Government spying

[cool_chick]

What does the government have to hide by not obtaining search warrants?

[t951]

motive

[vash]

i would be bummed if the government wanted to check my suspected link to terrorist, and found me talking about how great my pot plants are doing this year.

(to the guys with the black suits and sunglasses, that was a joke!)

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
By Eugene Robinson
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?

It is hard for me to follow leftist-speak. It is so hypocritical and agenda driven that it is hard to decipher fact from fiction. Is Eugene (leftist in journalistic drag) making the case that Bush is abusing power, or that Bush should suspend habeas corpus to silence political enemies?...I agree with Eugene, we should reignite the suspension of habeas corpus and silence the leftists who are obviously lying during wartime to undermine the war on terrorism...This would effectively neuter the media/DNC and terrorists.

Since when did the Democrats care about "the rule of law"?...I know, the moment they are out of power. I will never forget a statement by Bill Clinton's advisor and syncophant, Paul Begala. He said, regarding Clinton's executive orders and proclamations "stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool!"

Save me the crocodile tears.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
What does the government have to hide by not obtaining search warrants?

I actually wondered about this as well. I mean why not just get the warrants retroactive? Here is the way I now understand it.

The President believes he has this authority and the Justice Dept. has backed him up. He feels this is a critical matter of defending the US and not only his highest priority but duty. Since he feels justified in the practice he sees no reason to risk some judge denying what he feels is a critical search. He also feels a judge should not trump the President in these wartime decisions. In other words the risk of a denial and the lack of a requirement to use a judge made the decision pretty easy for him.

So agree or disagree that's the justification.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by vash
i would be bummed if the government wanted to check my suspected link to terrorist

So is the ACLU.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
What does the government have to hide by not obtaining search warrants?

Didn't seem to work too well in Clinton's mishandling of terrorists...If you recall it was the Clinton Justice Department, Jamie Goerlick, who constructed the wall that disallowed inter law enforcement agency communication regarding terrorism.

This is a matter of undermining Bush and impugning his character. This is orchestrated sedition cloaked in defense of "civil rights."...This is treason repackaged to appear virtuous. The Democrats know it, the press knows it, and the democrat foot-soldiers that are smart enough know it.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by 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.

More than Clinton ever got. And that was without lying and Chinese military money to do it.

[t951]

So if the pres asked every citizen to give their DNA for the good of the country and if he asked us to all report our activities daily to the government, and wear tracking devices for "capacity planning" or some other "helpful" reason....should we do it?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I actually wondered about this as well. I mean why not just get the warrants retroactive? Here is the way I now understand it.

The President believes he has this authority and the Justice Dept. has backed him up. He feels this is a critical matter of defending the US and not only his highest priority but duty. Since he feels justified in the practice he sees no reason to risk some judge denying what he feels is a critical search. He also feels a judge should not trump the President in these wartime decisions. In other words the risk of a denial and the lack of a requirement to use a judge made the decision pretty easy for him.

So agree or disagree that's the justification.

I disagree with the justification. I strongly feel these protections are put in place for a REASON. If the system isn't working efficiently the way it's designed, I do not feel this is an excuse to break the law (I never find valid excuses to break the law, but that's just me....even down to speeding.....). I feel one should adopt procedures so that the system runs efficiently and doesn't break the law.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone should get exceptions to break the law, including me, the robber down the street, my local policeman, or the president of the united states.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
So agree or disagree that's the justification.

Then why did he lie about it? Why did he tell the American people that it was because the administration didn't have the luxury of time to wait for a warrant?

I'm sorry, when somebody lies about something this important, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt on anything else.

I think the real reason is so there would be no accountability, no oversight, no restrictions on whom they could spy on. Or how they could use the information.

5 out of 19,000 FISA warrant applications have been denied. The president did not risk a major constitutional crisis because he wanted to improve those odds.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
More than Clinton ever got. And that was without lying and Chinese military money to do it.

And Kerry got more than Dole ever got...and Reagan got more than Carter got, and Carter got more than Nixon got....the next president will get more than Bush ever got......there's more population and people voting, DUH!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I disagree with the justification. I strongly feel these protections are put in place for a REASON. If the system isn't working efficiently the way it's designed, I do not feel this is an excuse to break the law (I never find valid excuses to break the law, but that's just me....even down to speeding.....). I feel one should adopt procedures so that the system runs efficiently and doesn't break the law.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone should get exceptions to break the law, including me, the robber down the street, my local policeman, or the president of the united states.

If an exception is made IN the law then you are not breaking the law.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by lendaddy
If an exception is made IN the law then you are not breaking the law.

The exception is the three-day retroactive to allow time.....

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by t951
So if the pres asked every citizen to give their DNA for the good of the country and if he asked us to all report our activities daily to the government, and wear tracking devices for "capacity planning" or some other "helpful" reason....should we do it?

If a Democrat like Hitlary does it. No.

It is more than obvious Bush is properly applying his extraordinary powers, powers expressly granted by the Constitution for the protection of our nation. No one questions the terrorists want you dead. No one questions that the terrorists have used our liberties against us. No one with half a brain questions that the Democrats/activist media wouldn't blame Bush in the event of another terrorist attack.

Bush winning the war and establishing democracy in Iraq is not good for the Democrat party and their media friends. It is absolutely contrary to their agenda for the current operation to succeed. Anything and everything they can use to win a defeat for Bush is fair game in their warped anti-American minds. If they can throw a monkey-wrench in the economy, they will. If they can aid and abet terrorists and lay the groundwork for another terrorist attack, ASAP, they will.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Then why did he lie about it? Why did he tell the American people that it was because the administration didn't have the luxury of time to wait for a warrant?

I'm sorry, when somebody lies about something this important, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt on anything else.

I think the real reason is so there would be no accountability, no oversight, no restrictions on whom they could spy on. Or how they could use the information.

5 out of 19,000 FISA warrant applications have been denied. The president did not risk a major constitutional crisis because he wanted to improve those odds.

This was a bold approach compared to previous spying I'm sure, so previous "percentages denied" don't play. Which ties in to Bush's claimed "need for speed". Say you've got taps in place and a judge says NO, you cannot do this type anymore. Then they get tied up in arguments with the judges instead of collecting Intel.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by cool_chick
The exception is the three-day retroactive to allow time.....

The Justice Department disagrees with you. They feel the powers are inherent.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
And Kerry got more than Dole ever got...and Reagan got more than Carter got, and Carter got more than Nixon got....the next president will get more than Bush ever got......there's more population and people voting, DUH!

I was talking percentages little girl.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by lendaddy
The Justice Department disagrees with you. They feel the powers are inherent.

Of course they do....this is nothing new. They always, and I mean, ALWAYS, tries to overstep their bounds. Traditionally.....under admins, dem and rep alike.

But the other branches always bring them back down.....

It's unconstitutional. There is nothing that proves in the constitution these powers are inherent in the executive branch, and you know it.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
I was talking percentages little girl.

And Kerry got a higher percentage than Clinton and and also more than Bush first term. And there was something like 1.8% difference between Kerry and Bush. What's your point? Still 1/3 of the country who voted for Bush, no matter how you try to paint it.