Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder woody said: "You just don't know anything. I get it." Ahhh, the Anne Coulter attitude. "You're all stupid and I'm smarter than you because think the way I do." woody, isn't there another Brokeback Mountain thread you can get closed?
Originally Posted By woody In this post, it provides a summary the DOJ position. (Not a right wing site.) <a href="http://volokh.com/posts/1137733589.shtml" target="_blank">http://volokh.com/posts/113773 3589.shtml</a> (exerpts) First, the President has inherent constitutional authority to order foreign intelligence surveillance monitoring. The President's core job is to protect the country against foreign attack. Further, the monitoring doesn't violate FISA and also complies with the Fourth Amendment. FISA itself is on fragile constitutional ground, and in any event the AUMF is a "statute" that authorizes the monitoring. Finally, the monitoring program fits within the Fourth Amendment "special needs" exception. The rule here is reasonableness, which requires a balancing of governmental and privacy interests. The program is reasonable: the government's interest in thwarting a future attack is overwhelming, and the monitoring itself has been tailored and subject to considerable internal review.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I would like the libs on here ( STPH your one of them ), to tell us why you think Bush is using these wiretaps?" << I, for one, don't know the answer to that question. That is why I would like to see an independent investigation to answer it. I'm not willing to simply assume that it was necessary to bypass the mechanisms that already existed in the law in order to achieve the necessary level of security. I honestly have a hard time understanding why anyone would be so certain that the administration is justified that they wouldn't even want the questions asked. -Jeff
Originally Posted By gadzuux Blind faith and trust. Though why anyone would trust bush is beyond me. >> And the broad majority of legal scholars are liberal Democrats, who voted for Gore and Kerry. << Ah - a conspiracy theory. Bush's abuses of power can now be laid at the feet of the liberals. Got it.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I honestly have a hard time understanding why anyone would be so certain that the administration is justified that they wouldn't even want the questions asked.>> Two reasons: 1) The wiretap program has been looked at by many lawyers and was brought to the attention of the intellegence commitee. It's legal. Just listen to the AG Gonzalez, he makes sense. 2) There is NOTHING for Bush to gain by doing this program except stopping terror attacks on you and me. To say he is doing it for any other reason is pure hysteria and moonbat barking.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<1) The wiretap program has been looked at by many lawyers and was brought to the attention of the intellegence commitee. It's legal. Just listen to the AG Gonzalez, he makes sense.>> It isn't legal. Ask any judge in the country. For it to be legal the Executive branch is reponcible for getting a "search warrant" within 24 hours. Something they refuse to do. <<2) There is NOTHING for Bush to gain by doing this program except stopping terror attacks on you and me. To say he is doing it for any other reason is pure hysteria and moonbat barking.>> Since when did mentioning our loss of due process and individual liberty become moonbat barking? To quote Star Wars III, "So that is how liberty ends in a trumphant cheer".
Originally Posted By Beaumandy The program is not illegal Ken. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. Curious though.. do you want it stopped? <<Since when did mentioning our loss of due process and individual liberty become moonbat barking?>> What are you losing by this program being in operation? Can you give me a specific way it affects your life in a negative way?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Curious though.. do you want it stopped?>> I want to see the President and AG abide by the law that they took an oath to uphold. <<What are you losing by this program being in operation? Can you give me a specific way it affects your life in a negative way?>> You mean like setting a dangerous presidence for when someone not as honest or ethical takes the Presidency.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I want to see the President and AG abide by the law that they took an oath to uphold.>> The president took an oath to protect the country and to follow the constitution. The 4th ammendment gives him the leeway he needs to get the job done. <<You mean like setting a dangerous presidence for when someone not as honest or ethical takes the Presidency.>> I don't worry about that. I do worry about Akbar and Muammad leveling Atlanta and all the Waffle Houses in the greater Atlanta area.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Look if it were a matter of getting a little nookie off the intern or ruining political opposites I be pissed. Dirty bombs, biological or gas attacks planes into buildings and such I say listen in. This is all nostalgic paranoia for the sixties and the man taking me down for my stash of Panama red and ludes. Next thing you know Country Joe will come out of retirement with a little ditty about Iraq. Goes a little something like this (could I get a bouncy C?) And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Iraqietnam; Oh and by the way I support the troops!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"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.> I'm quite confident that I have at least as many facts as you on this matter, these two cases that you knew of for 5 minutes more than me notwithstanding. Particularly since you do not seem to understand either what the constitution says or what the separation of powers means. <You obviously don't appreciate my point of view. You think conservatives are puppets. That's fine.> That's not true. There are conservatives, both here and that I know in my personal life that argue cogently and that I respect. <I think most American agree there is nothing wrong with warrantless wiretapping when national security is involved.> It depends how the question is put to them. Several of the polls have found a majority of Americans disturbed by what's going on, others have found a majority okay with it. So far, what's mattered most is how the question has been framed. And part of the problem is we really don't know the whole story about what HAS been going on (and that goes for all of us). I don't think any of has a problem with wiretaps in general for national security. The problem is in the refusal to seek warrants that are so easily given by FISA. Why bypass that? Are they tapping people who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda and thus don't want to go to a court? How can we know? How can we know a future president (perhaps a Democrat) won't do the same thing? If the target is legit, get a warrant. <<"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.> Ah, yes. As someone said, the Coulter attack. Weak. <You didn't know all the facts. So you were missing something that I pointed out.> No, this was way past that point. What I was missing was a coherent argument from you. <In my rhetorical question, I guess I'm to deep for you.> Deep as a kiddie pool. <BTW, that was an original question. No "hook, line, and sinker" involved here.> No, the hook line and sinker was earlier in the post too. <<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.> Not on this they haven't. It hasn't even reached them yet. <<(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.> But it is not solely foreign either. That is why this is such an open question, in case you didn't realize. If this was purely foreign, no one would have a problem. If it was purely domestic, Bush wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The hybrid nature of these cases makes it the open question.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I, for one, don't know the answer to that question. That is why I would like to see an independent investigation to answer it. I'm not willing to simply assume that it was necessary to bypass the mechanisms that already existed in the law in order to achieve the necessary level of security. I honestly have a hard time understanding why anyone would be so certain that the administration is justified that they wouldn't even want the questions asked. -Jeff> Jeff, that is very well stated. Best post on this thread in days.
Originally Posted By woody "I'm quite confident that I have at least as many facts as you on this matter, these two cases that you knew of for 5 minutes more than me notwithstanding. Particularly since you do not seem to understand either what the constitution says or what the separation of powers means." I knew more than 5 minutes. You doubted me before you even had a leg to stand on. Thus, your confidence in your knowledge should ALWAYS be in doubt. "No, the hook line and sinker was earlier in the post too." You really don't get it. I wrote my opinions as I go along. You read it as talking points reflexively. This is an amazing admission, and you don't help to resolve the debate by calling me "Coulter" (who I respect). To the substance.... "Not on this they haven't. It hasn't even reached them yet." The Supreme Court have already ruled on the issue. They won't again. <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf" target="_blank">http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/ docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf</a> "History conclusively demonstrates that warrantless communications intelligence targeted at the enemy in time of armed conflict is a traditional and fundamental incident of the use of military force authorized by the AUMF. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the AUMF in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), confirms that Congress in the AUMF gave its express approval to the military conflict against al Qaeda and its allies and thereby to the President’s use of all traditional and accepted incidents of force in this current military conflict—including warrantless electronic surveillance to intercept enemy communications both at home and abroad. This understanding of the AUMF demonstrates Congress’s support for the President’s authority to protect the Nation and, at the same time, adheres to Justice O’Connor’s admonition that “a state of war is not a blank check for the President,†Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 536 (plurality opinion), particularly in view of the narrow scope of the NSA activities."
Originally Posted By woody Back to my rhetorical question that no one is able to understand... "I was asking a rhetorical question when the President asserts a power that cannot be granted by the Legislature. And sometimes I think the Supreme Court cannot makes a ruling where it has no right to do so as in the case where I mentioned." I found the answer myself. (below) ----------- <a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_01_15-2006_01_21.shtml#1137733589" target="_blank">http://volokh.com/archives/arc hive_2006_01_15-2006_01_21.shtml#1137733589</a> "Further, the monitoring doesn't violate FISA and also complies with the Fourth Amendment. FISA itself is on fragile constitutional ground, and in any event the AUMF is a "statute" that authorizes the monitoring. Further, the so-called exclusivity provision of the wiretap act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), doesn't trump this commonsense result. The legislative history of the section was focused on the notion of Congressional authorization, which the AUMF provided, and a contrary reading would create serious constitutional questions. The canon of constitutional avoidance requires construing the statutes to allow this sort of surveillance: the constitutionality of a statutory prohibition on such monitoring presents very difficult questions, as the NSA activities lie at the core of the Commander in Chief power. There are few guideposts here, and courts should construe the statute in a way to avoid having to reach these difficult constitutional questions. FISA is unconstitutional to the extent it directly interferes with the President's constitutional duty, and it would be prudent to construe the statute in a way that avoids these constitutional questions." -------- Definition of "canon of constitutional avoidance" <a href="http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QVIWPld8BV4J:www.clla.org/newswire/new_code_docs/CLLA-canons-of-statutory-construction.pdf+constitutional+avoidance+definition&hl=en" target="_blank">http://64.233.167.104/search?q =cache:QVIWPld8BV4J:www.clla.org/newswire/new_code_docs/CLLA-canons-of-statutory-construction.pdf+constitutional+avoidance+definition&hl=en</a> "Where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, courts may construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress. This canon of statutory construction, known as “constitutional avoidance,†is grounded in respect for Congress, which courts assume legislate in the light of constitutional limitations." ------------- Therefore, the courts may resolve the Constitutional issues between the Executive and Legislative branches by resolving the statue so there's no conflict rather than interfere with the President's inherent authority. It's quite easy to see that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The problem is in the refusal to seek warrants that are so easily given by FISA. Why bypass that?> Because the warrants aren't so easily given by FISA. Here's an editorial that explains some of the problems by someone who has knowledge of them - <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007848" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110007848</a>
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Don't you think that article is just a wee bit slanted Doug? What does she have against people with a "career"?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Don't you think that article is just a wee bit slanted Doug?> Every article is influenced by the biases of its author, but I have no reason to doubt her honesty. <What does she have against people with a "career"?> I don't see anything in the article that would make one think that she does.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I don't see anything in the article that would make one think that she does." Sure you do. Look how many times she uses the word "career" as an adjective. But you knew that.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<"Where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, courts may construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress. This canon of statutory construction, known as “constitutional avoidance,†is grounded in respect for Congress, which courts assume legislate in the light of constitutional limitations.">> Is this called "Judicial Activism" or "Legislating from the bench"? I thought we were supposed to believe that was bad. I'm so confused.
