1
   

Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First

 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 04:57 am
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No, it's another word for not wanting to look up the exact wording. You know that I am referring to the congressional resolution passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and other counterterrorism measures, so why the silly questions?


The AUMF does not authorize Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment. The AUMF does not expressly or implicitly repeal FISA. The AUMF does not authorize Bush to bypass FISA. The AUMF and FISA are not irreconcilable. FISA specifically allows the government to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for fifteen days immediately after a war is commenced.


According to the Attorney General of the US it does. Do you have access to more information than he does? Are you a more experienced lawyer dealing with these cases than he is? Do you feel that your opinion carries more weight in this matter than his does?


You are wrong. The AG has never said the AUMF authorizes Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment. Only a moron would allege that a congressional statute or resolution can trump the Constitution.

I have extensive legal education, training, and experience--more than enough to know that the Attorney General's legal argument based on the AUMF is without merit. Leading constitutional / legal scholars throughout the nation have evaluated the AG's legal argument and have found it to be without merit.

It doesn't take a lawyer, however, to know that warrantless governmental searchs and seizures of our private communications are contrary to our fundamental constitutional principles. Where's your common sense?


Obviously the program is not violating the fourth amendment then.


If Bush ordered NSA agents to monitor and intercept the private communications sent by or received by any United States person within this country and to do so without obtaining court approval on the basis of probable cause, then the Fourth Amendment has been violated. And, Bush has confirmed that he has ordered NSA agents to do exactly that.




McG wrote:
Why is that every congressman that has learned about what the program does has not demanded that it cease? Do you suppose that once they find out the details, they discover that it does not, in fact, break any law?


Given what the president has confirmed thus far, the program does, in fact, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment.

Our representatives in Congress want the executive branch to conduct electronic surveillance of persons who are affiliated with al Qaida. But, our representatives in Congress want the executive branch to do so lawfully and constitutionally. That is why congressional committees are holding hearings. There is a loud and consistent bipartisan calling for the administration to come to Congress and to recommend changes to FISA that will make our pursuit of terrorists more effective. Senior senators and representatives from both parties have insisted on checks and balances.

If you were following the hearing on February 6, 2006, when Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, then you know that senior republicans were urgently admonishing the AG that the president's unilateral and unchecked program was inconsistent with the program established by Congress and this created UNCERTAINTY and constitutional TENSION in the government. NSA employees and military personnel, even if they are ordered to follow a presidential directive, are subject to criminal penalties if following that directive constitutes a violation of federal law (e.g., Uniform Code of Military Justice; FISA). If there is tension and conflict between congressional enactments and presidential orders (like there is now)--how do our people in the field know with any certainty what the "law" is concerning their conduct? We need to give them certainty. We are a government of laws, and the president cannot be allowed to usurp the legislative role of Congress by issuing executive orders that conflict with congressional enactments.

Gonzales claimed the president's unchecked spying program was effective because it was helping us to identify terrorists and to prevent terrorist attacks. One of the senators asked Gonzales an important question: Have we arrested those terrorists that you identified? Why haven't we heard anything about terrorists being identified and arrested?

Gonzales refused to answer the question, but the answer is obvious. International terrorism, domestic terrorism, sabotage, espionage, treason, etc., (the things that United States persons would be surveilled to discover) are federal crimes. Any information of criminal activity that was obtained from warrantless electronic surveillance or ruled the fruit of poisonous tree would be excluded as evidence in the prosecution of these individuals because of the government's violation of the Fourth Amendment. (By the way, FISA includes the exclusionary rule in one of its provisions.) This is the catch-22. Even if the president's program somehow helps to IDENTIFY potential terrorists and PREVENT potential attacks through warrantless electronic surveillance, the president can't arrest these people and hope to have the charges stick.

So . . . what is happening to these United States persons that the administration claims to have identified through the president's program? How has the administration prevented attacks? Have these United States persons simply disappeared into some secret rendition or torture facility--are they still alive? are they still moving among us? What are the secret "operational" details of this program? If United States persons are disappearing without a clue as the victims of some secret government operation, we have FAR GREATER constitutional concerns than ones we currently know about.

Justice Douglas stated the following:

Quote:
George III in 1777 pressed for a bill which would allow arrests on suspicion of treason committed in America. The words were "suspected of" treason and it was to these words that Wilkes addressed himself in Parliament. "There is not a syllable in the Bill of the degree of probability attending the suspicion. . . . Is it possible, Sir, to give more despotic powers to a bashaw of the Turkish [358 U.S. 307, 317] empire? What security is left for the devoted objects of this Bill against the malice of a prejudiced individual, a wicked magistrate . . . ?" The Speeches of Mr. Wilkes, p. 102.

These words and the complaints against which they were directed were will known on this side of the water. Hamilton wrote about "the practice of arbitrary imprisonments" which he denounced as "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." The Federalist No. 84. The writs of assistance, against which James Otis proclaimed, 4 were vicious in the same way as the general warrants, since they required no showing of "probable cause" before a magistrate, and since they allowed the police to search on suspicion and without "reasonable grounds" for believing that a crime had been or was being committed. Otis' protest was eloquent; but he lost the case. His speech, however, rallied public opinion. "Then and there," wrote John Adams, "the child Independence was born." 10 Life and Works of John Adams (1856), p. 248.

The attitude of Americans to arrests and searches on suspicion was also greatly influenced by the lettres de cachet extensively used in France. 5 This was an order emanating from the King and countersigned by a minister directing the seizure of a person for purposes of immediate imprisonment or exile. The ministers issued the lettres in an arbitrary manner, often at the request of the head of a noble family to punish a deviant son or relative. See Mirabeau, A Victim of the Lettres de Cachet, 3 Am. Hist. Rev. 19. One who was so arrested [358 U.S. 307, 318] might remain incarcerated indefinitely, as no legal process was available by which he could seek release. "Since the action of the government was secret, his friends might not know whither he had vanished, and he might even be ignorant of the cause of his arrest." 8 The Camb. Mod. Hist. 50. In the Eighteenth Century the practice arose of issuing the lettres in blank, the name to be filled in by the local mandatory. Thus the King could be told in 1770 "that no citizen of your realm is guaranteed against having his liberty sacrificed to revenge. For no one is great enough to be beyond the hate of some minister, nor small enough to be beyond the hate of some clerk." III Encyc. Soc. Sci. 138. As Blackstone wrote, ". . . if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, (as in France it is daily practiced by the crown,) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities." I Commentaries (4th ed. Cooley) *135.




See DRAPER v. UNITED STATES, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)(MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting).

When the actions of our government with respect to United States persons are conducted in SECRET and in violation of our established law, we must ask: Who among us have vanished?



McG wrote:
You, me, we can argue about it until the cows come home, but until the facts are known, and I hope they are not until the program is no longer useful as an intelligence gathering tool, we can only conjecture about whether or not it is against the law.


You might be satisfied with a secretive government that spies on its own citizens--or worse--but I'm not. It goes against the very foundation of our democratic republic based on the rule of law and separation of powers--and there is no conjecture about that.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 01:38 am
parados wrote:
Brandon - Bush never lies and nobody can prove he lies.

Deb - Is this statement by Bush the truth?


Brandon - I am not going to believe that statement by Bush is true until you prove it to be true.


Way to support your original statement there Brandon. :wink:

That isn't my original stament at all. How sad that you find it necessary to change my words in order to argue with them.

Suggesting, as I did, that a person has no basis for saying someone is guilty without evidence is nothing more than common sense.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 07:33 am
Brandon:

Again:

True or False:

A wiretap requires a court order.

You've had lots of time to figure out whether Bush's statement is true or false. I'm waiting for you to actually answer the question rather than cop out and say you "don't know."
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 08:08 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
parados wrote:
Brandon - Bush never lies and nobody can prove he lies.

Deb - Is this statement by Bush the truth?


Brandon - I am not going to believe that statement by Bush is true until you prove it to be true.


Way to support your original statement there Brandon. :wink:


That isn't my original stament at all. How sad that you find it necessary to change my words in order to argue with them.

Suggesting, as I did, that a person has no basis for saying someone is guilty without evidence is nothing more than common sense.



Brandon:

You need to clarify your position because you've been taking a contrary position than the one you just stated.

It's one thing, if Bush is accused of lying, to suggest there is no basis for stating Bush is guilty of lying without evidence.

It is quite another thing, when I suggested that Bush is telling the TRUTH (NOT GUILTY of lying) when he said wiretaps require a court order for you to state you won't accept that Bush is telling the truth without citation to authority.

When I suggested that Bush was telling the TRUTH (not guilty of lying) when he said wiretaps require a court order, I provided you with several citations to authority. If you wanted to verify whether BUSH was telling the TRUTH or whether BUSH was LYING, it would have taken you two seconds to find that authority and read it.

However, you refused to be persuaded that BUSH was telling the TRUTH and you refused to put two seconds of effort into finding the cited authority in order to read it. In your laziness, you demanded that I provide you with direct links to the cited authority.

You claimed that you win the argument and I lose my case that Bush was telling the TRUTH unless I provided you with direct links to cited authority because you were too lazy to take two seconds to look up cited authority by yourself.

So, your current position (which in no way supports your original position) is this: A person has no basis for saying someone (BUSH) is INNOCENT (not guilty of lying) without evidence--and by evidence, you mean direct links to cited authority because you're too lazy to take two seconds to search for that authority through a simple google search. Is this the common sense that you claimed? I think NOT.

Again:

Was Bush telling the TRUTH when he said wiretaps require a court order?

I think Bush's statement was TRUE.

Do you agree or disagree?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2006 08:24 am
No excuses for Brandon now:

United States Constitution:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Fourth Amendment:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:

TITLE 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 36—FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html


Criminal Statutes:

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I—CRIMES
CHAPTER 119—WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119.html


Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967):

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/41.html

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967):

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/389/347.html

UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972):

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/407/297.html
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 08:39 am
Brandon has left the thread....

I see. Does that mean he looses the argument?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 08:57 am
True or False: No poster on A2K has full knowledge of the pertinent facts surrounding the terrorist surveillance program.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:09 am
Now, THAT can't be answered as long as you don't know who the people posting on A2K are in reality. Right?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:26 am
Is there an NSA mole here?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:15 pm
I'm pretty sure that Blueveinedthrobber is really Dick Cheney.

Who else would talk like that? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:42 pm
McGentrix wrote:
True or False: No poster on A2K has full knowledge of the pertinent facts surrounding the terrorist surveillance program.


Based on Gonzales' testimony on February 6, 2006, it is reasonable for all of us to believe that the president's surreptitious activities are far more extensive than what Bush has publicly confirmed. However, based on what Bush has indeed confirmed, Bush has violated the law.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:44 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon has left the thread....

I see. Does that mean he looses the argument?


He's evading and avoiding. I wonder why.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 06:56 pm
Somebody actually answering his questions is just not part of his strategy of "winning the debate"...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:08 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
True or False: No poster on A2K has full knowledge of the pertinent facts surrounding the terrorist surveillance program.


Based on Gonzales' testimony on February 6, 2006, it is reasonable for all of us to believe that the president's surreptitious activities are far more extensive than what Bush has publicly confirmed. However, based on what Bush has indeed confirmed, Bush has violated the law.


Then based not on the facts, but on the opinion of what is known, many people have declared the President guilty.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:15 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Then based not on the facts, but on the opinion of what is known, many people have declared the President guilty.


"Based on the opinion of what is known?" That's not supposed to be English, is it?
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 08/05/2021 at 03:25:07