America... Spying on Americans

Hmmm ---- Judge Alito, Senator Church, ANYBODY BUT somebody who will bring a motion of IMPEACHMENT...... which the local legal eagles have been assuring us for weeks now is INEVITABLE!!!

Not holding breath either, just pointing out the INANITY of the alleged "legal opinions" online Smile

0 Replies

Loiuse,

Congress has been out of session for weeks.

The NSA story has only been a couple of weeks so far. I fully expect to win my bet.

0 Replies

Louise:

The only INANITY that is perceivable is your repeated hysterical demand that a bill of impeachment be drafted NOW when it is clearly impossible for your demand to be met. Bush's illegal conduct first came to light on December 15, 2005, just before Congress recessed.

Please note:

"The U.S. Constitution gives the House the sole responsibility of determining whether or not to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment against the President, Vice President and other federal civil officers found to have engaged in 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'

. . . If the Members of the House decide that impeachment is appropriate, they vote to impeach and vote articles of impeachment specifying the particular grounds upon which the impeachment is based. These are then presented to the Senate for trial."

http://www.house.gov/lucas/news/speech105/fs_980913.htm

You may want to check out the official calendar. The House of Representatives is not scheduled to convene until January 31. If you will note, that's still 21 days away.

http://www.house.gov/house/2005_House_Calendar.shtml

Please research the length of time it took to investigate Nixon before official impeachment charges were actually brought and then measure accordingly. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind. Be patient. Smile

0 Replies

If I was a serious gambler, I am afraid I would have to bet on the side that Bush will never get impeached, even if he was caught on camera beating an infant to death. His loyalist would just claim it was for security. A debate would commence around the nation of the wisdom of allowing children of terrorist being allowed to grow up to be terrorist. Democrats or other dissenters would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy by taking the infant's side.

Welcome to the project of the New American Century.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

If I was a serious gambler, I am afraid I would have to bet on the side that Bush will never get impeached, even if he was caught on camera beating an infant to death. His loyalist would just claim it was for security. A debate would commence around the nation of the wisdom of allowing children of terrorist being allowed to grow up to be terrorist. Democrats or other dissenters would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy by taking the infant's side.

Welcome to the project of the New American Century.

There is a difference between one congressperson introducing articles of impeachment and them being approved or even considered. I doubt it will reach impeachment but I have already bet there will be articles introduced.

Keep in mind Bob Barr had introduced Articles of Impeachment (I think for the FBI files) against Clinton months before Monica even testified. Those articles were never acted on. All it takes is one disgruntled Congressperson.

0 Replies

Judges who serve on the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court met with officials from the Department of Justice Monday for a closed-door briefing on the president's decision to allow warrantless domestic eavesdropping.
While members of the court declined to comment on the meeting, the judges were expected to voice strong concerns about the legality of National Security Agency (NSA) wiretaps in terror cases.
Last month, US District Judge James Robertson, one of the 11 FISC judges, resigned in protest over the program. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, also voiced concerns last week, finding that the legal justification for the program "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as the Bush administration has asserted.

NYT: Judges and Justice Dept. Meet Over Eavesdropping Program

0 Replies

I'm not putting my money on the table just yet; with a republican congress, it's possible for it to go either way. At this point, I would give it 60 percent not and 40 percent yes.

0 Replies

Nice to see the thread got unlocked.

Play nice.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

'Time-out' works!

Who knew?

0 Replies

I have one question...
Whats the difference between warrantless physical searches and warrantless electronic searches?

Why is one ok,but the other one isnt?

0 Replies

Why do you think that warrantless electronic searches are ok but not physical warrantless searches?

0 Replies

mm, Research the Chicago Trib article by Schmidt, then read the part about physical surveilance, and how FISA was changed. The current concern has to do with wiretaps, not physical.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Why do you think that warrantless electronic searches are ok but not physical warrantless searches?

Because according to some on here,including Debralaw,Clinton signed the order making warrantless physical searches under FISA legal.

So,isnt an electronic search LESS invasive and intrusive?

0 Replies

Not really. It is impossible to conduct a warrantless physical search without the knowledge of the subject; whereas a warrantless electronic search leaves noone the wiser. Potentially, this is much worse, as nothing is worth more than privacy and the right to keep the information in one's head secret.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Why do you think that warrantless electronic searches are ok but not physical warrantless searches?

Because according to some on here,including Debralaw,Clinton signed the order making warrantless physical searches under FISA legal.

So,isnt an electronic search LESS invasive and intrusive?

I think you misunderstand the argument. What most are arguing is "within FISA, good, without FISA bad". The deal with Clinton (and I'm no big fan) was that prior to his actions FISA didn't deal with physical searches. Now, thanks to them, I think it does.

Personally, I think even FISA is too permissive but it is a minimal standard that I feel confident can be defended on constitutional grounds.

0 Replies

No, both are illegal in accordance with our Constitution. No president is beyond the laws that protects American citizens from unwarranted seizure of physical or electronic surveillance. That's the reason why Carter signed into law FISA in 1978 that requires the secret court to approve any surveillance against American citizens.

That Clinton got away with approving unwarranted surveillance doesn't make it legal under our Constitution. It was the failure of congress to take the responsibility of checks and balances necessary to protect our Constitutional rights. The president and congresss swore to protect the Constitution; not to destroy it.

0 Replies

All presidents have the "freedom" to do all the searches they desire, but with FISA court approval. The FISA court rarely denies approval for searches.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not really. It is impossible to conduct a warrantless physical search without the knowledge of the subject; whereas a warrantless electronic search leaves noone the wiser. Potentially, this is much worse, as nothing is worth more than privacy and the right to keep the information in one's head secret.

Cycloptichorn

It is not impossible to conduct a physical search without the knowledge of the subject. It is impossible to conduct some physical searches without the knowledge of the subject.

0 Replies

Here's an interesting poll:

Quote:

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,003 adults found that 50 percent of those polled believe it's OK to forgo warrants when ordering electronic surveillance of people suspected of having ties to terrorists abroad.

LINK

According to that poll's results, more people think the Bush administration was right in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order (50%), than think it was wrong (46%).

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know