Did the Bush admin break the law? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 05:46 AM

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

Quote:

NEW YORK — President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States — without getting search warrants — following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports.

The presidential order, which Bush signed in 2002, has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, according to a story posted Thursday on the Times' Web site.

Before the new program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders to do so. Under the post-Sept. 11 program, the NSA has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

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?

pan6467 · 12-16-2005, 06:01 AM

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.

samcol · 12-16-2005, 06:16 AM

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.

shakran · 12-16-2005, 06:19 AM

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.

roachboy · 12-16-2005, 06:38 AM

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.

stevo · 12-16-2005, 06:55 AM

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?

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 07:12 AM

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

Quote:

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Quote:

1994 Faris enters America
1999 Becomes a U.S. citizen
2000 Meets Osama bin Laden at Afghan terror training camp
2000-01 Buys equipment in Pakistan for al Qaeda
2002 Returns to the U.S.
2002-03 Works on plot to destroy New York bridge and derail Washington train.
2003 Surrenders to authorities and agrees to plea agreement

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.

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 07:14 AM

does that justify violating the law?

samcol · 12-16-2005, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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?

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.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

does that justify violating the law?

Yep. Sure beats breaking it for a blow job

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yep. Sure beats breaking it for a blow job

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?

ratbastid · 12-16-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yep. Sure beats breaking it for a blow job

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

pan6467 · 12-16-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

does that justify violating the law?

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.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

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.

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 07:37 AM

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.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

pan6467 · 12-16-2005, 07:53 AM

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.

samcol · 12-16-2005, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

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?

stevo · 12-16-2005, 07:56 AM

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'??

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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.

stevo · 12-16-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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.

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?

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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'??

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?

pan6467 · 12-16-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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'??

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.

ObieX · 12-16-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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'??

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.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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

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.

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.

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Free the terrorist, arrest the president, priceless.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

Did it work at nuremburg?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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.

pan6467 · 12-16-2005, 08:18 AM

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.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

Protect the American people.

Quote:

irrelevant.

Very relevant and important, just maybe not to this thread

Quote:

Did it work at nuremburg?

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

Quote:

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.

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?

samcol · 12-16-2005, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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'??

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.

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Protect the American people.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

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'?

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

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, the argument for this using your own examples is so absurd.

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?

stevo · 12-16-2005, 08:33 AM

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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?

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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.

raveneye · 12-16-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I don't know that I'd trivialize watergate that much

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?

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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'?

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.

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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?

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.

stevo · 12-16-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

Willravel · 12-16-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

Then I'm going to go kill Carrot top right now, and I better not be convicted with murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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?

Not creating, training, funding, and arming them in the first place would be smart.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

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?

And there in lies the rub.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Then I'm going to go kill Carrot top right now, and I better not be convicted with murder.

No court of law would ever convict you.

12-16-2005, 06:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-16-2005, 06:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2005, 06:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

12-16-2005, 07:14 AM	#9 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	does that justify violating the law? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-16-2005, 07:37 AM	#16 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-16-2005, 06:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	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.

12-16-2005, 06:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	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.

12-16-2005, 07:53 AM	#18 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-16-2005, 07:56 AM	#20 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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'?? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

12-16-2005, 08:18 AM	#28 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"