Government spying

[CRH911S]

For the Democrats to act shocked and the media to allow that perception to filter down to the public is criminal.

Mul, you're being a bit selective here. O'Riley would be ashamed of you for not giving credit where credit is due.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CRH911S


Mul, you're being a bit selective here. O'Riley would be ashamed of you for not giving credit where credit is due.

I am no devotee of O'Reilly. I, otherwise, don't understand what you are getting at.

[CRH911S]

Mul, you seem to be willing to give all the credit to the left. The right was caught off guard as well and it was Spector (sic) that called for an inquiry by his committee. I know, it's convenient to overlook these things but wouldn't the president be better served if you guys demanded the resignations of his personal attorney, Cheny and Gonzales?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CRH911S
Mul, you seem to be willing to give all the credit to the left. The right was caught off guard as well and it was Spector (sic) that called for an inquiry by his committee. I know, it's convenient to overlook these things but wouldn't the president be better served if you guys demanded the resignations of his personal attorney, Cheny and Gonzales?

Specter should be a specter according to a majority of the intelligent right. He is what we derisively refer to as a RINO (republican in name only). Rest assured that this Specter investigation will be nothing more than a show trial, just as the 9-11 investigation was. The Democrats will posture, then cave. The media will focus on the selacious, then forget the hypocrisy. There is nothing to investigate other than the leaker. If there were abuses rest assured that the ACLU would be the first to make a federal case out of it. I think you lefties are projecting onto Bush your own tendencies of deception and guilt complexes. It is like the thief who is always suspicious that his accomplices are stealing from him, or the dictator tyrant who fears being assassinated, just as he assassinated to gain his power...In the backwards world of liberal bizarro world, however, the good are bad and the bad are good.

Interesting how the media/DNC seize onto a non-story, at least a year old, correlating with a new book soon to be released, right on the eve of Bush's approval ratings rebound.

When there is an investigation investigating what Bill Clinton knew about what Sandy Berger was stealing, to defraud the 9-11 investigation, let me know. When 60 minutes does an investigative piece on Bill Clinton, let me know. When one solitary reporter has the balls to lure Clinton in, and then pounce on him for his national security failures, let me know.

This current debate is not news, it is news manufacturing. This is what the activsit leftist press has become (or probably always was). They aren't the pillars of journalistic virtue, reporting "nothing but the facts maam", they are ideologues who selectively interpret, omit, or focus on stories that further their agenda. Sometimes intentionally, other times not, they "make" the news, brainwash the public, and then release polls that for some odd reason they think that the American public came to spontaneously...When the polls were 35% for Bush's approval you would have thought, according to the "news makers" that the media had no effect on the ratings. They acted as if they had nothing to do with the public perception; this is deceptive as they are more than keenly aware of the power they wield.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Specter should be a specter according to a majority of the intelligent right. He is what we derisively refer to as a RINO (republican in name only). Rest assured that this Specter investigation will be nothing more than a show trial, just as the 9-11 investigation was. The Democrats will posture, then cave. The media will focus on the selacious, then forget the hypocrisy. There is nothing to investigate other than the leaker. If there were abuses rest assured that the ACLU would be the first to make a federal case out of it. I think you lefties are projecting onto Bush your own tendencies of deception and guilt complexes. It is like the thief who is always suspicious that his accomplices are stealing from him, or the dictator tyrant who fears being assassinated, just as he assassinated to gain his power...In the backwards world of liberal bizarro world, however, the good are bad and the bad are good.

Interesting how the media/DNC seize onto a non-story, at least a year old, correlating with a new book soon to be released, right on the eve of Bush's approval ratings rebound.

When there is an investigation investigating what Bill Clinton knew about what Sandy Berger was stealing, to defraud the 9-11 investigation, let me know. When 60 minutes does an investigative piece on Bill Clinton, let me know. When one solitary reporter has the balls to lure Clinton in, and then pounce on him for his national security failures, let me know.

This current debate is not news, it is news manufacturing. This is what the activsit leftist press has become (or probably always was). They aren't the pillars of journalistic virtue, reporting "nothing but the facts maam", they are ideologues who selectively interpret, omit, or focus on stories that further their agenda. Sometimes intentionally, other times not, they "make" the news, brainwash the public, and then release polls that for some odd reason they think that the American public came to spontaneously...When the polls were 35% for Bush's approval you would have thought, according to the "news makers" that the media had no effect on the ratings. They acted as if they had nothing to do with the public perception; this is deceptive as they are more than keenly aware of the power they wield.

What an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
What an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing

My point exactly.

[Rodeo]

Want to know what gets my goat?

The Bush Justice Department agreed to a plea deal with Sandy Berger. When are we going to get a true law and order president in the White House? A president that would not stand for a sweethart deal like this!

Who gives a hoot about the Bill of Rights? We need someone that will go after the Sandy Bergers of the world!

[Mulhollanddose]

I guess the "damned if you do" outweighed the "damned if you don't"...Would have been nice, or still would, if the loyal opposition would have raised the media from their slumber to investigate...The media has had more than ample opportunity to question Berger and Clinton, they have failed. Bush has a bad habit of rolling over to DNC demands and leaning toward propriety, not being aggressive about investigating political opponents...If you recall Bush initially was not supportive of the 9-11 investigation, he caved to pressure. The 9-11 Commission was invested with uncovering investigative failures that led to 9-11; they obviously decided the coverup was more important.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Let's see what I have to "prove" for fint:

1. The Constitution contains a right to privacy (this has been settled law for 40 years)

2. The Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless electronic monitoring (this has been settled law since the advent of the telephone, indeed wiretaps are criminal acts)
....

Please quote it for us. There is nothing in anyone else's version. It should be easy if it is there.

Originally posted by Rodeo
...3. The secret FISA Court is not used for "routine law enforcement" (duh)
..

If you are telling the truth...a quote should be easy here.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by fintstone
Please quote it for us. There is nothing in anyone else's version. It should be easy if it is there.

If you are telling the truth...a quote should be easy here.

Sorry fint, Democracy 101 is completely full. So is "Constitutional Law for Dummies." If you don't get that when I pick up the phone, there should not be a government agent secretly recording the conversation so it can be put in my file, no number of "quotes" are going to help you.

Anyway, I think you are more suited to a course in repressive regimes. How about "Mao and McCarthy: Icons of the 20th Century" Or there's always a few seats left in "Stalin: To Know Him is to Love Him."

[fintstone]

Thanks for proving my point. Again.

You should be careful where you get your talking points from....You really look silly.

[t951]

Based purely on his actions, not words, I wouldn't trust the president to empty the trash properly.

We are on a slippery slope of giving our rights away. This and "patriot act" are things that will be looked upon many years from now as an incredibly stupid set of actions. Then again, so will be re-electing a moron.


Just my .02

[fintstone]

Well isn't that nice. Another logical, information-packed post.

Fortunately a majority of Americans did trust the President and reelected him to do exactly what he is doing.

[stevepaa]

Uh, would you like to show where a majority of Americans reelected him?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by t951
Based purely on his actions, not words, I wouldn't trust the president to empty the trash properly.

We are on a slippery slope of giving our rights away. This and "patriot act" are things that will be looked upon many years from now as an incredibly stupid set of actions. Then again, so will be re-electing a moron.


Just my .02

Didn't know the turnip truck was making unexpected drop-offs in Pelican-land...This crowd is going to require a little stronger argument than DNC false cliches.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Uh, would you like to show where a majority of Americans reelected him?

2004...3 million LEGAL Americans...That is even if you count the dead, felons and illegal immigrants who overwhelmingly support Democrat candidates.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Uh, would you like to show where a majority of Americans reelected him?

What do you mean? He received over 50% of the popular vote. Most folks consider that a majority. Even the Democratic party cannot spin it otherwise, can you?

[t951]

Well our president, I would never be foolish enough to call him a leader, has done the following:

Declared victory in a war that isn't close to being over.
Is causing soldiers to die for oil. (Gee, he is an oil baron, and they had their most profitable year ever despite the pains of the US).
Used an excuse (WMDs) to go to war (and then later recanted).
Despite what people say, our economy is terrible. The dollar is in danger of being replaced by other currency as the standard. If you read in Forbes you will see the drug and weapon dealers from around the world are now using the euro. pretty sad if even the trash of the world realizes it has no value. (I am sure some of you will hop on that statement as a way to show how lame the point is, and if you do, your not getting what I am saying).
He has alienated the US from the rest of the world in a way that is hard to imagine. I would bet that those who disagree with my points watch the cartoon news channel (Fox "News") and do not read or watch news from other countries.
He plays two cards in the hope that people aren't willing to contradict them in order to look bad. "Be patriotic, its good for the country." and "I am a good christian". Good christians dont send people to die for oil.

I could go on and on, but this is really getting dull. I was a republican till George. Now, I am not anti-repub, or a democrat. I am not in favor of the idiot.

I am sure there is some wood in there for some flames. Have at it.

[Rodeo]

Power That Bush Can't Just Take

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, December 27, 2005; A25

Since the holiday season is a time of generosity and goodwill toward all -- even those who torture the Constitution and hoodwink the nation into ill-advised wars -- let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's assume that George W. Bush's claim of virtually unfettered presidential power is not just an exercise in reclaiming executive perks that Dick Cheney believes were wrongly surrendered after Watergate. Let's assume that Bush genuinely believes he needs the right to blanket the nation with electronic surveillance, detain indefinitely anyone he considers a terrorist suspect, make those detainees disappear into secret, CIA-run prisons, and subject them to "waterboarding" and other degradations. Let's assume for the moment that the president's only desperate motivation is to prevent another day like Sept. 11, 2001.

Let's go even further and assume he decided to invade Iraq for the same reason. Even in a thought experiment, we can't forgive the way he snowed the country into believing there was some connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks; nor can we forget the way he hyped the flawed intelligence about weapons of mass destruction -- we're being generous here, not stupid. But let's assume that however calculated and cynical the machinations, and however wrongheaded the decision to go to war, the underlying motive was purely to avoid another catastrophic terrorist attack.

All right: Given these overly kind assumptions, can this administration's usurpation of power somehow be justified?

Every time I work it through, the answer I come up with is no. The president has no right to ignore the rule of law as if it were a mere nuisance.

The problem is that if the president really were determined to do anything it takes to prevent another terrorist strike, why not suspend habeas corpus, as Lincoln did during the Civil War? That way you could arrest everyone who could possibly be a terrorist, or who once lived next door to a suspected terrorist's uncle, and you could hold those people as long as you wanted. Why stop at surveillance of international telephone calls and e-mails? Why not listen in on, say, all interstate calls as well? Or just go for it and scarf up all the domestic communications the National Security Agency's copious computers can hold?

Why stop at waterboarding? Why not go all the way and pull out some fingernails, if that would give Americans another tiny increment of security? Wouldn't electric shocks make us safer still? Just order the White House lawyers to draw up yet another thumb-on-the-scale legal opinion explaining how torture isn't really torture, and have at it.

If potential terrorists may be walking among us, why not have police officers stand on street corners all day and subject anyone who looks "suspicious" to questioning and a search? That's what Fidel Castro does in Cuba, and believe me, Cuba is an extremely safe country.

In Vietnam we destroyed villages in order to save them. In this war on terrorism, why not go ahead and destroy our freedoms in order to save them?

The reason we don't do these absurd things, of course, is that we see a line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. That bright line is the law, drawn by Congress and regularly surveyed by the judiciary. It can be shifted, but the president has no right to shift it on his own authority. His constitutional war powers give him wide latitude, but those powers are not unlimited.

If you go along with my experiment and assume that the president has the best of motives, then the problem is that he wants to protect the American people but doesn't trust us.

There can be no freedom without some measure of risk. We guarantee freedom of the press, which means that newspapers sometimes print things the government doesn't want printed. We guarantee that defendants cannot be forced to incriminate themselves, which means that sometimes bad guys go free. We accept these risks as the price of liberty.

The president would probably respond that in an era of loose-knit terrorist groups and suitcase nukes, the risks are exponentially greater than those his predecessors faced. Even if you agree, the answer is not to act unilaterally but to go to Congress and the courts and ask them to redraw that line between state power and individual freedom.

These are not tactical decisions about where a tank division should cross the Rhone. They are fundamental questions that go to the nature of this union, and the president is required to trust the American people to decide them.

End of experiment. Please return your rose-colored safety glasses to the front of the class.

[stevepaa]

fint and mul, he received just over 62 million votes out of possible 203 million. That means just over 30% of the Americans who can vote voted for him.

Since you are being so legalistic about what is precisely written down somewhere, I thought someone should correct your error.