Did the Bush admin break the law?
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178893,00.html

Did this go beyond Executive authority?
Do the senators and congressmen who were told about this have culpability by ignoring the issue?

If it is breaking federal law, how should this be handled?

This administration is rife with crime and corruption and all the Right can do is keep bringing up Clinton's name (there I just gave them a reason....lol). They do NOT defend the man or his actions.

They will come up with another lame ass reason this is acceptable, or they'll just attack and not say anything of value.

I truly believe we need an outside, non partisan commission to go over everything in this administration, bring charges up to Congress, the Supreme Court and the PEOPLE and force this administration to answer to the people.

It's bullshit when I hear the Right say "the President has to answer to noone."

Bullshit, it is a job the PEOPLE gave him and like a CEO or COO or any person running a business (and government is a business), the person is answerable to those who put him there.... that would be the people.

It truly amazes me, what the Right lets this guy get away with because of their fear and hatred of the left.

As for the congressmen who knew about it, their names should be printed, and they should be forced to resign.

If those who believe what Bush is doing is ok...... just wait, the next President will do that and more and get away with it, and then the next will do even more .... and so on. There has to be a stand taken.

Bush broke the Constitional rights of people. You cannot keep ignoring and giving bullshit reasons why this is ok.

Damn, Watergate, Lewinsky, Bay Of Pigs, Iran Contra all are weak and were nothing compared to what you Righties allow this megalomaniacal man get away with.

In a post 9/11 world it seems he can get away with a heck of a lot, but isn't it his job to be the chief of following the law and not breaking the law. Al qaeda hates us for our freedom, yet Bush thinks violating 200 year old laws is a good way to combat terrorism. The Bush administration is saying it's above the law and that the fourth amendment means nothing.

Even if you love Bush, would you want a Hillary Clinton or another democrat to have this kind of power when they take office? What if by chance we get a real tyrant in office with the ability to do these kinds of things? The threat of an executive branch of government with the unchecked ability to circumvent the Constitution is a much greater threat than al qaeda ever could dream of being.

Once this lack of regard for the law is established, all it takes is one bad apple to get elected for the Police-state to come crashing down on us.

I don't know that I'd trivialize watergate that much - that was a corrupt power grab that resulted in the short-circuiting of democracy. It was pretty serious stuff. So was Iran Contra, since it involved giving aid to our enemies.

Now, I wouldn't object to saying Bush has done more DAMAGE to this country than any previous president.

And you're right, they'll bring up Clinton as their excuse.

Let's see what the charges are.

Bush has borrowed more money than all the other presidents in history combined.

Clinton got a blowjob.

Bush selectively used intel to justify an unjustifiable war.

Clinton got a blowjob.

Bush has killed 2000+ American soldiers.

Clinton got a blowjob.

Bush has killed 30,000+ Iraqi civilians.

Clinton got a blowjob.

Bush has taken an already unstable region and plunged it into what will be decades of extreme instability, with US national security implications that we can't even imagine.

Clinton got a blowjob.

Bush just admitted he would have invaded Iraq even if it had been conclusively proven that there were no WMDs, despite the fact that his whole prewar justification came down to WMDs.

Clinton got a blowjob.


You get the idea.

So they can bring up Clinton all they want, but fortunately we're not only onto their little trick, we also realize that the charges against Clinton are pretty silly compared with what Bush has done.

geez....yet another aspect of this "war on terror" that seems to repeat features of the algerian war..

unable to sort out who is the enemy, the assumption gets traction that everyone is an enemy---surveillance on the broadest possible grounds---justification?---paranoia. in this context, the erasure of any meaningful line between the "enemy" and opponents of the war=altogether too simple.

unable to sort out who the enemy is, really--how the enemy is organized, where that organization stops and starts---torture as interrogation technique---justification?---we are under attack, national security, expediency, paranoia (driven by the inability to mark and insode/outside distinction vis-a-vis the "enemy")


much of the intensity of the opposition to the algerian war derived from revelations about how far outside the purview of the law the military was willing to go.
his opposition brought down the 4th republic

where did the antiwar movement go? what happened to it? why are people not out in great number in the streets to really pressure this administration?

last fractured note (no time): i do not think that the relativizing move will take in this case (see above)--instead, i expect to see another conservative defense via motivation--bush "sincerely believed" false intel, sincerely believed hussein was a threat, sincerely believed that the broadest possible domestic communications surveillance were justified---the curious thing about this defense is that it really defends nothing--any and all actions, whether legal or not, can be explained by imputing motive. to wit: the gulag was not a problem because stalin sincerely believed the folk improsoned were enemies of teh state; the holocaust was not a problem because hitler sincerely believed that the jews were a real threat to whatever....these analogies are hyperbolic in a sense (i am not equating the above survellance matter with these much larger and more grotesque aspects of the histor fo the last century) but they nonetheless do point to the meaninglessness of the defense mounted by the rove machine.

btw: bad news released on a friday. the old reagan trick. lowest news readership of the week. good news monday, when folk read the paper--bad news friday when folk are thinking about the weekend.

For those of you who think bush commited a great crime here, would you like to see Iyman Faris freed from jail since since the survaillance that caught him was supposedly unconstitutional?

so basically what you're saying here is that it's ok to break the law and the civil rights of american citizens as long as its done in the name of protecting us?

personally, i hate that farking argument. lets just use that to justify anything from now on.

I'm trying to care here, but mmmm can't do it.

Maybe thats why. All the monday morning quarterbacks and whine about liberties they never lost, and the same people would have been whining if we didn't do 'enough' to stop an attack. We haven't had a successful terrorist attack on the US since 9/11, and quite frankly I'm shocked (as would be most of the pundits if you asked them in 2001) and I still think we are 'due'. Perhaps it is such programs which have helped us prevent such attacks. I do hope the lefts constant mewling about necessary actions don't become such a distraction that we have more people die, perhaps they can come up with better ways to prevent such attacks in the future, or does the left just accept them as inevitable in a free society and schedule more sensitivity training for the police? Or perhaps more money for 'first responders' so they can buy more body bags, sutures, and hire more grief counselors.

does that justify violating the law?

Supposedly unconstiutional? I would consider eavesdropping on citizens without getting a warrant to be blatently unconstitutional. So illegal in fact that some NSA officials refused to do it.

Faris takes the plea bargain then later isn't allowed to change his guilty plea. I wonder if he got hauled to one of those "intterrogation camps" to be coerced into taking a plea.

If the the survaillance was unconstitutional than he should be freed, but that isn't what this thread is about anyway. It's about if Bush broke the law which he clearly did in my understanding.

Edit: Wow the war on terror never ceases to amaze me. Apparently Faris was working for the FBI. Nothing about these terror arrests ever makes sense or adds up. Double crossed or double agents, many intelligence officers are a huge failures or co-conspirators. Sorry for threadjack.

Yep. Sure beats breaking it for a blow job :rolleyes:

non-sequitor. also totally irrelevant.

we KNOW clinton broke the law and SHOULD have paid for it. How does the GOP tout morality and ethics if they attempt to justify constitutional violations and seperations of power?

So, you're saying that if the ends are good enough, they justify the means?

They don't care because it's not them having their Constitutional rights violated.

If there was such a strong case against any one of the 500 or whatever they caught, then they could have very easily have gotten wiretaps and warrants from judges allowing them..... the FBI did every time they bugged a Mafia phone or house or car.

I don't care what the reasoning bullshit is bullshit, and if it were a dem president doing this they would be crying about "their rights" and I would agree. Unfortunately their hatred allows bullshit like this solely because they would rather have us under martial law than admit Bush is wrong and needs to be impeached.

(For those saying I'm F.O.S. look at the posts where these people support Martial Law for the Avian flu even though by the time they quarantined a city it will have spread just about every where. So martial law is not even an option there ...... but they argue that Bush is right we need it.)

When does it all end with Bush? When will the right see that he is destroying this country with his agenda and using the Right's fears and hatreds to get anything he does rubber stamped?

But the Left is the ones full of hate......... yeah right and I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, and some nice oceanfront property in Nevada for you.

I didn't bring it up first, look at the posts above.

If any law was broken (and I don't know enough to say) it was done to protect the lives of American's, not in a self serving manner. There in lies the rub, ethics has nothing to do with the law. There are times when following the law is the ethical thing to do, and other times where it would be unethical. If the surveillance was done to monitor political enemies, it would be unethical and I would be lining up to get him out of office, if it was done to monitor suspected terrorist suspects and may have ended up saving countless lives, I'll be happy to shake his hand.

sorry ustwo, i can't agree with the ends justifying the means. The law is the law. If we overlook violations of the law, why did we have the law in the first place?

this is the slippery slope here. this is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent by checks and balances in the constitution because they were all too familiar with a head of state claiming it was for the good of the people/country.

There has never been a war in our history, where the executive branch did not violate the law in some fashion. This is no different, and in fact requires such actions even more due to the nature of the conflict. If you are comfortable wrapping yourself up in the cloak of indignation over such violations please do so, and perhaps it will keep you warm while watching images from some future terrorist attack on CNN.

Silent enim leges inter arma. - Cicero

Once we allow government to break the law like this, it will not stop. Maybe not Bush, but the next President will take it a step further and so on.

It's bullshit.

It's why the FBI had to get judges to sign warrants against Mafiosas and Columbians and whomever...

Again, if they had such strong cases they could have gotten the warrants to allow this.

And how do we know who was tapped and who wasn't?

Just wait, when this is taken to the extreme (and it will be sooner or later), who will you cry to then? When the Right had a chance to tell a president he went too far, and they chose not to. And chose not to because they truly believed in what he did, but because their hate for the other half of the country was deeper than the protection of their rights.

No matter how you slice it, it is WRONG and the president needs to be impeached and sent to prison.

There were legal ways to get this same information, but he chose to abuse his power and put himself above the law and the Constitution. The very document he swore to protect.

Think of the worst presidential candidate imaginable having these survailence powers. The name could be Hillary Clinton. That is the person who could be next in line do this in 08. Regardless if you think these powers are being used for good or bad, eventually unchecked power is always abused. By accepting how this is was supposedly used in a positive way in the war on terror, can you accept how badly this will be abused by future presidents?

So I got one (1) response saying "yes, it was unconstitutional and he should be freed" and everyone else danced around the question. So lets try again. Should the admitted terrorist that admitted to plotting with al-qaeda to BLOW UP the brooklyn bridge be freed because the survaillance used to gather information on him was 'unconstitutional'??

I'm not buying that either. argument by hypothesis that if the president is forced to follow the law (something that every president swears to do upon inauguration) somehow we're certain to end up being attacked. To center upon this particular individual must mean that they actually had some evidence or suspicion to begin with. I've heard alot of talk about how the feds have ALWAYS had the ability to go to the FISA court for warrants and taps which means that they should have been able to get one for this guy as well.

as to your quote by cicero, its been warned by many government officials throughout our history that 'in times of war' is when we must be most diligent in the conduct of our representatives and to ensure that they do not use 'in times of war' to the detriment of the constitutional rights of its citizens. Using that quote to justify possible violations of the same document.

The constitution is supposed to be a document that limits government authority, not citizens rights.

I think they chose not to because of their hate for terrorists who want to kill us, not because of the "other half of the country"...so pan, do you think Faris should be freed?

unfortunately, yes. the government BROKE THE LAW instead of following it. So that means that the government would be responsible for having an admitted terrorist free to go, wouldn't it?

Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt. His Constitutional rights were violated.

Clear enough?

How many Mafiosas did we release because of this exact reason?

Sorry, if they had that strong of a case against him or any of the people they tapped ILLEGALLY, then they should have gone about it the legal way and gotten the warrants.

Bush took it upon himself not to obey the laws of the land and should be punished.

I truly see no defense for these actions, not when the law is clear and precise.

It is unconstitutional and he should be freed.

As for the morality and all this about how the ends justify the means.. they don't. If people (including mylsef) die because these unconstitutional measures were not used it would be a death for freedom. A death for freedom like those in the revolutionary war and all others like it. Allowing this kind of bullshit to happen *and continue* is an insult to every single American who died for our freedoms.. for the freedoms that this administration and the Republican party are shitting on at this very moment.

Free the terrorist, arrest the president, priceless.

Do you people on the left wonder why they keep losing elections?

You see no defense for these actions? They nailed a guy trying to blow up the brooklen bridge and you see no defense?

I can only hope some of the lefts pundits take this stand, we have midterms comming up next year.

uphold the law or don't pursue the office. The government is the one responsible for this now.

irrelevant.

Did it work at nuremburg?

I'm imagining that this will get real quiet by both sides since both dem and rep senators were told about this and kept quiet.

Now Stevo I answered you...... your turn to answer........

Why did Bush just not get warrants?????

And do we have proof (since there was no trial, and no tapes made public) that this Faris guy truly plotted anything?????

What about everyone else tapped, I only see 1 example of why it was ok........ where are the other 499 or whatever names that the government tapped illegally?

It's wrong..... I love how the Right cries about the loss of rights but in cases like this.... "it's ok".

And if Clinton had done this, would you still say the ends justifies the means?

What about you Libertarians???? How can you support such an obvious violation of the Constitution?

What about you NRA members who cry about your rights? Where will your outrage be?

You allow this for one reason and one reason only..... you would rather watch this president wipe his ass with the Constitution than to admit he is wrong and needs to be made a lesson of.

We cannot allow a president to do this. As stated above, this will be abused now, and in my eyes you will have no right to cry about it because you lost that right allowing this to begin.

Protect the American people.

Very relevant and important, just maybe not to this thread :D


Is there some aspect in particular about the Nuremburg trials you wish brought up or are you just trying to get Goodwins Law invoked?

Ok now think about this for a moment. WHY would they keep quiet? Do you think that PERHAPS we needed to do this? This isn't a textbook exercise, real people end up dying if we miss something, and perhaps even the democrats knew what we needed to do. Did you for once think from your armchair that perhaps the people dealing with this directly have a better idea of what is needed and how to go about it then you do?

You have picked such a horrible example to defend these roving wiretaps. First and foremost the guy was working FOR THE FBI. They knew who he was and what he was up and if they had any doubt on what side he was on they could of easily issued a warrant and had him arrested and done it the right way. Instead they choose to not only undermine the law, but use this guy as an EXAMPLE of how useful these wiretaps are. I don't even have to use a strawman. Using your own examples, the argument for this is so absurd.

again, it does not, nor has it ever been carte blanche to break the law.


No, i hate godwin. use whatever example you like. many leaders throughout world history have used 'national security' to justify breaking the law. julius ceaser, numerous kings in england, the list goes on and on.



I don't need, nor do I want, a governmental babysitter. So many so called conservatives cry about a nanny state but they certainly refer to big time doublespeak when it comes to an issue that they can't justify legally. It's BS. I did not elect a babysitter, I elected someone to uphold and defend the constitution. What kind of leader is the person that can say the constitution doesn't apply 'in times of war'?

After they caught him they used him as a double agent so he could get a plea agreement. How does this make it a straw man?

why do I say I'm not suprised. Running count: 4 for free the terrorist. 0 for keep him locked up.

What about the constitutional rights of NYers who use the brooklyn bridge everyday?
Doesn't the declaration of independece name the first unalienable Right as life, then followed by liberty? Or is protecting the public less important to you than protecting a terrorist's "right" to not be spied on?

I don't know, and it really doesn't bother me that much.

I don't know, but it doesn't bother me. Do you have proof that the government did this to deceive the public and just create a scare scenario in a vicious grab for power?

I guess they weren't terrorists since they weren't hauled away and torchered into confessing. Because if they had been arrested, even if they had been innocent they would make stuff up to stop the pain. BUt since we didn't hear about 500 more confessions, we can safely assume they were never bothered.

what the right loves to cry about is the loss of life...unless of course that loss of life is punishment for causing the loss of someone elses life.

you mean used the same tactics to uncover the 9/11 plot before so many Americans were killed? Yes, I would still say the ends justifies the means.

Well to go the obvious one step further, how do we know that there were no politically-motivated wiretaps among those 500?

This is a serious question. If there is no warrant there is no accountability. So what's preventing them from wiretapping anybody, including domestic political enemies?

Nope its not, but if a law was broken here it was broken for ethical reasons.

This doesn't explain why you brought up Nuermburg specificly.

Sounds very libertarian of you, so I suppose you are against welfare etc too? If so good for you, we agree there. Still its not 'baby sitting' in that you are not being treated as a baby unable to fend for your self (like welfare does). Monitoring 500 people in the US with suspected terrorist ties is a long way from the nanny state. If they broke a wiretapping law (key word being if) I will lose no sleep over it.

We do not live in a 'minority report' world. ALL citizens have constitutional rights, not just those people that have been determined not to be criminals/terrorists because we've already ruled them out by illegally wiretapping/spying on them.

You would agree that it is the governments' responsibility to defend the people, right? So, had they not uncovered this and the brooklyn bridge was blown up, what would you be saying? And thridly, do you have a better plan for spying on terrorists and uncovering their plots?

Then I'm going to go kill Carrot top right now, and I better not be convicted with murder.
Not creating, training, funding, and arming them in the first place would be smart.

And there in lies the rub.

No court of law would ever convict you.

go ahead.

so your plan would be to build a time machine and go back and change the past? or some sort of magic stopwatch?

Hmmmmmm...... if they tapped Limbaugh trying to buy his drugs, because illegal drug sales include some nasty people who kill many many innocent people. Would that be ok?

I still have to hear an explanation as to why warrants were not pursued.

It's bullshit when there are legal channels to go through that protact ALL people, and have worked for many many years...... Yet Bush putting himself above the law is ok?

All it would have taken was a warrant, plain and simple.

And warrants are pretty easy to get, I'm sure the NSA could have found enough judges to sign off.

So why didn't Bush have the judges sign off??????

What's the use of protecting people's lives if you ignore the Constitution and take away their freedoms?

The Right defnding this shows their hypocrasy and their hatred for the left overtrumps their love of freedom and what is truly right and healthy for the nation.

Like I said 5 years, 10 years from now when the next president uses these excuses and does this.... YOU who defend Bush have sold your right to ever complain about it.

But you will. And your hypocrasies again will show.

ethical law breaking, what an oxymoron


only as a wider known issue. not for anything specific. At this point i've never related Bush to Hitler etc. etc. and blah blah stuff.



If I'm not mistaken, the PATRIOT ACT was written with specific sections to cover these types of wiretaps in order to make them lawful, therefore, these particular wiretaps would be unlawful. justifying them irregardless is totally irresponsible in enforcing our elected representatives to held accountable to our own laws.

within the law, yes.
what do we fix to make sure it doesn't happen again?


isn't that what the PATRIOT ACT was for?

http://www.hippiemuseum.org/ghandi.jpg I think you just lost your argument, unless there is a Goodwins type of law about invoking this man.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between the fictional world used to exaggerate in order to get your point across of be funny (the world in which killing Carriot Top is good), and there is reality where premeditated murder is punishable by jail time or possibly even the death penalty. I am required to follow the law that those we vote for are responsible for making, interpreting, and enforcing. Why, oh why, is the enforcement group allowed to break the very rules they enforce?
We're still doing it right now. It was 2000-2001 when we gave the taliban 245 million to oppress the Afghani people. America STILL TODAY trains and arms all sides of the African wars (oh that won't come back to bite us down the road).

That's just silly. I can't believe you can compare non violent resistence to the war in Iraq and torturing prisoners.

not seeing the connection here.

Which is perhaps why we are done. You have said your piece, you would rather have seen people die and important infrastructure destroyed rather than violating a wiretapping law. I would rather violate the wiretapping law. Your view on the law is fundamentalist in nature, mine considers motivations and outcome. There can be no meeting of the minds.

I can flip flop that argument (after all, that's what liberals do best). I say that our actions DO consider both motives and outcome. Why did we go to Iraq? What was the result of going into Iraq? Those are the real questions that are extremly important (and that we are asking every day). Why do the terrorist want to kill us? What will be the result of escilating freedom loss in the war against terror? Also questions about motive and outcome that we regularly ask.

i'll remember that the next time theres an absolution of the law type argument coming.

That must be why sandy berger only got probation, because it was national security. or why clinton wasn't convicted, because it was only about a BJ.

edit: actually, now that i'm thinking about it, your argument is totally hypothetical in nature. There is zero proof that people would have died or important infrastructure would have been destroyed had the law been followed and a warrant applied for. Instead you mistakenly, or intentionally, surmise that breaking the law was the only possible thing to do in order to prevent a terrorist act.

You say my view of the law is fundamentalist in nature, does that not fly in the face of those who say the constitution is not a living document? those that feel it should be strictly interpreted?

And so you should ask them, but don't assume the answers before you ask the questions (after all thats what liberals do best). ;)

When I say (i can't speak for others) that the guy should be let go I don't just mean let him go and let him blow up the bridge. I mean let him go and then arrest him again going through the process the right way. There are reasons these laws are in place. Countless Americans died to create, uphold, and preserve our constitution. Stepping over it, over the checks and balances, over the will of the people of this country is, like i said before, an insult to every American who died for our freedoms.

I suppose I'll be cliche and answer the original question without browbeating either side.

This latest development troubles me as I believe one of the strengths of our system is the oversite provided by the three branches on each other.

My take on this brooklin bridge guy is that if we have the evidence, use it regardless of how it was obtained. I would prefer that to releasing him.

At the same time, if the law was broken, then those responsible need to be held accountable and oversite restored.

I am VERY disappointed with Bush over this and I wish there had been a better alternative in 2004.

You still think we want to destroy the governmet, don't you. I don't want that. That would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The best way (the way with the least death) to go about governmental change is to do it slowly and legally.

Also:http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...l/DSCI0037.jpg
I think you just lost your argument, because my picture makes people even happier than yours. It doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation, but it reminds people of being happy and content, and thus makes people think I'm right. BTW, that's my puppy, Jack.

If they're going to break the law can't they just admit it at least? They should just come out and say 'we are going to break the law, but it's for your own good,' instead of all this doublespeak.

Precious dog Will.

SO we have this Patriot Act that is supposed to make things like wiretaps that much easier and yet Bush still personally orders laws broken....... why?

He has a rubber stamp Congress and judges that I am sure would have just needed a phone call to get the proper warrants.

So you people on the Right, where is the same outrage you showed for Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Same principles. Government saw someone breaking the law and refused to go about the right channels, instead the Constitution gets walked over and shat on and when Clinton did it the Right howled and cried foul and not their own president does it and they are making excuses why it was ok.

Clinton wasn't right for those instances above and had Congress tried to impeach him for those, I would probably have agreed.

But now all those who cried for his impeachment over those acts are saying it's ok for Bush to do it.

Same thing. Waco and Ruby Ridge were supposed to be done to protect the masses. Government didn't have what they needed to convict but it didn't stop them.

So why were those wrong and this is ok?

Of course noone on the Right will answer that because they can't. But it gives them a chance to change the thread over to Clinton and try to change the subject and get the heat off of them.

On the issue of ethical law-breaking being an oxymoron... the invocation of Ghandi does have some merits. However, in the context of this discussion, there is no comparing Ghandi's law breaking to that of Bush.


I've been thinking about this issue and I think I agree with Lebell. Bush *did* break the law. There is no question of this. However, Mr. Bridge should still be held accountable regardless of how the information was collected.

Letting him go really isn't an option.


Of course, we all know, that like most things this Administration does, they will get away with it.

I'm sorry but I couldn't let this one go. That money was distributed by the US and other humanitarian organizations to help with an impending famine in Afghanistan. There's a huge difference between giving money to Food-for-Peace and refugees than giving financial aid to a dictatorship.

From Spinsanity.org:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

/end threadjack

if evidence that lead to arrest was gathered illegally, then the process should stop.

what is hilarious---and i mean that---in the conservative posts above is that they assume the law is drawn to the guilty and that due process is a luxury.
a totally indefenable argument that here, as usual, comes all wrapped up in a nice steaming bon bon we call state of emergency.
it is characteristic of authoritarian regimes to use a state of emergency to suspend civil liberties. among civil liberties, none is more basic that the right to due process.

once again, then: how is it in conservativeland that the state is irrational when it intervenes to regulate economic activity but inerring when it comes to exercizing repression?
if you are cavalier with due process, you must assume that when it comes to exercizing its monopoly on "legitimate violence" is a special type of activity, that the state somehow looses its bureacratic character when violence is concerned.
when i find it possible to take conservative politics seriously, i usually am able to gather that the basis for much of their politics is a variant of liberatarianism.
but this acquiescence to removing limitations of the coercive power of the state flies in the face of all that.

the arguments that attempt to dissolve this newest revelation about bushworld hold no water logically--the premises from which they depart are arbitrary (inevitably rooted above in a structured paranoia, a feature that appears fundamental to any support granted this farce of an administration and its various repressive actions).
this paranoia is the reverse of a kind of aesthetiziation of state violence.
it appears they kinda like it.
maybe its the theater. abstract violence visited upon other people is a sign of Action. Action is an end in itself, so long as it is a republican administration that is Acting.

or maybe this affection for state violence is rooted in the assumption that the victims of such actions---illegal surveillance, arrest without warrant, illegal detention without the right to counsel, a policy of torture rationalized in the name of the "war on terror" and endless detention without trial--would only happen to someone else.
so it is all just hunky dory.
maybe this is linked to assumptions about skin color. it is hard to say.

on the other hand, i expect that if any of the folk from the right above were themselves arrested under the suspicion of being a "terrorist" that they would be among the first to scream about the importance of due process.

Actually that was given to grease the squeeky wheel... the US wanted the Taliban to make sure that an oil pipeline could go through Afghanistan with no trouble.

absoultly yes. i'll say it. our country was founded on an individuals rights. our founding fathers spent a lot of time deciding the laws of this nation in order to protect it's citizens from the government. When the government starts infringing on the rights of citizens we need to make a statement to the government. So let him go, besides i would guess his life expetancy would be quite low after being freed. he crossed america and he crossed al-queda. he has no friends, only enemies.

Got any links to prove this?

Stevo and Ustwo since you two defend this sort of action because of the results I think it is up to you two to prove that similar results could not have been obtained using legal means. Show me that they couldn't have gotten the legal warrents to do all the same things.

Also Ustwo i'm pretty sure there is a clause in Godwin's law that says anyone who invokes Godwin's law imediatly looses the arguement. The idea is 1) you shouldn't bring up hiltler in an arguement (though there are appropriate cases, but there are probably better ways to make your argument) and 2) you shouldn't dismiss an argument just because someone brings it up.

On Mr. Brooklyn Bridge: OF COURSE the administration is going to try to justify this by claiming that it was precisely their wiretapping heroics that nailed this guy.

But why would you want to believe them? They can say anything they want and we can't deny it. It's all classified information.

The other possibility is that they didn't catch anybody with these methods, and they're just lying through their teeth as usual.

Why wouldn't they have gotten a warrant for Faris, it would have been the easiest thing in the world to get, since he was named as a "sleeper agent" by September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed himself.

unless faris' name had been obtained by torture upon mohammed. hmmm.

The proof doesn't matter when I am describing how you feel we should act, and you asnwered that in replying to Stevo

I've never stated what I think should be done in relation to this, I only stated that I think it was the right course of action. I think once all is investigated nothing will come of it as the executive branch has pretty far reaching powers when it comes to national security. There won't be any tape on the door locks in this case.

I know who the left wing hacks are and I don't think you are one of them, so I think I can maybe explain our differences a bit on how we view this, and I'll guess it has something to do with when we grew up.

I'm about as young as you can get and still have 'grow up' during the cold war, I was an adult before the USSR fell. The biggest external threat was global thermal nuclear war and as such it took up a lot of your thinking. Movies and TV enhanced this feeling of threat, and James Bond was a hero many kids wanted to be like. Real spies were admired, and new military and spy technology was the stuff of small talk. Every few years there would be another major spy ring exposed and we would cringe thinking of what they divulged. The concept of breaking the law with a wire tap would have been assinine to even think of, it was expected that we would NOT follow the law, international or domestic, and we didn't. This wasn't information you gathered to go to court with, it was information you gathered to keep the upper hand.

I view the current conflict in the same light. Its a war for survival and supremacy. I am far less worried about its legalities than I am results. Instead of treating this as an external threat, some want to treat it closer to an organized crime family, and we all know how effective that has been.

I was 25, had been out for a year after a 6 year stint in the USMC.

So the count now is 5 for letting the terrorist go free or should I round up to 10?

to answer you, rekna, I'd really just have to quote ustwo Who cares if the law was followed if we're dead?

You stated only payed attention to politics starting in 1999, I assumed that ment you were under 25, I stand corrected.

So lets change this question a bit. Did you support our illegal spying activites during the cold war?

what spying activities were considered illegal at that time? as far as I was concerned, any spying activities that were done offshore or targeted upon foreign agents on or off our shore were not illegal. my issue at this time is that the individual arrested (faris) was a us citizen (how did that happen anyway?) who was wiretapped/spyed upon by a government agency without a warrant, FISA or otherwise, when the PATRIOT ACT was created to allow just that sort of thing. Is this not correct?

I realize that we've got two topics going on at this point, sorry about that.

You know this all makes sense now.

The Patriot act is undergoing a fillibuster right now in the senate.

In doing some research for this thread I find this from 2002...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...779746,00.html

You know I'd hate to take it to tilted parinoia but it seems this is mostly old news, and the NYT's timing of this new 'story' might be a bit suspect. Unless this is a current situation, and the story doesn't make anything like dates clear, this looks like activities which have been long exposed....

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Drudge flash report...

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

I'm going hmmmmm.........

Well sheet......

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wsap212982.htm
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Unocal/unocal.html

or you may have caught the congressional hearings on CSPAN

What does that even mean? I guess I'm lost.

Is this one of those stories that will cause the debate to shift from 'did they use illegal wiretaps' to was 'this is another example of media bias'. I hope neo-cons won't use this to try to debunk the whole wiretap story.

It changes the focus from current to imediately after Sept 11. I still don't have a problem with the wiretaps but it does change the picture a bit don't you think? This has been known and exposed IN court for more than three years. I don't think you will find Bush going away in chains now :lol:

what it looks like to me is that this is 3 year old news that didn't get looked in to the first time. Most likely because everybody was still focused on the war in afghanistan as well as midterm elections. A great misdirection piece.

By the look of the responses on this board, thats some good publicity for his book and it'll prolly do pretty well.

But the real question is, will somebody kill Carrot Top?

Please?

It appears to have had some influence on the Senate:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121605Y.shtml

I would, but I think he'd probably fight like a girl. That just gets ugly unless there's a prison shower scene involved.

please prove to me that we would be dead if the law was not followed

I stand by my challenge to Ustwo and Stevo prove, or at least attempt to show a reasonible argument that if the government had acted legally the terrorist attack would have succeeded. Until such an attempt is made this thread and your attacks on the "liberals who love the terrorists" are unfounded and worthless.

Because we all need to give up our freedom
after all that's why "they" hate us

/sarcasim

http://img2.uploadimages.net/670046p...ree_or_die.jpg

I thought the Right wing supported patriots
not parrots

Rekna lets just say I find such a request silly as, and I know this may shock you, but we are not privy to government survelence information. We do not know what they knew exactly, we do not know how many plots were discovered in this manner, nor should we, being this is still an active problem. We only know they credited the system with nailing this guy. We also know that many members of the left here think he should be let go if such a system were used to catch him treating this as a 'police' matter.

I did leave Bush a voice mail though, maybe he will get back to me and I can give you the information.

:rolleyes:

I thought the left supported welfare, not terroists.

Christ, melodrama FTW!

Ustwo you miss the point though, you and stevo and this administration are quick to credit the system with this capture and tout it as a success yet you offer no proof whatsoever that this system is the reason he was capture in the first place or that a legal system would not have had the same results make your arguments completly void. So either offer proof or stop trying to credit this system with foiling a terrorist plan.

Rekna you miss the point, THERE IS NO WAY WE COULD PROVE THIS UNLESS WE WERE AGENTS OURSELVES, and if I was I'd have to kill you after words. We can only go by what people said in the report.

You also miss the point in that MANY OF THE LEFT ON THIS BOARD DON'T CARE IF IT DID OR NOT, THEY THINK HE SHOULD BE LET GO, so for sake of argument its moot.

If the system worked, people on the left on this board think a known terrorist should be let go. I hope thats clear enough.

They do!
According to bush the left are terrorists
heck anyone who opposes his will is a terrorist
and the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper

What did our founding fathers fight for anyway???????

http://img2.uploadimages.net/786530us-gads.gif

No my point is not moot because people think he should be let go if his civil rights were violated. Which is exactly my point. If it could have been done legally then it should have been done legally! Our civil rights should never be violated by the government reguardless of who we are. I think it is also interesting that the article says what some 500 people were tapped for this and only 1 of them had a positive result? I guess that means 499 innocent poeple also had their rights violated. that is cool with you?

I have a great way to prevent crime, lets just kill everyone accused of a crime, no trial, nothing. That will stop crime. I have a great way to stop terrorism let's assume everyone is a terrorist and treat them as such. Let's combine idea 1 and idea 2 and just kill everyone. how does that sound?

is there any truth to that article about bush saying "it's just a damn piece of paper"?

Renka says: Prove it.
Ustwo says: I can't.

Score one for Renka. Point made. Case closed.

It's a damn shame they had to resort to inadmissable and illegal means to catch the guy in question. But it's exactly the same as if you got pulled over and the cop illegally searched your vehicle. The fact that it's a large and massively homicidal crime instead of, say, criminal posession, changes nothing. It's inadmissable evidence, and any case based on anything the cop finds is automatically dismissed. That's why cops don't DO illegal searches, generally speaking. It's just a shame that the feds didn't know better. Under all legal and constitutional precedent, this guy has to be let go. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but it is the law.

I'm still looking for proof for that one, thought I'm skeptical I can find any. The fact that it's possible is kinda scary.

Yes, that's the American way. That's the way it always has been and always should be.
I don't buy into the argument "the ends justify the means". That's bullshit.
If Bush broke the law by signing that particular executive order then he should pay the price just like every single American regardless of race, creed, religion, political group, etc.. This incident, coupled with the Patroit Act, has me more than a little concerned as to the direction this country is headed.

None of the evidence even came from eavesdropping except when he was already in FBI custody. Oh, and he was working for the FBI for months. Again nothing about this story makes any sense and it's foolish to use this guy as the prime example of why these wiretaps should be used. 1+1 does not equal 2 with the Faris story.

Meanwhile, Faris's lawyer is puzzled. David Smith says none of the evidence against his client appeared to come from surveillance, except for eavesdropping on Faris's cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.
The American al-Qa'eda operative unmasked last week as having planned to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge was first detained in March, and has been used by the FBI for months as a double agent, it was reported yesterday.

And we have a winner ladies and gentlemen! I knew this would happen. I KNEW someone from the right would try to justify Bush's crimes by pointing to Clinton. That argument is tired, and no one but the blindest neo con is gonna fall for it anymore.

I swear, we should make a Godwin's Law 2.0 around this.

Motion seconded!

*term coined* I now dub the Clinton comparison rule as: "Shakran's Law". Congradulations! BTW, I think Godwin's Law is retarded. There are apt comparisons to Hitler, and this lawyer (Godwin) couldn't deal with them.

Can we call it B.J's Law?