|
|
#51
12-21-2005, 09:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too
Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.
|
|
#52
12-21-2005, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
[ QUOTE ]
Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] I have no doubt that this will continue to be your presumption regardless of whether any court or congress actually declares these searches to be illegal. When you believe that the law is whatever the president says it is, then by definition you believe that anything the president does is "legal". In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.
|
|
#53
12-21-2005, 09:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense. [/ QUOTE ] But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.
|
|
#54
12-21-2005, 09:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense. [/ QUOTE ] But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal. [/ QUOTE ] Except, of course, that the "similar things" were different in that Clinton supported legislation requiring court oversight and complied with the law, whereas Bush claims that he has the inherent authority to do as he pleases no matter what the law is.
|
|
#55
12-21-2005, 10:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him.
|
|
#56
12-21-2005, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
[ QUOTE ]
Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him. [/ QUOTE ] The Clinton administration was of the view that the president had the authority to authorize warrantless "national security" physical searches at a time where such searches were not covered by FISA. I question whether that was even correct; I suspect it was not. But tellingly, the Clinton administration supported putting these searches under the FISA umbrella and complied with FISA when it was done. Bush says that he has the authority to ignore FISA. I understand that you do not see these as different -- like I said, when you start with the mindset that the president has the unchecked power to override any law he likes, then by definition anything the president does is legal. That mindset, in my view, is profoundly un-American. For those of us that prefer the rule of law, the Clinton administration's approach is light years away from the cavalier "my word is law" attitude of the Bushies.
|
|
#57
12-21-2005, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost. And note that as I mentioned in another post the FISA process is longer due to preparation and docket scheduling time than just the 72 hour time frame in which they act once a motion is heard.
|
|
#58
12-21-2005, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
[ QUOTE ]
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and once the terrorists are able to pull off a successful operation, the same people that helped them not be detected by US authorities will blame Bush for it. They want to return to the Clinton idea of refusing to take custody of OBL, and then act shocked that OBL killed thousands of Americans.
|
|
#59
12-21-2005, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
Yes and same thing with Sen. Biden's statement that it was important to win in Iraq to prevent an Iranian style autocratic government, but that we had to do it in the next 6 months. The dems whole political strategy is based on damning the administration if they do and damning them if they don't while not presenting any policy alternatives other than NOT and artificial time constraints to problems that can't be fixed in 3 months.
|
|
#60
12-21-2005, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong
[ QUOTE ]
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost. [/ QUOTE ] And I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US, as well as all of our other ideological enemies, are heartened by your attitude that it is better to dispense with the checks and balances in the Constitution in favor of granting a president you support the unchecked power to disregard the law in the name of "national security" As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
