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 |
|
doc69
Premium
join:2004-08-01
 ·Insight Communicat..
·Comcast
| 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. |
|
Seadone1
@bellsouth.net | reply to woody7
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SIR!!!!
I second your motion!!! |
|
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 |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| 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 |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to doc69
I wish he had been a size 15 and wearing boots |
|
scantor
join:2004-08-11
Columbus, OH
| reply to pnh102
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. |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | reply to pnh102
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.  |
|
MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to pnh102
As one who's written many criminal search warrants under 'urgent' circumstances, I can attest to the fact that it's EASY to do.
FISA makes it's even EASIER by virtue of the fact that the grounds, or cause, for the 'search' can be supplied to the FISA court AFTER the 'search' is conducted.
Without oversight, you get lazy, questionable, or deliberately false information being used to justify fishing expeditions.
I seen a few of those 'errors' cause innocent folks to have their front door kicked in at 3 am. |
|
bcoleman71
join:2007-09-18
Dallas, TX
| reply to doc69
said by doc69 :I agree. On another note I just wish the guy had one more shoe, DAMMIT. I can't wait to see what the political satirists will do with that! And also, what do you think the odds are that eventually there will be a video game called 'Shoe the President' lol |
|
Shoreleave
@comcast.net | reply to pnh102
Don't you think that the president would have capable lawyers at his disposal to make sure the "i"s get dotted and the "t's crossed.
You response is as ignorant as Bush's actionable conduct... |
|
a1_Andy
Premium
join:2005-12-29
Peterborough, ON | reply to bcoleman71
a quick google gets this »www.ridiculopathy.com/crappy_fla···=bushoes
not long |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to pnh102
*sigh*.. You don't get it do you. The PROBLEM was NOT with 'foreign' operatives. The problem was that AMERICAN CITIZENS were being illegally wiretapped. Do you have any idea what the constitution is? Have you ever read it (the real one, not the 'bush doctrine version'. Guess what, EVERY AMERICAN has the right to be secure in their home. Guess what, you CANNOT wiretap an AMERICAN WITHOUT A WARRANT! What part of the rights of the people don't you understand..
The problem is this. They find a cell phone overseas, with an American phone number. The problem is they chose not to get a warrant (AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION), and spied on an AMERICAN in AMERICA. I don't CARE if an Al-queada operative called my phone in the US. Without a WARRANT, they have NO RIGHT to monitor me. The OTHER problem is that they are doing MUCH MORE than the warrant allows, when they ever bother to get a warrant. If you've ever been server a warrant, I suguest you read it. It says WHAT and WHERE they are allowed to look. The cops CANNOT look in your trunk WITHOUT A WARRANT. PERIOD. The Bush regime would have ever cop searching every car, every home, every cell phone, and every credit card transaction of every american in the lame hope that the catch the evil 'terrist'.
Bush should go to jail. Cheney should go to jail. Everyone invovled should go to jail. Period.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | reply to woody7
I am with you 100% on that! |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to karlmarx
Only problem with your thesis is, foreign nationals use our system to communicate with each other in the planning of attacks or other items that are "against the law". I know of several unpublicized potential incidents that were thwarted by some of the monitoring that you do not like. If you can prevent non-US citizens and US Citizens of Convenience (yes, some folks become citizens of the US to support their organization/country), then I might agree with you.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
HFB1217
The Wizard
Premium,ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-26
Camelot
clubs: 
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :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. .
The law gives him 24 hours from the time of the actionable threat to get approval for the actions needed. That allows for the emanate threat to be dealt with and remain legal. Also what was done was not about foriegn acess it was done here on our shores to American citizens and totally unconsitutional.
--
****aka The WIZARD *** A Founding member of Seti BBR Team Starfire*** |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | reply to scantor
I'll second that. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :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. Good post. The whistleblower in this case should go to prison.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
dustman81
join:2002-05-28
Tallmadge, OH
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to RayW
The burden of proof is on the government to prove an illegal action was taken. The burden of proof is not on me to prove I'm innocent. You know, that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
I, as an US citizen, have a reasonable expectation to be secure in my persons and effects. The only time that can be violated legally is when presented with a valid search warrant signed by a judge and that search warrant only covers what is listed on the warrant and nothing else. This right is guaranteed by the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Will certain nefarious individuals use the system against us? Yes, there will always be those who subvert the system by using it to their advantage. But that has been happening since this country was founded and will never stop. But the system is place to protect citizens from their government.
I would rather die free than live in tyranny. |
|
