|
|
#11
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. 
|
|
#12
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.
|
|
#13
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.
|
|
#14
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?
|
|
#15
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.
|
|
#16
12-17-2005, 05:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
it'll NEVER happen - not in a thousand years....
UNLESS the House/Senate get taken over by Democrats in 2006 - but as long as Republicans are there, they won't crucify their president. - They'll publically disagree with him, and guys like Arlen Specter will shake their heads and say tsk. tsk... - and they'll distance themselves from him if they have re-election campaigns - but they won't feed on one another - waste of time discussing it until 2006 really - that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it and more - but I'm a realist - RB
|
|
#17
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.
|
|
#18
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.
|
|
#19
12-17-2005, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ QUOTE ]
When do we get to seriously start using the "I" word? [/ QUOTE ] When he commits "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This would be none of those in my opinion.
|
|
#20
12-17-2005, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If it turns out that Bush broke a law with domestic spying....
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
