Government spying

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Mul, agree with him on this one as well. In my short time on this board, you have gone from denouncing every totalitarian regime on the face of the earth to promoting a totalitarian regime in America. All because you like Bush. Or hate Democrats. Of both.

If that were true, we should be much further along in our socialistically totalitarian (as they are more frequently than not one in the same) slide. We went from putting women, children and men in concentration camps, during the FDR presidency, to focusing our civil rights abuses to wire-tapping rag-headed terrorists and those who support them. To compare the current wartime exercise of extraordinary powers to a "totalitarian regime" is missing reality and establishing a false premise to do so.

Wake up. Granting more power to this president, and necessarily the next president and the one after and the one after, etc. etc. is a tragically bad idea.

From a neo-socialist (Democrat), I find this demonstration of shock about expanding government powers hollow...Expanding government power is what the Democrat party is ALL about. More confiscatory taxation, more government bureaucracy, more regulations, more funding for failing government schools, control of the media, financially advocating one race over another, race-baiting, class-warfare and union strangulation of business.

[Rodeo]

You find my protest hollow, so threefore you will go along with a massive expansion of executive power?

Scratching my head ... what does my sincerity have to do with your position on expansion of government powers? If I was for it, you would be against it?

[Mulhollanddose]

Rodeo, when a Democrat gets in office, or a Republican abuses the power, I agree that the expanded powers should cease...Until then the rag-headed friends of the left need monitoring because they are using our rights to do us harm. Unlike the left's union handout, increased airport security, that spends billions on political correctness, the wire-tapping is focused to those that have demonstrable suspicious connections to foreign lands or suspects.

I doubt highly that Bush and Rove are going to give you seditious lefties the opportunity, by abusing the wire-tapping privilege, to undermine him or the war on terror any more than you have already...The moment there is a case of abuse, I will rethink my position. Unfortunately it seems like it will take another 3000+++ American casualties, on American soil, for you lefties and far far far righties to see the light.

[Rodeo]

You worship the man, Mul, not the law. That's what makes you dangerous.

You want to have one wiretapping rule for the guys you like, and another for the guys you don't. What an ugly place America would be if this attitude prevailed.

[Mulhollanddose]

Much better than the time when FDR was defending Stalin's spies in his Administration, or interning Japanese families with the approval of the pro-communist ACLU.

We are wiretapping American enemies, and those who give them aid-and-comfort (like Code-Pink and the ANSWER coalition).

It is socialism you should fear. When Bush abuses his authority, let me know. When Bush illegally obtains 900 FBI files on his political enemies, let me know. When Bush uses the IRS to intimidate his perceived enemies, let me know.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
When Bush abuses his authority, let me know.

Consider this your notice

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Consider this your notice

..."the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

I will wait with baited breath for proof.

You are right, Rodeo, as is FastPat. These powers can be abused and badly. It makes sense to let these powers die with the end of the Bush Administration. The problem with powers like this in the Democrats' hands is that the MSM is their propaganda arm, and so a true vetting of abuses cannot be expected...Just as we would not get an accurate read of a Democrat's abuses (albeit the motivation would differ), during a Democrat Presidency, we similarly must expect a warping of reality by the MSM during a Republican Presidency...This is what you see today. You see the MSM and their Democrat friends crying foul where they know there is no foul. They are doing this to regain power, no matter if it gives aid to America's enemies.

[Rodeo]

You're just making this stuff up as you go, Mul! "It makes sense to let these powers die with the end of the Bush Administration." How? According to you, they are constitutional powers! Should we amend the Constitution effective December 31, 2007?

You want the Constitution to change depending on who is in the oval office?

You're nuts! Not to mention your interpretation of the statute above. You would be the biggest activist judge in the history of our nation. Earl Warren would like Robert Bork next to you!

Take a law allowing use of "necessary and appropriate force" against terrorists to mean that the president can illegally wiretap Americans? Like I said, you’re nuts!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
..."the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

I will wait with baited breath for proof.

You are right, Rodeo, as is FastPat. These powers can be abused and badly. It makes sense to let these powers die with the end of the Bush Administration. The problem with powers like this in the Democrats' hands is that the MSM is their propaganda arm, and so a true vetting of abuses cannot be expected...Just as we would not get an accurate read of a Democrat's abuses (albeit the motivation would differ), during a Democrat Presidency, we similarly must expect a warping of reality by the MSM during a Republican Presidency...This is what you see today. You see the MSM and their Democrat friends crying foul where they know there is no foul. They are doing this to regain power, no matter if it gives aid to America's enemies.

As Rodeo states, you're stating that the powers that appear to be granted in the above law, and I'm assuming that you are quoting and not posting an interpretation so common with propagandists, are constitutional and can be extended and removed by congress.

Congress cannot legitimately pass an unConstitutional law, if they do it carries no force of law. Yes, they do it all the time, and presidents act on them, but they're not legitimate law. If a power isn't listed in the Constitution, then neither congress nor the president is authorized to wield the power, period. Yes, that's an absolute. The Constitution created the federal government, the federal cannot act outside the Constitution without violating it.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You want the Constitution to change depending on who is in the oval office?

How did the Constitution change?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
As Rodeo states, you're stating that the powers that appear to be granted in the above law, and I'm assuming that you are quoting and not posting an interpretation so common with propagandists, are constitutional and can be extended and removed by congress.

Congress cannot legitimately pass an unConstitutional law, if they do it carries no force of law. Yes, they do it all the time, and presidents act on them, but they're not legitimate law. If a power isn't listed in the Constitution, then neither congress nor the president is authorized to wield the power, period. Yes, that's an absolute. The Constitution created the federal government, the federal cannot act outside the Constitution without violating it.

I am still waiting for the law Bush broke. What Constitutional mandate was violated?...Your argument is evidently not only with Bush's Executive branch, but with the Judiciary and Legislative alike. They all agree that during wartime the Executive Branch is granted extraordinary powers.

FISA: TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General;...

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) ....

As used in this subchapter: (a) “Foreign power” means— ....(Which includes an)

“Agent of a foreign power”— (which means)...

(2) any person (note:this "any person" does not exclude U.S. Persons) who— (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; ....

(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; .....

(e) “Foreign intelligence information” means— (1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against— (A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or (C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or .....



Warfare and times have changed, FastPat...That you cannot deny. You are aiding and abeting the enemy, the enemy within (Democrats) and without.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
I am still waiting for the law Bush broke. What Constitutional mandate was violated?...Your argument is evidently not only with Bush's Executive branch, but with the Judiciary and Legislative alike. They all agree that during wartime the Executive Branch is granted extraordinary powers.

And you found that grant of power in the Constitution, where, exactly? That the government via Congress, president, and with the malfeasance of the courts has granted itself powers not authorized by the Constitution is true.

It's not legitimate power, it's stolen power.

Bush's law breaking has become legion. Here's two.

1. The US government joined the UN under a treaty signed by a sitting president, ratified by the Senate. That makes it binding, under the Constitution, on the US government. One of the clauses of that treaty is that no member nation may attack another member nation, unless expressly authorized by UN resolution. No such resolution exists, in fact the Bush Junta began to seek such a resolution in the fall of 2002, and when it became apparent that either or both France and Russia were going to veto it in the UNSC, and it would be heavily shot down in the General Assembly; Bush dropped that approach and invaded unilaterally.

2. On the first night of the invasion, prior to troop deployments, Bush publically stated that he authorized the bombing of a private home because of intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein was physically inside the home. This attack leveled an entire block of homes, killing approximately two dozen people. That's a war crime under both US and International law, for which Bush should be arrested and put on trial.

There are many more, but those are sufficient to establish my point as correct.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
1. The US government joined the UN under a treaty signed by a sitting president, ratified by the Senate. That makes it binding, under the Constitution, on the US government. One of the clauses of that treaty is that no member nation may attack another member nation, unless expressly authorized by UN resolution. No such resolution exists, in fact the Bush Junta began to seek such a resolution in the fall of 2002, and when it became apparent that either or both France and Russia were going to veto it in the UNSC, and it would be heavily shot down in the General Assembly; Bush dropped that approach and invaded unilaterally.

From Noam Chomsky's neo-communist pen to your mouth. We made the UN. We are ABSOLUTELY NOT bound by their dictates. We are ABSOLUTELY NOT under their authority. We have not surrendered out sovereignty to a collective of totalitarian thugs, communist tyrants or two-bit dictators. We certainly are not beholden to the criminal enterprise that the current UN has become. They are corrupt from the head down. The worst human rights violators sit on their "human rights" commission. Kofi, Kujo and their buddies in Germany, France and Russia were profitting handsomly from the "oil for food" scam. Of course Kofi found himself innocent of any charges of wrongdoing--how convenient. The UN's corruption rendered any perceived treaty between the US and the tyrannical boy's club, null-and void.

It is quite interesting that an isolationist such as yourself would rally behind the red UN. It now comes into crystal clarity whose side you are on. It is clear why you have jumped in bed with the anti-American leftists and their favorite aspersions of the President. Unilateral indeed. What a crock of horse *****.

[Mulhollanddose]

[snowman]

I say we all hang Bush for his performance and so called abuse of the constitution. But I also say the the very moment a democrat does the same thing that he is treated the exact same way.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
From Noam Chomsky's neo-communist pen to your mouth. We made the UN. We are ABSOLUTELY NOT bound by their dictates. We are ABSOLUTELY NOT under their authority. We have not surrendered out sovereignty to a collective of totalitarian thugs, communist tyrants or two-bit dictators. We certainly are not beholden to the criminal enterprise that the current UN has become. They are corrupt from the head down. The worst human rights violators sit on their "human rights" commission. Kofi, Kujo and their buddies in Germany, France and Russia were profitting handsomly from the "oil for food" scam. Of course Kofi found himself innocent of any charges of wrongdoing--how convenient. The UN's corruption rendered any perceived treaty between the US and the tyrannical boy's club, null-and void.

It is quite interesting that an isolationist such as yourself would rally behind the red UN. It now comes into crystal clarity whose side you are on. It is clear why you have jumped in bed with the anti-American leftists and their favorite aspersions of the President. Unilateral indeed. What a crock of horse *****.

First of all son, let me make this clear; as far as the UN is concerned, I'd love to see a wrecking ball taken to it and salt sown on the grounds so that nothing will grow there, but again, that's just me.

You'd better check the Constitution once again, if in fact you've ever read it at all. Here's the part that governs treaties:
"Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

See, that's the portion that says the US government must abide by a treaty. Unless the Iraqi's had attacked America, Bush couldn't lawfully invade Iraq. That's the law, no matter how much puffery you offer. There is no yielding of sovereignty, invading another country has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty in America.

You need to learn the law under the Constitution before you regurgitate some crap you've swallowed from God only knows where.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by snowman
I say we all hang Bush for his performance and so called abuse of the constitution. But I also sat the the very moment a democrat does the same thing that he is treated the exact same way.

My sentiments exactly, by rule of law of course.

[lendaddy]

Pat,

I would love to believe we could go back to strict Constitutional government, but it's not going to happen. Hell, it only lasted a couple years when we originally tried it. While I agree with SOME of the outgrowths of government I wish they would have occurred within the system (amendments rather than bu11****).

But the bottom line is that we have what we have now and we're not going back to our proper system(until another civil war or worse). And even then it will only last a couple years again.

You can fight to slow down the carnage with reasoned compromise or eliminate yourself from the game as you've done. It all boils down to this: Would you rather be right or make things better?

EDIT: I would like to add that I don't disagree with anything you've posted as far as its technical correctness.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Pat,

I would love to believe we could go back to strict Constitutional government, but it's not going to happen. Hell, it only lasted a couple years when we originally tried it. While I agree with SOME of the outgrowths of government I wish they would have occurred within the system (amendments rather than bu11****).

But the bottom line is that we have what we have now and we're not going back to our proper system(until another civil war or worse). And even then it will only last a couple years again.

You can fight to slow down the carnage with reasoned compromise or eliminate yourself from the game as you've done. It all boils down to this: Would you rather be right or make things better?

EDIT: I would like to add that I don't disagree with anything you've posted as far as its technical correctness.

Len, the Constitution IS my compromise position, if I were king of the universe, I'd rid America of the Constitution and return the the Articles of Confederation, as it should have been Amended in 1787, instead of being superceeded by the Constitution of the Federalist cabal; Hamilton, Jay, Washington, and temporarily, Madison.

Demanding that the federal government remain within the law that created it can't be compromised, it must be demanded everyday. To do otherwise means that there is no genuine law; just what ever those like M-dose say it is from day to day.

I realize that it's unlikely to be a recoverable situation, and that as things deteriorate from feckless thugs like Bush and associates, and then Clinton II and associates; America will continue to lose freedoms we have had, many already gone in my lifetime.

Some areas of the country may secede again, and that may be the answer, or part of the answer.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Not only did the UN fail to enforce the 16 resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein, but they were complicit in the criminal enterprise that was the "oil for food" scandal. We, certainly, are not obligated to adhere to a treaty when that partner entity was acting criminally or less importantly, impotently.

The Framers, as you are probably unaware, were envisioning treaties amongst states, not foreign treaties. They surely and quite obviously were not offering authority to foreign powers, although that part of the Constitution has been misinterpreted to read such.

"A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution..." -- Alexander Hamilton

"I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power." -- James Madison

"I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson