US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

cicerone imposter wrote:

icant', You can't go pasting only the section you think supports your position. You left out the following.
...

What prey tell, has any of that which I left out have anything at all to do with limiting the president's

Quote:

authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations in order

Quote:

to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

Answer: It has nothing to do with limiting the president's

Quote:

authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations in order

Quote:

to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

Next, I wish to also examine the clear implications of this part of the September 14th Congressional resolution:

Quote:

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

Clearly (1) supports my position.

With regard to (2), the the War Powers Resolution says the president can only introduce U.S. troops into hostile situations pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The War Powers Resolution requires that if the president commits U.S. troops abroad without prior authorization from Congress, the president has to terminate that action within 60 days unless Congress authorizes a longer deployment. This is what was done in the case of the invasion of Afghanistan.

In the case of the invasioin of Iraq, on October 16, 2002 the Congress adopted the joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

0 Replies

keep you nose up ican, it's the only way to fly.

0 Replies

ican't, You are misquoting again by writing:
"...by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations in order Quote:
"to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States"

Is doesn't give the president authority to perform wiretaps on Americans citizens without FISA approval. No and's, if's, or but's. It's called the protections provided all citizens by the Constitution.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

keep you nose up ican, it's the only way to fly.

Only way?

It's only a way to fly. To take off, climb, fly level, or touchdown to land, keep your nose up. But to descend and not stall, you must lower your nose. :wink:

But then Helicopters are a different story! Laughing

Please remember, "takeoffs are optional; landings are required."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
Is doesn't give the president authority to perform wiretaps on Americans citizens without FISA approval. No and's, if's, or but's. It's called the protections provided all citizens by the Constitution.

True! It does not give the president authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations. Of course, Congress cannot give the president any Constitutional authority; only the Constitution can do that. But then Congress cannot limit the authority the Constitution gives the president, either.

My point was that the September 14, 2001 Congressional resoliution does not limit the president's authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations.

I cannot believe you did not know all that was my point before you submitted this post of yours. My bias is that no one as articulate as you appear to be could be ignorant enough to make that mistake.

I admit, I don't know your motive in absence of ignorance, but I'm working on it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

icant', Here you go again, repeating ad-nauseum "...against the United States by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations."

We aren't talking about "enemy conversations." Nobody in this country gives a rat's ass about listening to "enemy conversation." As a matter of fact, Americans would demand that this president use every technology available to listen to "enemy conversations."

Your talk about ignorance is perfectly reflected in your mirror.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

icant', Here you go again, repeating ad-nauseum "...against the United States by authorizing wiretapping of enemy conversations."

We aren't talking about "enemy conversations." Nobody in this country gives a rat's ass about listening to "enemy conversation." As a matter of fact, Americans would demand that this president use every technology available to listen to "enemy conversations."

Your talk about ignorance is perfectly reflected in your mirror.

What are you talking about?

After all we cannot know the conversations are enemy (domestic and/or foreign) conversations until we listen to them. Until we listen to them they are suspected enemy conversations.

But I suspect you already know that! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

That is true, but that's the reason why we have FISA laws. duh!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That is true, but that's the reason why we have FISA laws. duh!

I cannot believe you are unaware that enemy conversations, domestic-domestic, foreign-foreign, and foreign-domestic, are not known to be such by virtue of copies of their finger prints, their DNA, their photo IDs or their respective physical locations or exchanges. Generally, the same locations or exchanges are used by different people for both enemy and non-enemy conversations. Of course, copies of their finger prints, their DNA, or their photo IDs are unavailable or don't exist. In fact, the enemy goes out of its way, so to speak, to avoid using the same locations or exchanges, or anything else they can think of, more than once, to avoid detection.

So the intelligence services, via automatic means such as very high speed computers, must first develop lists of suspects from what their automatic means deduce from words heard monitoring the content of millions of conversations -- enemy but mostly non-enemy. These suspects are then monitored more closely by both human and automatic means to infer or intuit enemy participants from the content of the conversations. Then the intelligence services closely listen to what they think are enemy conversations to determine the enemies' plans early enough so that they can stop the enemy in time to prevent bloodshed or other damage.

For this type of intelligence gathering to work well enough to stop the enemy before he strikes, literally millions and millions of initially non-suspect conversations must be monitored to detect those that warrant classification as suspect enemy conversations. But much more monitoring time is required before suspect enemy conversations are finally classified as enemy conversations.

0 Replies

It doesn't matter if it's "domestic-domestic," wiretaps require a court approval if it involves American cititzens.

As far as the government is concerned, we are all suspect enemies. That's the reason why all passengers go through security when we board an airplane. That's the reason government must have limits on what is persmissable based on the limits set by the Constitution - for American citizens. Americans can't listen our protections under the Constitution just because some feel it's okay for this president to perform illegal wiretaps. Their approval doesn't mean universal approval.

0 Replies

Another reason why Bush's war on terrorism is a farce.

January 3, 2006
New Rules Set for Giving Out Antiterror Aid
By ERIC LIPTON
Facing cuts in antiterrorism financing, the Department of Homeland Security plans to announce today that it will evaluate new requests for money from an $800 million aid program for cities based less on politics and more on assessments of where terrorists are likely to strike and potentially cause the greatest damage, department officials say.

The changes to the program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, are being driven in part by a reduction in the overall pool of money for antiterrorism efforts. For 2006, Congress has appropriated $120 million less in these urban grants than for 2005.

Domestic security grants in general, including the urban area ones, have been criticized because they have sent more antiterrorism money per capita to sparsely populated states like Wyoming and Alaska than to states like New York and California.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's "domestic-domestic," wiretaps require a court approval if it involves American cititzens.

As far as the government is concerned, we are all suspect enemies. That's the reason why all passengers go through security when we board an airplane. That's the reason government must have limits on what is persmissable based on the limits set by the Constitution - for American citizens. Americans can't listen our protections under the Constitution just because some feel it's okay for this president to perform illegal wiretaps. Their approval doesn't mean universal approval.

Sleep on it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another reason why Bush's war on terrorism is a farce.

January 3, 2006
New Rules Set for Giving Out Antiterror Aid
By ERIC LIPTON ...

They blundered. They know it now. So they will fix it.

Of course, if I were president everything would be done flawlessly. But it's all my fault! I prefer to fly than be president. Hmmmm! I guess I'm not flawless after all! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Slow and incompetent as usual. Hear how long it took for the feds to react to Katrina? More incompetence. Our borders are still open to illegals. You want security? We ain't gonna get it under Bushco.

0 Replies

Do you know what a "chicken-hawk" is? Clue: all the members of the current administration.

0 Replies

Bush pulls the plug on Iraq reconstruction

$18bn funding to stop at end of year

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday January 3, 2006
The Guardian

The Bush administration has scaled back its ambitions to rebuild Iraq from the devastation wrought by war and dictatorship and does not intend to seek new funds for reconstruction, it emerged yesterday.
In a decision that will be seen as a retreat from a promise by President George Bush to give Iraq the best infrastructure in the region, administration officials say they will not seek reconstruction funds when the budget request is presented to Congress next month, the Washington Post reported yesterday.
The $18.4bn (£10.6bn) allocation is scheduled to run out in June 2007. The move will be seen by critics as further evidence of the administration's failure to plan for the aftermath of the war.
A decision not to renew the reconstruction programme would leave Iraq with the burden of tens of billions of dollars in unfinished projects, and an oil industry and electrical grid that have yet to return to pre-war production levels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1676911,00.html

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter says that wiretaps require a court approval if it involves American citizens.

I am very much afraid that there is a great deal of evidence and EXPERT testimony to rebut Cicerone's assertion. I do not know the source of his comment but the FORMER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WHO SERVED UNDER THE ESTEEMED BILL CLINTON FROM 1994 TO 1997 IS QUOTED IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ON DECEMBER 21, 2005, p. 23 IN AN OPINION PIECE ENTITLED--

President had legal authority to OK taps

quote-

"Every president since FISA's passage( this means Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton) has asserted that he retained inherent power tp go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton,deputy Jamie Gorlick testified that "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct WARRANTLESS physical searches for foreing intelligence purposes"

Now, there may be, and I am sure that there are, others skilled in the law who disagree with the former Associate Attorney General of the United States--Mr. Schmidt but then the only way to really settle the dispute is to adjudicate it in the courts.

In the meanwhile, the court of Public Opinion will play a large role. Politicians, especially those running for office this November, will assuredly look at the polls regarding this issue.

Anyone referencing Rasmussen Reports will find that a recent poll found that 64% of the American People felt that the President violated no laws in his attempts to keep the American people safe through wiretapping of suspected foreign nationals who may have been communcating with American citizens. Only 24% in that poll felt that the President was violating the law. ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT THE POLITICIANS RUNNING FOR OFFICE WILL NOT REFERENCE THE POLLS ON THIS QUESTION BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS ON THE RE-ELECTION TRAIL KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS.

0 Replies

Do you people read what you post? (I always don't, but that's no excuse for you!)

"...to conduct WARRANTLESS physical searches for foreing intelligence purposes"

Do you understand what "warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes" means?

I fear not. Besides that, we are not talking about "foreign intelligence." We're talking about American citizens.

0 Replies

It appears that I will have to expand on the article posted by the former Associate Attorney General under Clinton- Mr. Schmidt.

quote

"Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms>"

(That sounds as if he is saying that every president has retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms)

"Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jaime Gorlick testified that
"The Department of Justice believes, and case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes"

( That sounds as if Ms.Gorelick testified that the Department of Justice believed and the case law suppported that the president had inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes)

However, Mr. Schmidt continues--"Even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11th Resolution is not "Statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act cannot, in the words of the the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power"

(That appears to tell us that even if the NSA activity is electronic surveillance and the Sept. 11th Resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision,"encroach upon the president's constitutional power)

End of quote

Oh, dear, what shall we do????

Here we have a disagreement concerning the President's constitutional power in the case of "electronic surveillance.

I have it!!

We will refer it to a court--probably the USSC--for adjudication.

In the meantime, as I pointed out, the political use of the charges as a smear tactic appears to have been almost totally blunted by the findings in polls. Rasmussen Reports state that 64% of the American Public do not think that the President violated a law when he ordered electronic surveillance to keep us safe from further attackss. 24% of those surveyed think he did violate a law.

The politicians running in November keep a close eye on those polls.

0 Replies

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060103/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_iraq

Quote:

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know