3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:35 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html


I'm trying to figure out why you thought this post belonged on this thread. Is it because you think it casts the British military negatively, and thus the entire military effort in Iraq negatively, and thus Bush negatively, and thus it belongs in the Bush Supporters thread?

Why not post it over in the Democrats Gloat thread instead? That seems more appropriate, doesn't it? A news story showing negative things about the war belongs in the Democrats Gloat thread, right?


It's a good question. McG has part of the answer, but not all.

War is plum-packed with bravery and honor...every war, every army. Presently in Iraq, US soldiers will be acting bravely each day, but so will folks on the other side. That's a known known, to quote you know who. But yakking about it just makes folks on both sides get all happy about an endeavor which is about as unchristian an endeavor as anyone might imagine. I hate war and hate people who like war or who fall to it easily or fall to demonizing others easily. Far better we all hear about the bad stuff that goes on...the kids and other innocents blown to ****, the inevitable consequences of teaching humans to hate and kill, etc.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:50 am
Quote:
Carter allowed surveillance in 1977
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 11, 2006

Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign.

"And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said.

The next day at Mrs. King's high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the "secret government wiretapping" of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.

The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.

Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.

When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, agreed. In 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Miss Gorelick said case law supports the presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches and electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

Earlier this week, however, Mr. Carter said it was "ridiculous" for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to say the spying is justified by Article II of the Constitution.

Republicans say they welcome such criticism because it proves Democrats can't be trusted with national security.

"Just when you thought that the Democrats' image of being soft on defense issues couldn't get any worse, enter the sage wisdom of President Jimmy Carter to save the day," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:00 am
Re Tico's post, yes, several pages back I posted the executive orders signed by both Carter and Clinton authorizing warrantless surveillance. As usual the hypocrisy is stunning.

I believe it was Carter, on national TV, that prompted outrage from the Pentagon when he talked about us having stealth aircraft that were 'invisible to radar'. At the time that was highly classified information that was not supposed to be known by anybody without high level security clearances. That is a different thing, of course, but it is illustrative of how the man does not always exercise the best critical judgment.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:09 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Re Tico's post, yes, several pages back I posted the executive orders signed by both Carter and Clinton authorizing warrantless surveillance. As usual the hypocrisy is stunning.


Yes, Carter's hypocrisy is there, regardless of the adoption of the FISA.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:11 am
The administration has lately relied heavily on historical precedents for spying, but many scholars found them unpersuasive or inapt.

"Before FISA," Professor Bradley said, "it may have been the case that the president had the authority to do this kind of surveillance. What the Department of Justice is trying to do is use the prior practice to support the present program when the present program is a violation of a duly enacted statute."

John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department official and an architect of the Bush administration's legal strategy, said he welcomed the administration's public defense of the surveillance program.

"If you compare it to the last big issue," said Professor Yoo, who now teaches law at the University of California at Berkeley, "which was the interrogation debate, they are not having their legal positions dictated by people who are leaking to the press. The administration is now really admirably explaining itself fully and is sticking to its guns. Neither thing happened last time."

Several law professors said that evaluation of the legality of the current program had been clouded by earlier arguments about detentions and interrogations.

"The Justice Department's plausible legal arguments have less credibility than they might because they are associated with argument that have less legal grounding," Professor Sunstein said.

Professor Tribe saw it differently. "The defense of the spying program is like the 13th chime of a clock," he said. "It underscores your doubts about everything that has gone before."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/politics/28legal.html?ex=1296104400&en=17c81a417dc54ffa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:13 am
As we all know, of course, the FISA detail is rather relevant and may well result in grounds for impeachment, such not being the case in the other example.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:14 am
Carter is a good man, just not a good politician.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:32 am
blatham wrote:
As we all know, of course, the FISA detail is rather relevant and may well result in grounds for impeachment, such not being the case in the other example.


It's Carter's hypocrisy we're talking about, blatham. Which is there regardless of FISA.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:32 am
McGentrix wrote:
Carter is a good man, just not a good politician.


Carter has good qualities as did Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton. I am even relatively sure he isn't doing it intentionally, but Carter nevertheless is frequently hypocritical in his criticism of the current president as is Clinton, especially when he allows Hillary to speak for him. And both should be ashamed and excoriated for intentionally undermining a sitting President on matters of national defense and sensitive international policy.
None of the Republican presidents did that to them.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:40 am
I read an article yesterday in USNews & World Report that the GOP and Dems have "quietly" reached a truce on the NSA controversy.

Hmmmm...seems this all came about after Dubya allowed Gonzales to privately brief both the Senate and House Intel committees.

The article also pointed out that the majority in this country have supported the NSA program all along ... gee, do you think the Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall?

It appears we may be back to the "I stubbed my toe...Impeach Bush!!!" mentality.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:46 am
You are incorrect as usual, JW; there exist no polls showing that the majority in this country support the NSA spying. Only those polls which ask about wiretaps in general, and not wiretaps without warrants, support the administration's position.

Here's a more recent one for ya, from the American Bar Assosciation:

http://www.abanews.org/releases/news021006.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 10:54 am
What they (USNews & World Report) reported is "polling finds consistent public support for antiterrorism surveillance".

The point is, the Democrats realize they need to back off if they want to be seen as having any credibility at all concerning national security.

All fine and good, but I hope Dubya doesn't back off prosecuting those responsible for the leak in the first place.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:00 am
Then appropriately, neither should Fitzgerald 'back off'...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:05 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are incorrect as usual, JW; there exist no polls showing that the majority in this country support the NSA spying. Only those polls which ask about wiretaps in general, and not wiretaps without warrants, support the administration's position.

On that definition, you are mistaken on this point, and JW is probably correct. Pollingreport.com, on this page, lists at least three polls where a majority of respondents said they approve on warrantless wiretaps between US numbers and foreign numbers where one side is a terrorist. It's on the page you find when you go to www.pollingreport.com and click the link saying "wiretaps".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:10 am
Quote:
The point is, the Democrats realize they need to back off if they want to be seen as having any credibility at all concerning national security.


This is the absolute opposite from reality. Because the president's warrantless spying is illegal, it represents a greater threat to our nation than any terrorist. It threatens to undermine the constitution completely.

Here's an article which says, well, a little different things than USA today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/page/3/

Quote:
This coming week is not going to be any better. The Senate intelligence committee is likely to vote to open an investigation into the NSA's wiretapping program, according to senior congressional aides who declined to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, will probably follow the White House line and try to keep a lid on the hearings. But three Republicans--Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike DeWine of Ohio--are expected to join with the Democrats on the committee to vote to demand more information about the secret eavesdropping program from the White House and intelligence agencies.


The White House thinks this is a political winner, but they are wrong. The American people don't like being spied upon; and there still exists the great possibility that this program was misused.

This won't be going away anytime soon.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:13 am
Stradee wrote:
Then appropriately, neither should Fitzgerald 'back off'...


I don't think anyone here has said he should.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:16 am
Quote:
Pollingreport.com, on this page, lists at least three polls where a majority of respondents said they approve on warrantless wiretaps between US numbers and foreign numbers where one side is a terrorist.


This is a false paradigm as well; the questions don't point out the fact that the gov't is spying upon many many people, warantless, who are not suspected of anything, in order to find the very few who are.

The questions, if they were accurate to the reality of the situation, would reflect the fact that the vast majority of people being spied upon are never suspected of anything; merely part of the 'net' that is used to troll for leads.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Pollingreport.com, on this page, lists at least three polls where a majority of respondents said they approve on warrantless wiretaps between US numbers and foreign numbers where one side is a terrorist.


This is a false paradigm as well; the questions don't point out the fact that the gov't is spying upon many many people, warantless, who are not suspected of anything, in order to find the very few who are.

The questions, if they were accurate to the reality of the situation, would reflect the fact that the vast majority of people being spied upon are never suspected of anything; merely part of the 'net' that is used to troll for leads.

Cycloptichorn

But that is not the claim you made two posts earlier. That claim was: "there exist no polls showing that the majority in this country support the NSA spying. Only those polls which ask about wiretaps in general, and not wiretaps without warrants, support the administration's position." There exist some polls that specifically asked about warrantless NSA wiretaps, and several of them find a majority of respondents approving of them. Only after your original claim was proven false, you changed it to say "There exist no polls that ask the question as I think it ought to be asked" -- which is probably true for almost all of us, and does not mean much.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:29 am
Fair enough. I should have been more careful with my original comment.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 11:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fair enough. I should have been more careful with my original comment.

It happens to the best of us. If only I had a penny for every time I should have been more careful with my original comment ....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 06:25:55