Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-17-2005, 02:04 PM
BCPVP BCPVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitewater, WI
Posts: 830
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This would be none of those in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or is on the recieving end of a knobjob from an intern with an eating disorder.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to give it the lefties on this. They've done a great job of turning what was impeachment of the president because of perjury into impeachment because of a bj...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-17-2005, 02:11 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[ QUOTE ]
I have to give it the lefties on this. They've done a great job of turning what was impeachment of the president because of perjury into impeachment because of a bj...

[/ QUOTE ]
So, now you're stalking me from thread to thread. Whatever.
Impeachment for perjury, huh. It seems to me that Ken Starr was supposed to be investigating Whitewater. Yet, his report is primarily about the president's affair with Monica, which Starr learned of through illegal recordings made by Linda Tripp, hardly the kind of stuff that is generally admissable in a court of law, but aparently is admissable in a witchhunt to oust a popular and effective president. Hey, at least he didn't empower the terrorists that we're fighting today like Ronnie and W's dad did. By the way, I love that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-17-2005, 02:20 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-17-2005, 04:08 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

I assume by "I" word you simply mean(unlike how other's have been taking it) investigation. We've seen just how tough it was to have the Deputy Cheif of Staff investigated.... The Comander in Cheif.....come on... untouchable. I seriously doubt there will ever be an investigation done by an independant council... at least not while he's in office.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-18-2005, 01:43 AM
bobman0330 bobman0330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know the difference between searches on foreign soil, at issue in bin Laden, and domestic searches, do your dignity a favor and stop posting on this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-18-2005, 10:08 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[ QUOTE ]
Go back under your bridge, troll. PoBoy asked for an argument suggesting that the wiretaps might be constitutional. I gave one. Obviously Bin Laden doesn't apply directly, but it's damn close, and in my two minutes of research I didn't find anything closer. So, at the very least, it demonstrates some of the possible arguments that could be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call me names all you want, but you are disgracing yourself with these types of ill-informed posts.

<u>Bin Laden</u> is "damn close" and supports your argument??? Read it again. The Court in <u>Bin Laden</u> held that there was no need for a warrant for a PHYSICAL search on foreign soil conducted primarily for intelligence purposes. Got that? A PHYSICAL search. As to the electronic sulvellience -- the wiretaps -- at issue in <u>Bin Laden</u>, the Court held that the exception to the warant requirement DID NOT APPLY. To be sure, the Court did not exclude the evidence because it gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and said that its reliance on a lawyer's mistaken opinion of the law showed that it was acting in "good faith". Ironically, the existence of <u>Bin Laden</u> itself would deprive the government of even that argument this time around. But the Court was perfectly clear that a warrant -- i.e., judicial oversight -- was required.

Put another way, <u>bin Laden</u> says pretty much the opposite of what you claim. And all the name calling in the world won't change that. The fact that PoBoy or anyone else asked you to make an argument doesn't give you a pass when you make as bad an argument as you have made here.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-18-2005, 11:10 AM
Kurn, son of Mogh Kurn, son of Mogh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cranston, RI
Posts: 4,011
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

I hate to sound like I'm defending Clinton, but he did not commit perjury. Perjury is defined as lying under oath on a subject germane to the investigation. In other words, if you're tesitying as a witness to a robbery and you're asked if you've ever cheated on your taxes and you lie, that's not perjury. They can't put you under oath and ask anything they want.

The judge in the Paula Jones case ultimately ruled that the Lewinsky line of questioning was not germane to the Jones case. Thus, by definition, while Bubba lied, he did not commit perjury.

That being said - to all the liberals who keep bringing up this subject - HE WAS ACQUITTED - what's your beef???
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-18-2005, 11:14 AM
BCPVP BCPVP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitewater, WI
Posts: 830
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

My mistake. I should have said lied under oath.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-18-2005, 11:50 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, apparently you're allowed to lead the country to war under false pretenses, no problem, but if you don't consider a [censored] to be sex, well hell, you might as well kill he guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example, did Congress authorize the [censored]?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-18-2005, 11:57 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....

[ QUOTE ]
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?


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly they do not. If you disagree with this, then you are arguing that we should publish to the world every name, profile, and whereabouts of our undercover CIA agents as well as our Secret Service security protocol and budget. You might as well remove the words "security clearance" and "classified information" from the word bank. Is that what you are arguing? Or will you simply admit that there are some things that the government must keep secret from the American people?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.