Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck, it's a duck." This isn't horseshoes, Doug. Close isn't good enough. It is not an express declaration of war, it authorizes a use of force, and therein lies the rub consitutionally. The Administration is treating it as such, and they're wrong.
Originally Posted By woody <<<<REPOST>>>> From CNN "The Situation Room" 12/21/05 >>Jeffery Toobin "In 1994, when Jamie Gorelick made that statement, physical searches were not covered by the FISA law. And that was changed in 1995."<< There's an elephant in the room that's still not acknowledged. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution already requires warrants. FISA may appear to close the gap, but Jamie Gorelick still claimed an authority to do warrantless physical searches as an inherent authority of Presidential power.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But FISA was expresslly about searches in places where the Constitution wasn't the legal authority - foreign embassies, foreign lands, etc. FISA never permitted warrantless searches of US citizens of in places where the Constitution was the basis of the law, Woody.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I'm not going to second guess my opinion. << This is the most honest thing I've every seen a right-winger post. Yup. No need to second guess (i.e., examine for faulty logic or fuzzy thinking) my opinion. Just hold the course.
Originally Posted By woody "But FISA was expresslly about searches in places where the Constitution wasn't the legal authority - foreign embassies, foreign lands, etc. FISA never permitted warrantless searches of US citizens of in places where the Constitution was the basis of the law, Woody." Therefore warrantless searches in foreign lands, etc. was never unConstitutional. So FISA restricted a Constitutional power. Unless they amend the Constitution, this debate will continue. This issue was never outside the Constitution, but perhaps outside of Congressional mandates.
Originally Posted By woody "This is the most honest thing I've every seen a right-winger post. Yup. No need to second guess (i.e., examine for faulty logic or fuzzy thinking) my opinion. Just hold the course." If you read context, you need to convince me of contrary opinion. If I don't believe what I write, I will appear equivocal, which is worse.
Originally Posted By woody Here's another outburst by Hillary Clinton. Key word: outsource outsource outsource outsource outsource outsource outsource <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/01/18/news/14290.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.dailyprincetonian.c om/archives/2006/01/18/news/14290.shtml</a> "We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton said in a speech before a capacity crowd in Richardson Auditorium. (See full text.) "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations." "Though never mentioning President Bush by name, Clinton strongly criticized the current administration's policy toward Iran. "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. --------- What's wrong with her? Did she change her mind with involving all foreign countries in negotiations after criticizing Bush for not listening to France?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"But the larger point is they may have been ruling on the authority to wiretap in foreign countries, which has long been established - what makes the recent case different is the domestic (or half domestic) component.">> <There is no difference. The foreign aspect was always acknowledged as the problem.> Of course there's a difference. You really don't know what you're talking about. <Funny how you never heard about these cases before. Try to argue on information and facts.> I have to laugh. It's always obvious when you've come across some right-wing websites that cite certain cases and make their points about them, and then you try to pretend that you were knowledgable about them yourself for more than 5 minutes. What's equally obvious is that you accept these views hook, line, and sinker, rather than doing something more challenging like reading an honest debate such as STPH posted in #133 where people of both sides of the issue argue cogently. <Your logical opinion is a rather bizarre way to make a point based on facts of law. Since you don't get my rhetorical question, I'll pass on it.> That doesn't even make sense. Sometimes it almost seems like there are big chunks of your writing missing or something - things just don't follow. <The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution already requires warrants. FISA may appear to close the gap, but Jamie Gorelick still claimed an authority to do warrantless physical searches as an inherent authority of Presidential power.> Gorelick can claim it - and Gonzalez can claim it now - but that's their job: claiming authority for their respective Presidents. But claiming it and actually HAVING it are two different things. And that is for the courts to decide. I'm typing this straight out of today's paper, so no link: "Robert Reinstein, dean of the law school at Temple University, said in an interview that he considers the eavesdropping program 'a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally' and he said there appeared to be a broad consensus among logal scholars and national security experts that the administration's legal arguments were weak." (snip) (referring to FISA): "When Congress speaks on questions that are domestic in nature, I really can't think of a situation where the president has successfully asserted a constitutional power to supersede that." (snip) "Mr. Reinstein predicted that the court would ultimately declare the program unconstitutional. 'This is domestic surveillance over American citizens for whom there is no evidence or proof that they are involved in any illegal activity, and it is in contravention of a statute of Congress specifically designed to prevent this.'" That last part is key. Again, my view is this: the administration is probably quite aware that this power grab will not stand up in court, and they're upset it was revealed when there are still 3 years left in Bush's term. It may actually get through the courts in that time frame. But what they'll do is try to delay any decision as long as possible, appeal any lower court decision, and hope it doesn't get to the Supreme Court till, oh, 2009. Then SCOTUS will say definitively that the president doesn't have that power, but by then Bush will be gone. Cynical, but possibly effective.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh More likely, if the case makes it to the Supreme Court (which might be difficult, because who has standing?), they would rule that the President does have this power. That would be consistant with previous rulings, including one from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, which said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Do you have a link to that full decision, Douglas? It would be valuable to see that in context.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I would like the libs on here ( STPH your one of them ), to tell us why you think Bush is using these wiretaps? What's in it for him at this point? The American people by a large margin get this and approve of him keeping us safe from the next terror attack. What is so hard about this for the left to understand? Bottom line.... civil rights mean nothing if your dead.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Bottom line.... civil rights mean nothing if your dead.<, At last...somethign close to honest. Now if only he'd come all the way and knock out that "if your dead" he'd be telling the whole truth. Not holding my breath, though.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you have a link to that full decision, Douglas?> I didn't, but it wasn't hard to google. <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html" target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/ doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Beau don't you see the danger in this? What happens when someone else because President? How about if the Hitlary Clinton becomes President? Do you trust her prying into your personal phone calls or info? I know I certainly don't. All Bush has to do is get court orderes for the wire taps within 24 hours and he won't do it for some bizare reason.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you trust her prying into your personal phone calls or info?> No, but she won't be, just as President Bush has not, unless Beaumandy has been receiving calls from known al queda members.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Actually she and her husband have confiscated FBI files on Monica Lewenski anf released them to the press. So she has done it before. Read Dick Morris.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh That doesn't mean she will be listening to Beaumandy's phone calls if she is elected.
Originally Posted By woody "I have to laugh. It's always obvious when you've come across some right-wing websites that cite certain cases and make their points about them, and then you try to pretend that you were knowledgable about them yourself for more than 5 minutes. What's equally obvious is that you accept these views hook, line, and sinker, rather than doing something more challenging like reading an honest debate such as STPH posted in #133 where people of both sides of the issue argue cogently." The fact that you knew nothing of the cases means you don't have all the facts. It's amazing how you can argue on logic and facts when you don't have all of the them. You obviously don't appreciate my point of view. You think conservatives are puppets. That's fine. I think most American agree there is nothing wrong with warrantless wiretapping when national security is involved. "That doesn't even make sense. Sometimes it almost seems like there are big chunks of your writing missing or something - things just don't follow." You just don't know anything. I get it. You didn't know all the facts. So you were missing something that I pointed out. In my rhetorical question, I guess I'm to deep for you. BTW, that was an original question. No "hook, line, and sinker" involved here. "Gorelick can claim it - and Gonzalez can claim it now - but that's their job: claiming authority for their respective Presidents. But claiming it and actually HAVING it are two different things. And that is for the courts to decide." The courts have already ruled. (referring to FISA): "When Congress speaks on questions that are domestic in nature, I really can't think of a situation where the president has successfully asserted a constitutional power to supersede that." If you're going to make it a pure domestic case, then we will have a real conflict. This is wiretapping that also involves a foreign component. "Do you have a link to that full decision, Douglas? It would be valuable to see that in context." TomS: You have yet to present links to your claim in Post 108.
Originally Posted By woody >>"Robert Reinstein, dean of the law school at Temple University, said in an interview that he considers the eavesdropping program 'a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally' and he said there appeared to be a broad consensus among logal scholars and national security experts that the administration's legal arguments were weak."<< And the broad majority of legal scholars are liberal Democrats, who voted for Gore and Kerry. I wonder how credible the "national security experts" are especially since they are willing to break the law in getting this information out. Other experts like Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, and all, have credibility problems. The political agenda is against Bush. This must be weighed.
