely result in getting some terrorist. So if Bush simply starts doing this and we catch him and say that isn't right (particularly without legislative and judicial checks on those acts) we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy?You seem to have missed the point. No one is saying they wish AQ was here and tapping our phones, or that they wish AQ would win and so help them achieve that end in some direct manner.What people are saying is that THEY HAVE RIGHTS, and neither AQ nor Bush should have the ability to VIOLATE those rights. They are standing against enemies foreign and domestic. Whoever comes to violate our rights is the enemy.By the way an interesting historical note. AQ got its start when reps supported OBL and other rabid fundamentalists to overthrow Russian occupation of Afghanistan (sort of like our occupation of Iraq right now). Despite the fact that the Russians were helping the moderate majority make gains in education and civil rights, anyone opposing US support for rabid fundamentalist terrorist activities were criticized for in some way aiding and abetting the Russian menace.Now here's where it gets real interesting. The big fear is that if we didn't support those rabid fundamentalists, the Russians would "win" and take over our gov't and we'd lose our freedoms. This gov't you see would be controlled by a central authority we'd have no direct control over, and no judicial oversight, and THEY'D TAP OUR PHONES.Yeah, so the reps empowered religious maniacs to engage in terror tactics against russians so we wouldn't have to face a gov't that spies on its own population. 20- years later and reps are now saying we must accept the president spying on the population in order to save us from the religious maniacs they put into power in the first place.I'm sorry, you were saying something bad about liberals?This message has been edited by holmes, 02-02-2006 05:47 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

No really, it is illegal, that is why they are now banking on the argument that we should want it, rather than direct appeals to the law. Even if war has been declared by the US, not all rights go out the window and not all power shifts to the President.But let's put that aside for a second, I'm curious about what you feel would be illegal for Bush to do at this point. Is there anything he could do, or be caught doing, that is a violation of law or of the Constitution?In post 184 above I outlined a potential plan Bush could introduce. I'm wondering if you feel that would be constitutional and anyone complaining about their rights get considered aiding and abetting the enemy?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)