woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmm....
Contrary to what some who post here think, what the President ok'd was illegal, even in times of "war". the constitution doesn't give the president any "xtra " legal prerogatives. He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. He should rot in prison with that other pinhead "dick" (what an appropriate name) Cheney. For those of you that disagree with this, show where it is ok, and I will stand corrected.Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY | Oh geez...here we go...
If yer not with us, den yer with the terrorists......  |
|
Seadone1
@bellsouth.net | reply to woody7
Re: hmmm....
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SIR!!!!
I second your motion!!! |
|
doc69
Premium
join:2004-08-01
USA
 ·Insight Communicat..
·Comcast
| reply to woody7
said by woody7  :Contrary to what some who post here think, what the President ok'd was illegal, even in times of "war". the constitution doesn't give the president any "xtra " legal prerogatives. He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. He should rot in prison with that other pinhead "dick" (what an appropriate name) Cheney. For those of you that disagree with this, show where it is ok, and I will stand corrected.Peace I agree.  On another note I just wish the guy had one more shoe, DAMMIT.
--
I don't really know, but i try really hard not to. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. So let's say that President Obama receives actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. He acts on this intelligence and neutralizes a threat. Being a good president, he goes to the FISA court to get a blessing for this but oops! The court tells him that he did not cross all the i's and dot all the t's on his order, so what he did was illegal. We might even have to send the people who carried out this order to prison because they did something "illegal."
What happens the next time there's a threat? Should Obama let it happen? Would US military or other services stick their necks out to prevent a potential attack knowing that they themselves risk prosecution?
The main problem with putting any court in the way of the President engaging in actions against foreign terrorists is just that type of scenario. We did not have FISA courts until the late 1970s, how did presidents prior to then handle such matters? They certainly did not wait for some outside authority to bless their actions, they just took care of business.
The only real "outrage" over Bush bypassing FISA comes from the looney left that simply seeks to attack him at every possible opportunity. I am sure that when Obama has to deal with a crisis and decides to sidestep FISA, most of Obama's supporters aren't going to care.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Qwest.net
·Charter Pipeline
| AT&T Shill?
The ninja... being a uverse user is probably just upset that it was AT&T who bent and spread for the Texas twink and Darth Vader Cheney. Some people get upset when their favorite company is found to be a greedy, spineless pool of cold spit.
--
My perception is REALITY |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to pnh102
Re: hmmm....
1-Tamm grew frustrated when the story did not immediately appear. He was hoping, he says, that Lichtblau and his partner Risen (with whom he also met) would figure out on their own what the program was really all about and break it before the 2004 election. He was, by this time, "pissed off" at the Bush administration, he says. He contributed $300 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004, according to campaign finance records.
2- Paul Kemp, one of Tamm's lawyers, says he was recently told by the Justice Department prosecutor in charge of Tamm's case that there will be no decision about whether to prosecute until next year—after the Obama administration takes office. The case could present a dilemma for the new leadership at Justice. During the presidential campaign, Obama condemned the warrantless-wiretapping program. So did Eric Holder, Obama's choice to become attorney general. In a tough speech last June, Holder said that Bush had acted "in direct defiance of federal law" by authorizing the NSA program.
Let see what President Obama decides to do with this case. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Interesting points. So this looks more like the "he's a hero because he supports the Democrats" template.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to WiseOldNerd
Re: AT&T Shill?
More like some people get upset at those who are enemies of the state. These guys are no different from the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh and the Puerto Rican Taliban, Jose Padilla. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to doc69
Re: hmmm....
I wish he had been a size 15 and wearing boots |
|
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| reply to expert007
Re: Oh geez...here we go...
Only a few more weeks until the Democrats get to start branding the right as "terrorists" for not supporting their golden boy. The main difference is that President Bush at least didn't support the idea of a national police security jack booted thug force. I wonder if he'll issue them brown shirts and red armbands too?
--
Save us, oh Great Obamasiah. Peggy Joseph and I both pray that You come to pay our mortgage and fill our cars with gas. (Premium please!) |
|
lcnoble
join:2006-11-11
Nancy, KY
| Information
I may be right or I may be wrong but tend to lean more towards the side of protecting our citizens and coming out of wars alive. At face value, this wire tap thing seems silly. Why? Because in time of war the military can do what they please, and I assume their communication intelligence gathering ability is far greater than the bungling agencies. If my above assumption is correct, then you can question the motives of the present presidential administration. If my assumptions are not correct, then we are not at war and something very strange is occurring. I remember the F.B.I. getting the spies and detainees, I wonder where they got their information. |
|
scantor
join:2004-08-11
Columbus, OH
| reply to pnh102
Re: hmmm....
How about you give up your civil rights, and I'll sign a waiver letting the president go ahead and let me get blown up, since I still value mine.
The law is the law. Your hypothetical straw man aside, you don't get a free pass because you had a good reason. You risk the fallout and then argue to the judge why you did it. If the reason was justified, chances are you'll get away with it. That's how the system works. That's why torture is illegal; the risk of doing it should be such that it won't be done unless the bomb is ticking, not just because your boss is a sadist.
It used to be that it was considered a tenet of the right that executive power had limits. Liberty and all that. That's where the word libertarian comes from. It's sad and pathetic what people have come to, but I'll happily stand with the loony left, regardless of who the president is. And I'm more than proud to stand on the opposite side from you. |
|
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Qwest.net
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to ninjatutle
Re: AT&T Shill?
Once more you confuse your opinion with fact. The only enemies of the state here, in my opinion, are the entirety of the Bush administration. That might be a fact, but I only present it as opinion.
--
My perception is REALITY |
|
microserf v1
@cgocable.net | reply to ninjatutle
Would you put some clothes on? The camera in your bedroom is showing me a mole on your ass that deserves it's own zipcode.
They're America loving patriots. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Is oh Canaduh that boring that you need to assert yourself into American politics, eh? |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Re: hmmm....
said by pnh102 :So let's say that President Obama receives actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. He acts on this intelligence and neutralizes a threat. Being a good president, he goes to the FISA court to get a blessing for this but oops! The court tells him that he did not cross all the i's and dot all the t's on his order, so what he did was illegal. We might even have to send the people who carried out this order to prison because they did something "illegal." This argument is pure B.S. because there has never been even one single documented occurrence of FISA saying no to any request.  |
|
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
·Cox HSI
·Qwest.net
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to microserf v1
Re: AT&T Shill?
Not bad:  but then personal attacks are the way of the politician (read hooker) and not the way of the warrior. If we really want to deal with terrorists we stop trying to manage the "war" politically and give the military the go ahead to use what ever force is needed to eradicate them in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. If they want to suspect people in the USA of anything than use the courts of law as the Constitution mandates. There are two distinct facets to this whole subject and when we mix them together, we simply confuse the whole issue. And no I'll exercise my Constitutional right to run bareass through my house and if you don't like it turn off the cam.
--
My perception is REALITY |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to NOVA_Guy
Re: Oh geez...here we go...
I believe that only the fear-mongering right employ those tactics. Not only do Americans have to worry about the terrorism boogy-man, but being labeled a terrorist because they question, disagree with or scrutinize their governments' actions. Something that any self-respecting U.S. citizen should do. This only serves to intimidate the masses and label dissenters as un-patriotic, deflect vital discussions of how to proceed with complex and difficult decisions and basically eliminate your options. Simply counter-productive.
The fact is, terrorism happens; whether by a domestic groups like the Arian Nation or white supremacy groups as a whole or Jihadists abroad. The solution to stop these groups from attacks or lessen their impact is to share the information with all levels of Law Enforcement, from the Federal level all the way down to the local level. It has been stated clearly that the failure to communicate relevant information within the different strata of the law enforcement community was one of the contributing factors of the inability to properly respond to 9/11.
In a way, I am torn between the need for warrant-less wiretapping (at a reasonable level) and our rights. I feel it is acceptable to not require a warrant when the originating or destination of a call is in a foreign country, particularly terrorist states, which is the way it is supposed to be currently applied. As soon as you start monitoring all American's phone calls/data, that's when it becomes a problem.
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck |
|
bcoleman71
join:2007-09-18
Dallas, TX
| FISA ensures the integrity of our political system
To respond to some of the comments earlier in this thread...
The president usually does not directly receive any actionable intelligence. That intelligence is gathered by the FBI, NSA, CIA and possible even the secret service. In order for those federal agencies that operate within the borders of the United States to even have the opportunity to eavesdrop on someone, they must first get a warrant. That is what FISA is there for. FISA ensures that the agency requesting the permission to investigate an invididual or some group of individuals is doing so with reasonable cause. FISA is there to ensure the integrity of our nation and more importantly, the integrity of our political system. Without it, you run the risk of people being spied on for someone's or a some group's personal or political gain. Think back to the Nixon administration and the political scandals that surrounded his administration. I know it isn't perfect, but I support the system as it is with the requirement that the authorities must first get a warrant before eavesdropping on private communications of citizens of this country. Its just a part of the checks and balances that helps to maintain the integrity of our political system.
As for the attacks on 9/11, there were people who had intelligence that could have lead to the prevention of the attacks that occurred on 9/11 but that information never found its way up to those who could put the pieces together. Some regional managers or directors or whatever you want to call them didn't see the importance of people learning to fly commercial airliners but not caring to learn how to land the planes! That's why we now have the Department of Homeland Security. It's intended purpose is to be an intelligence clearinghouse where all of the obtained intelligence from all available sources can be examined for commonality to find patterns or things that need to be investigated and in those cases, the FISA court can then be petitioned for a warrant for further investigations.
What the government and ultimately the President's administration requested of those companies was totally illegal. What they ended up doing is opening up the possibility for every single citizen of this country to be spied upon. I can hear some of you know..."If you didn't do anything wrong, what are you afraid of?" That is not the point. You don't have to do anything wrong and what "they" find out about you can be used for more than putting you behind bars. For those who think like that should consider not thinking so one-dimensionally and start opening your minds to other possibilities of abuse of power because there are a world of opportunities out there for people to find out things about you and use that information against you...and guess what? Because you have decided to give up your rights, you would have no recourse for justice if it does happen!
And another thing, it pisses me off when I see people saying the Democrats are weak and are ready to turn the country over to the terrists or the Republicans are scaremongers ready to pass laws to remove all of our rights...This is NOT a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue of DEMOCRACY and if you can't see that this is a real threat to democracy, then maybe you don't deserve it! |
|
