Originally Posted By woody The AUMF calls for the President to fight Al Queda at HOME and abroad. Does this mean we can only shoot and kill, but not wiretap to gain evidence? The Supreme Court via Haim vs Rumsfeld said the President can detain enemy combatants although AUMF did not explicitly say so. Is the Supreme Court wrong to extent AUMF to allow detentions?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Does this mean we can only shoot and kill, but not wiretap to gain evidence?>> Are you saying that we've killed people to gain evidence?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This situation is not unlike when the CEOs of the oil corporations were called in to testify before congress. They knew they were going to lie, so backroom deals were cut prior to the session.> You didn't prove the oil company CEO's lied before Congress, let alone that the cut deals before testifying. So the answer to my question is no, right? The Attorney General didn't refuse to take an oath.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<So the answer to my question is no, right? The Attorney General didn't refuse to take an oath.>> Half of the committee wanted him to. But the other half told him that he didn't need to. The point is that you'd think Gonzales would tell Sen. Specter that he wanted to take an oath anyway.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe What's the relevance of the oath? Less jail time if caught lying? Who cares as the whole country is watching his every move anyways.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer No one is saying that wiretaps shouldn't happen. Why doesn't the right get that?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>What's the relevance of the oath? Less jail time if caught lying?<< There's no chance for a perjury or obstruction of justice charge if the testimony before Congress isn't under oath. Seems to be their new strategy since the Valerie Wilson investigation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No one is saying that wiretaps shouldn't happen. Why doesn't the right get that?<< Some on the right do. But too many buy into the talk-radio spun version, which is that Democrats want to give terrorists a special bill of rights.
Originally Posted By JeffG Maybe STPH can clarify from a legal perspective whether the decision to not have Gonzales (and presumably any other witnesses) testify under oath protects him from perjury charges. Does perjury only apply if one lies under oath? What about obstruction of justice or contempt of Congress charges? Playing Devil's advocate here a bit, I suppose the preference to not have the testimony under oath could be more of a protection from nuisance charges rather than an attempt to ensure that the witnesses are able to lie. It could be an attempt to protect the witnesses from charges for situations of poor recollection or from irrelevant purgury traps, such as the one that President Clinton walked into. -Jeff
Originally Posted By cape cod joe To Tom post 26--You are right. My father, a yellow dog Democrat, just left the office, and we spoke at lenght about this subject and he surprising confirmed your post. He isn't against the wiretaps. He just wants everything up front like I think everyone does. It is so much easier to be NOT a Dem or Rep. as it must be tough to be labeled all the time.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Sorry, but the AG and the President have been twisting in the wind on this whole spying issue. They want it both ways and they've used both ends of the arguement to validate their stance. Why not go under oath and settle the speculation as to whether or not they are being truthful?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Gonzales said that Washington and Lincoln authorized electronic surveillance, too. <a href="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/gonzales-Washington-electronic.wmv" target="_blank">http://movies.crooksandliars.c om/gonzales-Washington-electronic.wmv</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No one is saying that wiretaps shouldn't happen. Why doesn't the right get that?> Because the left is asking for enough burdensome restrictions on the wiretaps to make them impractacle.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For example?> Have you ever filled out a FISA request for a wiretap?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Have you ever filled out a FISA request for a wiretap?>> Why bother, The president says he doesn't need them anyway.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The president says he doesn't need them anyway.> He does for somethings, just not for all. NRO's Andy McCarthy explained it pretty well the other day: "what the NSA program is designed to accomplish is different from what FISA is designed to accomplish. The NSA program is an early warning system to prevent against sudden attack from a foreign power conducting an attack. FISA is designed to set up a procedure for collecting intelligence against the domestic operatives of foreign powers. The fact that the program might not pass muster under FISA in the view of the FISA court judges would in no way mean the program is improper or justify its termination. A good comparison might be public safety searches. The state sets up check points to search randomly as people try to get on airplanes (to ensure they are not armed), or as they try to get on highways (to ensure they are not impaired). They do this without warrants. They could not proceed the same way if their purpose was to collect evidence for use in court – for that they’d need a warrant based on probable cause. But the purpose of the public safety search is not the same as the criminal search."
Originally Posted By bboisvert But those searches are done so with the consent of the person being searched. Big difference. When you buy a plane ticket, you are giving the TSA the permission to search you and your belongings. We've given up the right to sue them for 4th Amandment violations in the interest of public safety and thereby grant them permission to search us.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But those searches are done so with the consent of the person being searched.> Not always.
