|
|
|
|
#1
12-17-2005, 12:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
Why is everything partisan with you? This is an American Crisis. You are so petty about every little thing. Ever think there could be something wrong with BOTH PARTIES? All you ever do is spew the same tired talking points.
-------------- Bluff this: Well it appears that the leaders of the Senate and House intel committees were informed of this program. This means the dems on the committees too. So this was not just some covert op hid from Congress. ------------------- It was hidden from the american people. Where exactly does the buck stop? Not with the president apparently. You cant pass the blame for this. He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." -------------- Bluff THis: I would also imagine that the administration has legally covered its butt so that a prima facie case of legitimate use can be made, in order that there exist no intent to break the law. ------------- Oh yeah, a guy he appointed said it was ok, big surprise. Remember the Halloween Simpsons where Burns' lawyer rationalized that it was ok for him to hunt humans. This is similar. 
|
|
#2
12-17-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [/ QUOTE ] Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
#3
12-17-2005, 01:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [/ QUOTE ] Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination. [/ QUOTE ] Then feel free to counter his argument.
|
|
#4
12-17-2005, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [/ QUOTE ] Constitutional interpretation must be really easy when you don't try to make arguments or consider anything counter to what you've already decided. This is not an open and shut case, by any stretch of the imagination. [/ QUOTE ] Then feel free to counter his argument. [/ QUOTE ] Which argument was that? Anyways, it's an intelligence service monitoring international communications of people suspected to be the agents of a foreign international terrorist organization. Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. I don't know what the current law on this issue is, but there are yes and no answers on closely related questions. A matter for debate. And if there's no warrant requirement, it boils down to whether or not individual wiretaps were reasonable. volokh.com has an interesting bit on the subject.
|
|
#5
12-17-2005, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. [/ QUOTE ] And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please. [ QUOTE ] I don't know what the current law on this issue is, [/ QUOTE ] That's obvious. [ QUOTE ] but there are yes and no answers on closely related questions. A matter for debate. [/ QUOTE ] Please. Lawyers representing clients can always create "matters for debate". Lawyers -- and officials -- sworn to uphold the constitution have a greater duty. John Yoo should be disbarred; he certainly has been disgraced. As for impeachment, it is certainly more warranted here than it was in Clinton's case. But it is still a bad idea.
|
|
#6
12-17-2005, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: I don't know what the current law on this issue is, That's obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Dick. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. [/ QUOTE ] And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please. [/ QUOTE ] US v. Bin Laden, holding that similar wiretaps (and physical searches) of US citizens involved in terror organizations were subject to the 4th amendment, but that there was an exception to the warrant requirement because it would hinder intelligence-gathering. Also, one of the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, who is presumably less of a dick than you, feels that the subject is really murky.
|
|
#7
12-17-2005, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Quote: I don't know what the current law on this issue is, That's obvious. [/ QUOTE ] Dick. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Very eloquent. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Imposing a warrant requirement would be a serious hindrance to the government in monitoring the activities of al-Qaeda. [/ QUOTE ] And where do you get this amazing bit of information from? "Serious hinderance"??? Please. [/ QUOTE ] US v. Bin Laden, holding that similar wiretaps (and physical searches) of US citizens involved in terror organizations were subject to the 4th amendment, but that there was an exception to the warrant requirement because it would hinder intelligence-gathering. Also, one of the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, who is presumably less of a dick than you, feels that the subject is really murky. [/ QUOTE ] hahahahahahahahahahahaha If you don't know the difference between searches on foreign soil, at issue in <u>bin Laden</u>, and domestic searches, do your dignity a favor and stop posting on this topic. And if former prosecutor, vocal supporter of the Patriot Act, and general defender of government investigatory power Orin Kerr admits that it is "murky", you can be sure that there are no good arguments on your side. Have a good holiday. I hope someone buys you some history books.
|
|
#8
12-17-2005, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
It was hidden from the american people. Where exactly does the buck stop? Not with the president apparently. You cant pass the blame for this. He knowingly violated the 4th amendment and he certainly violated the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." [/ QUOTE ] 1. Congressional oversight IS the American people on classified intelligence matters. Unless you think we should let all our enemies just know everything we are doing. 2. You can't quote the constitution about the president's not taking care to see laws are observed without specifying what laws you think were broken. So what laws were? 3. There is no crisis. Only a strawman crisis asserted by those who wish to bash the administration's handling of the war on terror.
|
|
#9
12-17-2005, 04:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
1. Congressional oversight IS the American people on classified intelligence matters. Unless you think we should let all our enemies just know everything we are doing. [/ QUOTE ] I've always had a lot of difficulties with this argument. Are you therefore saying that the American people have no right to know anything that there government is doing, because if they know, our enemies know?
|
|
#10
12-17-2005, 04:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
Not "anything" but "some things". What purpose could be served by the general public and thus our enemies knowing the details of our intelligence operations and practices or our intelligence/defense technologies? Although of course anything can be taken too far, and while certainly there is no need to keep classified what we know our enemies have already discovered, we would simply be hurting our interests and endangering the lives of our troops and intelligence operatives by allowing too much to be known. The Chinese in particular have been shown to have an elaborate spying network in the US targeted at our defense technology, so why should we hurt ourselves and make it easier for them just in the interest of the people knowing about such details?
And bi-partisan congressional oversight by the few congressmen/senators on defense and intelligence panels isn't just for show. Although any opposition party is generally going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense/intelligence establishment, they can't afford politically to just sign off on anything, and especially not something that is actually illegal.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
