America... Spying on Americans

okie wrote:
I see more lockstep and group think among Democrats, with the exception of an occasional Zell Miller.

Now, this is really, really, funny! Just change Democrats with Republicans, and what do we see?
Those still in lock step with their messiah as the Bush rating drops like a sinker - into the lows 30's.

ha ha ha ha.... Talk about a sinking ship.

0 Replies

For those who claim that we can't censure the president, or who claim that we have no basis for deciding whether or not he's guilty (or talking about it, apparently), here is a specific question:

Specifically, what facts remain to be discovered that are relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law when ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Debra wrote:
Inasmuch as Gonzales and the Justice Department have a conflict of interest, a special prosecutor must be appointed to bring charges against Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts.

Neocons can't see it, but this republican congress and Republican Gonzales will not bring forward any charges against Bush for breaking the laws of this land. That's a foregone conclusion. They are all hypocrites. It also takes congress to appoint a special prosecutor; we'll have a very long wait.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For those who claim that we can't censure the president, or who claim that we have no basis for deciding whether or not he's guilty (or talking about it, apparently), here is a specific question:

Specifically, what facts remain to be discovered that are relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law when ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans?

Cycloptichorn

Why are you proclaiming him "guilty" when you admit you think you don't know all the facts?

0 Replies

Tico, You're mssing too many points! Go back and read Debra's post; the laws are specific as outlined by FISA. Bush admitted he authorized unlawful wiretaps. He broke the law, and that makes him guilty.

0 Replies

The president has no authority to supercede laws established by congress.

0 Replies

parados, quoting okie wrote:

Quote:
By the way, whoever said his impeachment was dropped, it wasn't. He was impeached, but not removed from office,
He was found NOT GUILTY

I think okie is having fun with the various definitions of "impeachment". Consider Webster's first definition : "1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office". Then contrast it with Webster's third definition: "3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct".

Thus, as John Kerry might put it, the Senate impeached Clinton before it decided not to impeach him.

0 Replies

On a different note, there's an idea wandering through my head that I think I picked up from someone's blog. Assume Bush committed a crime in authorizing warrantless wiretaps. Assume, further, that the people responsible for prosecuting him approve of his crime. As a practical matter, then, criminal law will provide little relief for the American people.

So why not try to get relief under tort law instead? Unlike crimes, torts are driven by the parties -- and the victims of wiretapping have an incentive to prosecute in this case even if the government doesn't. With this in mind, what are the chances of some snooping victim of suing the NSA or the president? If 100 Iraqi-Americans named "Osama" who used the word "Jihad" in some e-mail joined forces and bringing a class action suit, what are their chances of convincing a court to award damages because about 10 of them must have been snooped on?

0 Replies

Tico Wrote:

Quote:

Why are you proclaiming him "guilty" when you admit you think you don't know all the facts?

Answering questions with questions is almost always a sign of a weak position.

I do believe that I know enough facts in order to make an informed decision on this case, specifically, was the law broken by the executive branch?

Those who contend that we can't make that judgement (not legally, but in the court of public opinion amongst informed interested parties) must answer the question:

Having read the statutues in question, and familiarized yourself with the situation, specifically, what facts remain to be discovered that are relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law when ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans?

The law is quite clearly written, and the program has been admitted. What else remains? Tico, it seems your argument revolves around the opinion that the President isn't bound by a law created to bind Presidents. I of course disagree with that opinion, but it doesn't matter, because that isn't the question here.

The Admin has admitted to breaking the law, they have admitted to deceiving the American public about their actions, and they have admitted that their justifications for doing so were created after they had already begun doing so.

If you believe that there are other facts - not opinions as to interpretation of the law, but facts which would exonerate the WH - then please present them here. Otherwise, you must admit that the law was indeed broken by the White House, and you are reduced to arguing justifications for why they thought they could get away with breaking the law without consequence.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Do you if Americans were specifically targetted for surveillance?
Do you know if calls were monitored by people or computers?
Do you know what the law specifically says about either of these?
Do you know anything at all about what the program actually did or how it functioned?

I know that I do not know the answers to these questions. I can't make any judgements based on what the media tells me because I don't trust them to tell the complete truth.

I do know that all the people, Republicans and Democrats alike, that have been briefed about how the program works have been silent about it. That tells me that the administration has either found a loophole in the law, or what they have done may be legal. I will wait to see what happens before passing judgement.

0 Replies

McG, The reason you don't know the answers to these questions is the very simple fact, you don't understand 1) FISA laws, and 2) limits of any government official to follow the laws of this land and the Constitution.

Bush already admitted he authorized illegal wiretaps on Americans. No more proof is needed.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Tico, You're mssing too many points! Go back and read Debra's post; the laws are specific as outlined by FISA. Bush admitted he authorized unlawful wiretaps. He broke the law, and that makes him guilty.

You have swallowed Debra's posts; I have countered them.

You go back and read our posts.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

parados, quoting okie wrote:

Quote:
By the way, whoever said his impeachment was dropped, it wasn't. He was impeached, but not removed from office,
He was found NOT GUILTY

I think okie is having fun with the various definitions of "impeachment". Consider Webster's first definition : "1 a : to bring an accusation against b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office". Then contrast it with Webster's third definition: "3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct".

Thus, as John Kerry might put it, the Senate impeached Clinton before it decided not to impeach him.

The "Impeachment" is the trial in the Senate. Clinton will always be impeached. You can't "unimpeach" a President.

0 Replies

Tico, Read my response to McG, above. Your counters do not have the force of our laws and the Constitution.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG, The reason you don't know the answers to these questions is the very simple fact, you don't understand 1) FISA laws, and 2) limits of any government official to follow the laws of this land and the Constitution.

Bush already admitted he authorized illegal wiretaps on Americans. No more proof is needed.

If you can answer those questions for me, feel free. I would be very appreciative.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico Wrote:
Quote:
Why are you proclaiming him "guilty" when you admit you think you don't know all the facts?

Answering questions with questions is almost always a sign of a weak position.

Yours was obviously very rhetorical, but it certainly conveyed the impression that you do not believe you are equipped with all the facts, yet feel comfortable with proclaiming Bush "guilty" of a crime. I merely wondered why you felt so comfortable doing so knowing, as you do, that you don't have all the facts. My "position" is not weak; yours, however, at least on this point, seems to be.

Quote:

I do believe that I know enough facts in order to make an informed decision on this case, specifically, was the law broken by the executive branch?

Those who contend that we can't make that judgement (not legally, but in the court of public opinion amongst informed interested parties) must answer the question:

Having read the statutues in question, and familiarized yourself with the situation, specifically, what facts remain to be discovered that are relevant to the question of whether the President broke the law when ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans?

Short answer: Sufficient facts to prove guilt in a court of law.

Quote:

The law is quite clearly written, and the program has been admitted. What else remains? Tico, it seems your argument revolves around the opinion that the President isn't bound by a law created to bind Presidents. I of course disagree with that opinion, but it doesn't matter, because that isn't the question here.

Well, it's certainly a relevant point, because that would likely comprise at least a portion of the defense, were charges ever brought. And I'd remind you that this in not just my opinion, but the opinion of the FISCR, and the court decisions it referenced. But you're right, it may not be responsive to your question, because your question ignores the converse, to-wit: What facts remain to be discovered that are relevant to the question of whether the President DID NOT break the law when ordering warrantless eavesdropping?

Quote:

The Admin has admitted to breaking the law, ....

I missed that news conference, or was it a press release. I'm rather certain I would have remembered that headline: "President Admits Breaking Law."

But of course you mean he has admitted to ordering warrantless wiretaps, and you have concluded that means he broke the law. That's more accurate.

Quote:

... they have admitted to deceiving the American public about their actions, ...

Well, we are talking about matters of national security, whether the New York Times agrees or not.

Quote:

... and they have admitted that their justifications for doing so were created after they had already begun doing so.

No, that's incorrect also. What they've admitted is to doing is adding additional legal justification to their arsenal after they authorized the program.

Quote:

If you believe that there are other facts - not opinions as to interpretation of the law, but facts which would exonerate the WH - then please present them here.

Well, wait a second ... weren't you just asking what facts remained to be discovered that might tend to prove his guilt of violating a crime? I presume you didn't have any additional facts to lend to the discussion, so why do you think I would have facts to present to show the converse. I don't. We are arguing the fine points of the law, not the facts. The argument I've presented is a legal defense, not a factual one. There might be a factual defense, but I'm not aware of it. That would likely develop during the course of any criminal trial.

Quote:

Otherwise, you must admit that the law was indeed broken by the White House, ...

Uh, no I don't, for all the reasons I've previously set forth in this thread. Nothing you've just said negated any of that.

Quote:

... and you are reduced to arguing justifications for why they thought they could get away with breaking the law without consequence.

No, I'm left making the same legal argument that I've been making throughout this thread. Until the Supreme Court overturns the FISCR courts decision, that controls, and the FISA cannot impair the inherent constitutional authority of the President to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.

0 Replies

McG wrote:
If you can answer those questions for me, feel free. I would be very appreciative.

_________________

I do not go on wild goose chases to answer irrelevant questions posed by ignoramouses.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Tico, Read my response to McG, above. Your counters do not have the force of our laws and the Constitution.

Neither do Debra_Law's posts.

0 Replies

But my observations tells me Debra is more right than you'll ever be.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

But my observations tells me Debra is more right than you'll ever be.

That actually makes me feel more confident in my position.

But Debra will never be more right than me. :wink:

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know