The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

The other day in the spying thread, one of the ditto-heads repeated the fox news spin that democratic legislators knew about the domestic spying program. Its getting to the point now, where I can not only smell the lies, but I can taste them too. They taste like [censored].
This morning, I listened to fox and friends like I always do and they kept repeating that the dems knew about it.

Bob Graham, the former chair of the intel committee,
[ QUOTE ]
said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

[/ QUOTE ]

The re-spin on this one is that he 'misremembered the meeting'. Good one. Too bad nobody takes as detailed notes as he does.

It boils down to the fact that the Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld have nothing but contempt for the consitiution and will do everything in their power to weaken it. They want to consolidate all the power in the executive branch, cutting off any oversight from other branches.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
This morning, I listened to fox and friends like I always do and they kept repeating that the dems knew about it

[/ QUOTE ]

It really doesn't matter if they knew about it. The Senate doesn't give legal advise to the President.

Here is the main question that I have.

Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants. The only way to stop the executive branch from a specific course of action is for congress to become organized and pass a bill to stop the executive branch.

I am grateful for such a committed leader in this trying time. The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil? That is the only real issue at stake during wartime.

In a time of war I hope the executive branch wiretaps anyone they perceive to be a threat to national security. A failure to do this would be negligent.

I am not sure but I do think it was an executive decision in WWII to round up all the Japanese into camps. That was accomplished by a democratic president.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the main question that I have.

Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he did he must have been overjoyed at the fact that Kerry's campaign was so poorly run and incompetent in crafting a winning message. But then again, that was obvious to all so there was no need to spy. There's your answer.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the main question that I have.

Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he did he must have been overjoyed at the fact that Kerry's campaign was so poorly run and incompetent in crafting a winning message. But then again, that was obvious to all so there was no need to spy. There's your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask if there was a need! I'm asking if he did!

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

Sorry, it's classified.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, it's classified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care if it does stay classified. Do you have a problem if the Senate looks into this issue?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

I have no problem if they do so in closed session so as not to expose our intelligence gathering capabilities. But I do have a problem if they seek to prevent what the president has authorized since it would hamper our ability to track those foreigners in American who seek to commit or aid terroristic acts, which has of course been shown to happen.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

That was accomplished by a Democratic president.

FYP.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem if they do so in closed session so as not to expose our intelligence gathering capabilities. But I do have a problem if they seek to prevent what the president has authorized since it would hamper our ability to track those foreigners in American who seek to commit or aid terroristic acts, which has of course been shown to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with the wire tapping.

There is a system in place where a wire tap can be placed and within 72 hours they would have to get this approved by a secret court. These aren't exact numbers but I'v heard there have been something like 12000 wire taps since 1980 and the court has turned down like 9.

Here is where my problem is. Why did the president order wiretaps then never take it in front of the secret court? Is there something to hide?

Would the court have disallow these wire taps? Were they spying on foes of the Bush admin? ect. ect.

Did Bush go to far this time?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that this is the reason that they did this? At least nothing that I'v read or heard would lead me to believe this. This is a weak taking point.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is an interesting question.


q/q

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

It is my understanding that the approval from the special FISA court can be gotten after the fact. That is, that they can do what they want for 72 hours and get approval thereafter for what they did. And out of about 19,000 requests for approval, only five had been denied since the law was passed.

The law was passed with this in mind. Namely that the situations involving terrorism or other emergencies would require quick action that wouldn't necessarily come from regular courts.

If the Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, had felt that FISA was inhibiting fighting the war on terrorism, they could have gone to Congress with a proposal to amend the law. Who in Congress would have opposed this?

The most obvious explanation for the failure to get approval from the FISA court is that is might not have been given. For the president to say that he didn't have to go to the court because of the Constitution or the congressional authorization for the use of force against Afghanistan is quite a stretch.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more right wing lies and propaganda in depth on this issue, you will be fed the canard that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That pretends that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Or, just read anyfox.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

Excerpt below from today's WSJ op-ed page gives the president's legal authority for warrantless wiretaps.

Thank You For Wiretapping

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
The other day in the spying thread, one of the ditto-heads repeated the fox news spin that democratic legislators knew about the domestic spying program.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part of this debacle is that some people actually believe that only Republicans are capable of this stuff. Lyndon Johnson gave J. Edgar Hoover the Distinguished Achievement Award. Do you think it was for his work organizing church bake sales??

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants. The only way to stop the executive branch from a specific course of action is for congress to become organized and pass a bill to stop the executive branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I don't remember a Congressional declaration of war. And, although I'm pretty young and unlearned when it comes to many things, I'm pretty sure the executive branch can't do anything it wants.

[ QUOTE ]
I am grateful for such a committed leader in this trying time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, spare us. For the vast majority of people, the time isn't 'trying.' Bush could've asked for some shared sacrifice a few years back, but wanted us to keep on mallratting and guzzling gas. What exactly is he committed to, anyway? Getting the WMDs? Catching bin Laden?

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil? That is the only real issue at stake during wartime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can almost hear Fox News in the background of this post. So we invaded Iraq to fight the terrorists on foreign soil? Also, I don't really discriminate between American lives on U.S. soil and on Iraqi soil. Actually, I don't discriminate lives based on any geography.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure but I do think it was an executive decision in WWII to round up all the Japanese into camps. That was accomplished by a democratic president.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? This is just an extension of the "but, but, but Clinton..." argument whenever a conservative is attacked. These little potshots don't do much for your image, and definitely nothing for your argument. If I dig up some crazy [censored] that Nixon did can I win the argument? Or do I have to go further into the past? You know Lincoln, the most famous and lauded Republican, suspended habeus corpus. Do I win now?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you and all the members of the Republican party really realize how wrong this is. Would this include invalidating the Second Amendment by rounding up all the personal firearms in the country, so no terrorists here could ship them to terrorists over there? Or use them in a shopping mall at Christmastime? Would THAT fall under executive priviledge??

We've already seen this adminstration fight for the right to seize ANY American citizen and hold them, without charges and without legal counsel, for suspicion of terrorist activities. In Jose Padilla's case for THREE YEARS.

Each and EVERY President as part of their oath of office has sworn to "Defend and UPHOLD the Constitution of the United States". Discarding the bill of rights because it is inconvienent (or just a god damn piece of paper) does not qualify as fulfilling this oath.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

Thanks for the link. It's going to take a lot to analyze the editorial. A whole shovelful.

"America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility."

Really? Where does the Journal see that in the Constitution? I can't imagine the framers didn't recognize that 535 "talking heads" couldn't have grave responsibilities because they clearly wanted a balanced government where congress made the laws and the executive executed them. And, of course, there were not 535 members of congress in 1789.

"FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed."

The president and the attorney-general are claiming that the Constitution grants them the right to wiretap whenever they feel like if they say national security is involved. One wonders where in the Constitution they see this. The vice president weighed in on this today. More on that below.

"the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties"

Where is this evidence?

"Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear."

The fact that Mr. Gonzalez approved the wiretaps is no consolation to me. He believes in an apparently unlimited presidential prerogative to do whatever the president wants; if the president does it, it's legal. And there is no smear as the Journal insinuates. I heard President Bush's most prominent critic on this issue, Senator Feingold, on Jim Lehrer's show last night and he said nothing of the sort.

"All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy."

There is no time constaint whatesoever. The president can wiretap and then has 72 hours to get ex post facto approval from the FISA court. That approval has been granted in all but five of the thousands of times the government has gone to the court. In fact, critics of the court have called it the Rubber-Stamp Court. There is no time constraint and no problem in getting court approval.

"Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans."

In a word, [censored]. Too many in the administration have forgotten that the executive is only one branch of government and that we have a free society only so long as all three branches follow the laws.

That brings us to Vice President Cheney's comments today:

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them."

What is he talking about? Does he really think the executive authority has been attenuated?

"If there's a backlash pending," because of reports of National Security Agency surveillance of calls originating within the United States, he said, "I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow that we shouldn't take these steps to defend the country."

Note that language. Those who disagree with the wiretaps or other things ("these steps") are saying that we shouldn't defend the country. This has been a consistent argument of the administration, questioning the patriotism of those who take issue with the administration's tactics.

"Either we're serious about fighting the war on terror or we're not," the vice president said. "The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat."

Apparently then, by implication, those who disagree with the administration are not serious about the war on terror and don't believe there is a hell of a threat.

This is simply shameful. It's a throwback to the redbaiting of the McCarthy era when politicians at the same point in the political spectrum as Mr. Cheney constantly smeared those who disagreed with them with the accusation of being "soft" on Communism.

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

Watergate and Vietnam showed us that we had an imperial presidency that was out of control. Pathological liars, most prominents, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon shamed America, one quitting before he could be chased out of town and the other resigning in the wake of illegal actions. It was Nixon who said, "If the president does it, it's legal." This is apparently the doctrine the administration believes in, since both the vice president and the attorney general have said as much this week.

Cheney said that "many people believe" the War Powers Act, enhancing the power of Congress to share in executive branch decision-making on war, is unconstitutional and said "it will be tested at some point. I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president."

I await further explication from the vice president. According to the constitution, the congress has the war-making power.

"But I do believe that especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats of we face - and this is true during the Cold War as well as I think is true now - the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," the vice president said.

His constitution powers "unimpaired"? Mr. Cheney should read the constitution sometime.

"You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," Cheney said. "I think there's a temptation for people to sit around and say, 'Well, gee that was just a one-off affair, they didn't really mean it.'"

What people have been sitting around saying this? (According to the 9/11 commission, it's the Bush administration, who got a terrible report card from the commissioners recently.) Who has said, "they didn't really mean it?" Again, it's a smear on opponents insinutating that either "you're for us or you're against us."

"The bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressively defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," he said.

The criticism is not that the administration is not defending the nation but that it might have broken laws in doing so.

The administration has brought back a hubris and arrogance, and a disdain for respect for the law that we haven't seen since the worst days of Vietnam and Watergate. And, according to Mr. Cheney, he thinks it should, because the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate was an unwarranted diminution of presidential power.

The comparison of Iraq with the disaster of Vietnam becomes more apt every day.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

If Bill Clinton had done the exact same things as Bush is doing, to those on both the right and the left, would your opinion change as to whether it was appropriate?

Consider: The PATRIOT Act, the Padilla case (and similar actions), the wiretapping issues.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

Thanks for the analysis andy, good stuff.

As for Bluffs: "Excerpt below from today's WSJ op-ed page gives the president's legal authority for warrantless wiretaps."

LoL..The WSJ's op-ed page supercedes the constitution? Do op-eds by NAMBLA proponents give me the legal authority to you know what? not that I want that, as I am not the member of the clergy.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

LBJ was supposedly the author of that great line about Hoover. When asked whey he didn't fire him Johnson said, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

andy, I want to commend you for your humility in admitting that it does indeed look like previous court decisions validate the legal opinion of the Attorney General and the legality of the president's actions. Very big of you.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants. The only way to stop the executive branch from a specific course of action is for congress to become organized and pass a bill to stop the executive branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting theory. Where exactly is this in the Constitution? Hint: Nowhere.

We are not legally at war. No declaration of war has been pawwd by Congress since WWII.

Bush is applying Hermann Goering's theories now.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

Touche! Very good.

I would have to read the court decisions (and know more about exactly what the wiretaps involved) to see if the Journal's take on them is correct. It is interesting that neither Gonzalez nor the president mentioned those court decisions as validating their argument. Both mentioned the 2001 authorization to use force and the Constitution. Perhaps they meant the court decisions when they said the Constitution.

Out of curiosity, do you have any fears about an imperial presidency or abuse of power in light of President Bush's, Vice President Cheney's, and Attorney General Gonzalez's comments of the past fews days?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that the approval from the special FISA court can be gotten after the fact. That is, that they can do what they want for 72 hours and get approval thereafter for what they did. And out of about 19,000 requests for approval, only five had been denied since the law was passed.

The law was passed with this in mind. Namely that the situations involving terrorism or other emergencies would require quick action that wouldn't necessarily come from regular courts.

If the Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, had felt that FISA was inhibiting fighting the war on terrorism, they could have gone to Congress with a proposal to amend the law. Who in Congress would have opposed this?

The most obvious explanation for the failure to get approval from the FISA court is that is might not have been given. For the president to say that he didn't have to go to the court because of the Constitution or the congressional authorization for the use of force against Afghanistan is quite a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go ahead and agree completely with andy.

The FISA court is set up for emergency situations. You can set up a tap for 72 prior to getting approval. In addition, you can get the tap extended in 15 day increments to give approval time.

It is very disingenuous to state that you "don't have time" to get approval.

I think he can argue that he was given authorization through the 9/11 act, but that is a REAL stretch and the reason that we have the judiciary.

They have the job of sorting it out. I am very leery of this whole thing. It is a very scary America if this becomes OK.

-Gryph

PS: Still wouldn't have voted for Kerry...

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

Bush in 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, do you have any fears about an imperial presidency or abuse of power in light of President Bush's, Vice President Cheney's, and Attorney General Gonzalez's comments of the past fews days?

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

I am not too troubled by a stronger presidency in general because congress, though the sovereign in our 3 branches, is too fragmented to lead in times of crisis. Another reason is that just as the Federalist Papers writers predicted two centuries ago, the biggest threat to the separation of powers can come from the judiciary, and I believe that has happened in the past 30 years and so a counterweight is needed.

And the fact of the matter is that any president who seeks to assert more privileges and power can only do so with the tacit acquiesence of the american people. If the democrats had any real cohesive agenda other than saying NOT to the repubs without offerring alternatives, then even the fact that they are currently in the minority in both houses would keep the president from enjoying as much support of the people as he does for his actions.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you 100 percent sure that the government is just spying on Terrorists?

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]

The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

would you like to buy my magic rock that keeps tigers away?

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

It is a shame that at a time of war, we cannot be supportive of our Commander in Chief. At a time when Islamic terrorists want nothing more than to kill every last one of us I personally see nothing wrong with this. Do you know of a single instance where an inoccent person has suffered as an example? In this war against muslim extremists he is only acting to uphold the oath he took on the day he was sworn in as President to protect his fellow Americans. There is federal case law supporting what he has done. It is perfectly legal.

The truth of the matter is that if it were a liberal president, those of you that are complaining would be standing by this right now. Hell, we see how ineffective President Clinton was at fighting terrorism but all you lib's can do is put down the president that IS doing something about it.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the wiretaps are legal or not. There is a process in place to legally place the wiretaps and the President is delibrately ignoring it and the law.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bush in 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was able to find this quote through a google search, including on the White House webpage. Despite disagreeing with many of Bush's policies and his conception of how to deal with terrorism, I have tried very hard not to overstate his flaws and defects. I have not been in a rush to call him a liar.

But this seems to me a clear indication that he has lied to the American people as to what the government is doing. This, to me, is a very serious breach of trust. I do believe that Mr. Bush is doing what he thinks is best for America, but I find it very troubling that he believes that he is justified in lying directly to the American people. I already do not like how much this administration withholds information from American citizens and makes it very difficult to be well-informed about what is happening in our government, but the outright dishonesty here is at another level entirely.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

it is mid-term election time folks. the "out of power party" does (and has done this) for decades. it is politics...not ethics or anything else adnirable. it is pure bull#@it

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

during the vietnam era, i was aligned (and jailed) with the far-left. i thought i was correct and ethical etc. the real world is survival of the fittest. the islamic people know this, and the islamic facists also know this. they cannot win the war but they can win the hearts and minds of amerikan fools which can turn the tide. compare facist germany with facisit islam, not vietnam. i spent time in the middle east. most of the middle eastern people like us and respect us for our might and our ethics. the news media want only to put in front of a sponsor. how do they do it? you be thejudge. it is not about bush vs. kerry. i can't decide who is sleezer. ed kennedy...it does not get sleezer than him (leaves a girl to drown while he calls his lawyer for an alabi). wake up boys and girls. it's your amerika.

Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter
 

[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

I am not too troubled by a stronger presidency in general because congress, though the sovereign in our 3 branches, is too fragmented to lead in times of crisis. Another reason is that just as the Federalist Papers writers predicted two centuries ago, the biggest threat to the separation of powers can come from the judiciary, and I believe that has happened in the past 30 years and so a counterweight is needed.

And the fact of the matter is that any president who seeks to assert more privileges and power can only do so with the tacit acquiesence of the american people. If the democrats had any real cohesive agenda other than saying NOT to the repubs without offerring alternatives, then even the fact that they are currently in the minority in both houses would keep the president from enjoying as much support of the people as he does for his actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the defense of the Liberties even when you see apparent justification for the taking of the liberties that gives the lover of freedom great pause.

Defending the liberties when you oppose the reasons for the takings is easy.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Bill Clinton had done the exact same things as Bush is doing, to those on both the right and the left, would your opinion change as to whether it was appropriate?

Consider: The PATRIOT Act, the Padilla case (and similar actions), the wiretapping issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. If Clinton had done this I would have thought the same thing -- a dangerous, unprecedented power grab that threatens the foundation of our nation.

Re: The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the wiretaps are legal or not. There is a process in place to legally place the wiretaps and the President is delibrately ignoring it and the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That process must not hamper or prevent operational necessities which occasionally require speedy action. The process is not > than our safety from terrorists when those operational necessities do not involve impinging on liberties on a large scale.