Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
horseshit, ace.
if you do even the slightest bit of research on this program--and i mean ANY research--you will find a number of problems that, like it or not, are real: to wit
1. it really is not within any accepted definition of executive power that a president (well, vice-president) can decide that a law he does not like can be ignored. congress did not repeal the church act and it is therefore binding. that this administration does not like the law does not mean it is not bound by it. the administration is not sovereign, it is not the Source of Law which cannot be Bound by Law because it is the Source--so cheney's carl schmitt fantasies reach their limit (look up carl schmitt sometime)
|
You say it is "horse shit" and take some simplistic black and white position on executive power. I am not sure it is worth going off topic to show how executive and congressional power has been at odds with each other over the years. I will simply say this particular issue needs to be challenged in court to clearly define any abuse by the Executive branch of government. Congress does not want to challenge the Executive branch on this issue, other than to make sound bites for the evening news, for some reason. We both know why, don't we?
Quote:
|
2. given that the law has not been repealed and is therefore binding, all acts which have been authorized by way of signing orders and the like are violations. the are all actionable.
|
Show me where I said any violations of this or any law where or are not actionable?
Quote:
|
but if there were such legal cases that went to trial, the outcome would not be given in advance simply because there is a raison d'etat argument that the administration DOES have available to it which has as its base teh actions of a grovelling republican-controlled congress.
|
Don't understand your point here.
Quote:
|
so while it is not obvious how such a process would go, it IS nonetheless clear that what is happening in this situation is real--and not simply "political grandstanding"--by which i take it you mean "initiated by parties which are not republican" as a synonym for "without merit" simply because if a is true then b is as well and even saying the two statements one after the other is almost a tautology.
|
I know how I would see it, I know how you would see it. I suggest that the American people would see it as I do.
In your comments you have not given any reason why Congress has not taken decisive action - assuming Bush blatantly violated the law and abused his executive power to the degree suggested by many on the left.
Quote:
|
or so it appears from your posts, ace: hell, i dont even know why you bother to type them. they seem implied--you could just post an empty box and everyone could fill in the phrase "x is political grandstanding" if the situation involves parties who are not the bush administration and "y was entirely justified" if the situation involves the bush administration.
|
There is a theme to my posts, this is true. I am consistently baffled by the left's hatred of Bush, yet their unwillingness to take him on directly. All we get from the left are "pot shots" for political reasons. When will they take a stand on principle? When will they find an issue against Bush that they all can get all get behind? Bush has done everything wrong according the the Bush haters. Host even think Bush is guilty of war crimes. Many believe he lied to get us into war for his "oil buddies". Some believe he has abused power to a degree not matched by any President in our history. Yet, no action. This wire tap issue was addressed months ago, Bush modified the program, with Congressional input. Hell, he even had Congressional input when he was breaking the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I could be a victim and not ever know it simply because of my opposition to the president. I have a funny feeling host and others could be, too. So how do you suggest we come forward and say we've been spied on when we don't know? The list should be made public, then impeachment will be certain.
|
It is simple. How have you been harmed? If bad things have happened to you, make the assumption that it was because of Bush's illegal domestic spying. Then show some proximate cause between the bad things and the federal government. Then talk to the ACLU, and you are off to the races. Please don't forget me, a 5% consulting fee would be nice.
If there is an illegal domestic spy program targeting purely innocent US citizens, I doubt Bush is sitting in the oval office listening to the phone calls of 300 million people every day. So there has to be one hell of a big team of federal employees somewhere (perhaps it has been outsourced to India) listening to what you are ordering on your pizza. Then there would have to be another large group of people who take the information and then sit around and decide how to make your life miserable. So, out of either of those groups, there has to be at least one who would want to take Bush down. Even the Mafia had people who would "rat" on their Mafia buddies.
Or, perhaps you can accept, without divulging the names of the terrorist we are monitoring, that the intent of the program was in-fact to track the communications into and out of this country of known terrorist. A much shorter list than the entire population of the United States, I might add.
