 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to woody7
Re: hmmm.... I have stated in earlier post that what is done outside of the country is right by me, I hope that it is on the up and up, but....... the constitution is clear about that I believe, it is the spying of people in THIS COUNTRY that is illegal, you can do what ifs, slice it and dice it, it is still ILLEGAL....There is even a case to be made that "FISA" is Bull$hit, but I will give them a benefit of the doubt. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Over the years it seems to have survived quite well except under the latest administration. How many people have died, and then have to see it pissed on by the latest nimrod? I'm tired of hearing in this day and age it needs exceptions. Well boys and girls, change the $%^#ing thing, don't shit on it, and no I'm not a lefty liberal, even though I find nothing wrong with that. Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Why? |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7:slice it and dice it, it is still ILLEGAL.... It wasn't illegal. It was covered by USC 18 2511. The same law Congress used as a basis for so-called immunity.
2511 is a congressional recognition of the Executive power to conduct surveillance. It's possible that it was taken too far. But, Congress said it wasn't when they applied it to actions that occurred between 9/11/2001 and early 2007.
Mark |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Let's see where the boundries are. Are you OK with the police imprisoning your daughter/son because that child may be implicated in a conspiracy to commit murder investigation? Of course you wouldn't be informed why your kid was in prison.
The police would also open all of your mail and read it, between the postman and your mailbox; every day.
Likewise there would be the daily warrantless search of your home, vehicle, parents house, employer, anywhere else you might happen to spend time.
What would be helpful, is if you would offer which of these things is objectionable to you. I'm not really looking for some sort of microcosmic comparison between the above and aspects of the patriot act. I just want to know where you would draw the line.
I support the patriot act, at least I would if we had a declaration of war so a sunset could be attached to it. The reason for escaping warrants is to ease the development of wholesale monitoring of everyone's communications.
Everyone's communications, except for people of power; of course.
So I'll repeat the oft exampled statement. Whichever aspects of the patriot act you support, you can evidence that support by openly providing your corresponding personal information here.
That way, you can walk the walk, as well.
NV
--
I support Little League RollerBall. |
|
 mech1164I'll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to scantor
Re: hmmm.... said by scantor: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. Good lord
You actually believe the Cr@p you spew out. Fisa was set up for one thing and one thing only. A political power grab by the Legislative to hamstring the Executive office. Everyone cries the law is the law. BS on that. Don't believe me fine look at WWII. Thousands upon thousands of loyal Japanese American citizens rounded up and placed in relocation centers around the country. Oh, who was that that did this none other then Roosevelt. During times of conflict like war the President gets special powers to act in the defense of the country. Don't like it, TOUGH. Amend the constitution. Or better yet we could have had the right of Habeas corpus suspended. Happened during the civil war.
People here don't even know what's in their own Constitution. Yet they proclaim that whatever it is must be against the law.
It scares me to think that you could be that stupid or naive about this.
Then again from your own statement sadly its soo true. |
|
|
|
| reply to woody7
Regardless of whatever political party is in power, we need these whistleblowers in this country. This is what democracy is all about---TRANSPARENCY OF THOSE IN POWER!!!
It's funny but sometimes the media shows its hypocrisy arbitrarily. Especially noting the adulteries of JFK and Clinton.
The voters of this country have EVERY RIGHT to know what their government is doing behind closed doors. We pay their salaries and should be held accountable.
Anybody who makes this a partisan issue is a tool and very ignorant! |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 You have no idea what's legal or not. These are matters of great technicality and analysis that lawyers will argue about for a long time.
The interesting thing to me is that people get so sure of themselves when they actually have no information. They make stuff up and it seems it's because of their hatred of the Bush administration. This is of course fostered by the media and pundits with the same agenda. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:So let's say that President Obama receives actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. Um, setting up wiretaps isn't actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. The President just decided to brush aside the law period. "We mean well, so just do it."
Ok, sure. Sounds ok. So what happens if someone doesn't mean so well? We have rule of law for a reason.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by woody7:slice it and dice it, it is still ILLEGAL.... It wasn't illegal. It was covered by USC 18 2511. The same law Congress used as a basis for so-called immunity. 2511 is a congressional recognition of the Executive power to conduct surveillance. It's possible that it was taken too far. But, Congress said it wasn't when they applied it to actions that occurred between 9/11/2001 and early 2007. Mark As usual, you have once again regurgitated this half-assed theory knowing all the while it has absolutely NO MERIT. STFU, if all you're going to do is make shit up, and repeat it to the point of absurdity, hoping it may become accepted as truth. It will not!
RTF Newsweek Article, or the complaints filed by the EFF and/or the ACLU, or the interim rulings and statements of Judge Walker in the Klein case, or the testimony of the Bush administration officials who went to such extraordinary lengths to obtain the modifications to the FISA necessary to cover there asses for the ILLEGAL acts perpetrated by the Bush and his minions at Justice and the NSA. Hell, read Title 18 et seq; all the way through this time. Read the original FISA. Read about why it was established in the first place. And, lastly, shove 2511 up your @ss sideways... |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: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. Really? How do you feel about someone outing a covert CIA operative? Should they be shot, or given life in prison? What do you think? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to ross
said by ross:STFU, if all you're going to do is make shit up, Read the recent FISA amendment, the part about so-called amnesty. It refers to 2511 as the requirement that must have been met in order for "amnesty" to appy. Read former AG Gonzalez's piece which identifies a history of Congress respecting the Executive branch's power to conduct surveillance.
You may not like it, but denying reality doesn't change it.
Mark |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | It is not in the constitution, and I thought the only way to change the constitution was through the amendment process. Congress is chipping away at it, which does not make it correct and it needs to be challenged. Half the crap that "Bush/Cheney" have done is Unconstitutional. somewhere someone needs to gets some balls and do it. It seemed to work fine for over 200 years, why shit on it now? 
--
BlooMe |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to ross
said by ross:Really? How do you feel about someone outing a covert CIA operative? Should they be shot, or given life in prison? What do you think? Of course Richard Armitage should be prosecuted. Why he was allowed to get away with this we'll never know.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:You have no idea what's legal or not. These are matters of great technicality and analysis that lawyers will argue about for a long time. The interesting thing to me is that people get so sure of themselves when they actually have no information. They make stuff up and it seems it's because of their hatred of the Bush administration. This is of course fostered by the media and pundits with the same agenda. And yet you are so confident that this person is wrong...
pot kettle |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7:It is not in the constitution, and I thought the only way to change the constitution was through the amendment process. C'mon. You're not being serious. The devils are always in the details. If the Constitution were written for every possible application of government, it would be as large as the US Code and Federal Register combined.
That's why the Constitution delegates making laws to Congress. And, the Bill of Rights specifies limits on those laws. The boundary between the two is often undefined without a legal challenge. It often shifts in one direction or the other depending on contemporary circumstances. And, the boundary between the powers of the three branches of government is even less defined.
I can understand disagreeing whether something has gone too far, or not far enough. But, claiming that the Constitution draws absolute lines is irrational.
Mark |
|
| reply to mech1164
said by mech1164:People here don't even know what's in their own Constitution. Yet they proclaim that whatever it is must be against the law. Do please explain to me what is involved in the application of amendment 4 to the U.S. Government. A warrant is required to violate the privacy of a citizen. The warrant was not obtained, making the action illegal. |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to amigo_boy
That's the argument that the administration is using. Certain parts are sacrosanct. Separation of the 3 branches, not much wiggle room there (unless you are Cheney). I understand that it is a fluid document that works with changing times.Congress can and does make laws which is fine as long as they don't step on,impede,usurp, whatever the Constitution. And yes I was being serious. Probably quite a bit of what congress does is probably not too kosher as far as the Constitution is concerned. That is what has been the bulwark of our country, was our Constitution. That was what separated us from the rest of the world until recently.Peace.
--
BlooMe |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by woody7:Separation of the 3 branches, not much wiggle room there (unless you are Cheney). Sure there is. For example, the long-recognized Executive power to conduct surveillance. We've just been fortunate that things like this have been exercised judiciously (or, never come to light) and haven't led to a "constitutional crisis." Congress tread lightly when enacting 18 USC 2511, and later FISA laws. Gonzales documented how Congress was cautious not to exceed its powers, tying the Executive's hands.
said by woody7:Probably quite a bit of what congress does is probably not too kosher as far as the Constitution is concerned. That is what has been the bulwark of our country, was our Constitution. But, the Constitution must be interpreted in the context within which it came into existence: 12 years after the Revolution and all the libertarian rhetoric. After experiencing relatively libertarian government, and finding that it didn't work well. A generation who wanted larger, more-effective government. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary 12 years earlier.
Did they envision what it's turned into? No. But, neither did they envision cartridge loading weapons. Airplanes that can be used as weapoons. Or, all the technological advances that have improved our lives (commensurate with government growing larger and more effective). I don't know about you, but I like my sit-down toilet.
To me, that's the problem with all the whining by self-styled freedom fighters. They ascribe beliefs (or principles) to the founding generation that didn't exist. And, they ignore all the things that have improved our political power (instant worldwide travel, communication, mass propagation of ideas via the web). All they focus on is how these positives have also resulted in challenges to society, resulting in larger, more-effective government. While ignoring the fact that the founding generation purposefully chose larger, more-effective government for the same reasons modern society does.
Mark |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | "Sure there is. For example, the long-recognized Executive power to conduct surveillance. We've just been fortunate that things like this have been exercised judiciously (or, never come to light) and haven't led to a "constitutional crisis." Congress tread lightly when enacting 18 USC 2511, and later FISA laws. Gonzales documented how Congress was cautious not to exceed its powers, tying the Executive's hands."
I wouldn't quote "Gonzalez" in anything.And congress isn't tying the executives hands, its called balance of power. Yes you can conduct surveillance, just not on Americans in America. And if you read the papers, magazines,internet, nothing has been "exercised judiciously" by this administration. When the president takes the oath of office, if I am not mistaken, he states that he is to defend the Constitution, not shit on it.
--
BlooMe |
|
| reply to woody7
I feel terrible for Thomas Tamm. He is a REAL AMERICAN hero, along with Mark. However, he had to expect the FBI to make his life a living hell for dispelling this information. Still, if he is lucky, groups like the EFF, ACLU, etc will come to his rescue and provide financial assistance. One would also hope Newsweek would aid him, since he sourced their story. Good job Mr. Tamm and Mark. We need more people like you who see a wrong, and SPEAK OUT! |
|
