A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

An example of the 'help' that Bush has pledged to the McCain effort. This will be, again, a fundamental crux of the Republican campaign strategy - try to make the population fearful and try to suggest that Dems are weak on security.

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

falsity!

blatham wrote:

Did you read the piece on Goldsmith, george?

Yes. However, it didn't influence my answer above. The article - in terms of the facts presented - was but a repetition of stuff I have already seen and heard (during Senate hearings mostly). I don't see that it illuminates the issue at all. The conclusions at the heart of the article are all the unsupported value judgements of the writer.

http://dfa.meetup.com/boards/thread/1329388/20/

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

falsity!

How is this false.

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

falsity!

How is this false.

FISA cannot approve or disapprove anything.

FISA specifies that the US Attorney General can authorize wiretapping of the conversations of our foreign enemies without a warrant or a judge's approval.

...
There's little that the rightwing talkshow nuts get right, but they do get how important future supreme court nominations will be to the advancement or curtailment of their movement.

Thus, the only activity worth engaging is moving your modern party and movement away from points of power.

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

falsity!

How is this false.

FISA cannot approve or disapprove anything.

Fair enough, penalize me for my lazy use of language, but of course you knew what I meant.

Quote:

FISA specifies that the US Attorney General can authorize wiretapping of the conversations of our foreign enemies without a warrant or a judge's approval.

If you are talking foreign enemies talking to American citizens....for how many hours exactly.......

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

falsity!

How is this false.

FISA cannot approve or disapprove anything.

Fair enough, penalize me for my lazy use of language, but of course you knew what I meant.

Quote:

FISA specifies that the US Attorney General can authorize wiretapping of the conversations of our foreign enemies without a warrant or a judge's approval.

If you are talking foreign enemies talking to American citizens....for how many hours exactly.......

Not specified exactly!

What you apparently do not understand is that this lawful wiretapping is for securing Americans against would be terroists, and not for indicting anyone.

an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.

blatham wrote:

...
There's little that the rightwing talkshow nuts get right, but they do get how important future supreme court nominations will be to the advancement or curtailment of their movement.

Thus, the only activity worth engaging is moving your modern party and movement away from points of power.

Looks like you are recommending the USA move away from Constitutional points of power to unconstitutional points of power. To achieve what purpose?

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:

...
There's little that the rightwing talkshow nuts get right, but they do get how important future supreme court nominations will be to the advancement or curtailment of their movement.

Thus, the only activity worth engaging is moving your modern party and movement away from points of power.

Looks like you are recommending the USA move away from Constitutional points of power to unconstitutional points of power. To achieve what purpose?

Huh? You aren't holding up a mirror to the screen there to see if I might be writing in code, are you?

I am suggesting that george and I won't be able to bridge to each other on this matter because we have different philosophies. Outside of dogmatic bias, there's no good way we have of establishing whether the Federalist Society has a proper view of a wide range of legal questions or whether those who tend to oppose them have the proper view. It's not a matter of which shell holds the pea.

Thus, as a consequence, the matter will be "settled" by the philosophical make-up of the SC members. And, from my viewpoint which is opposed to george's, that means going for the WH and via that step, determining as much as possible, what the SC will look like up the road.

It also means getting clear on what the Federalist Society actually is and setting up matching institutions on the left to counter it.

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's illegal to wiretap without FISA approval. That's the law.

falsity!

How is this false.

FISA cannot approve or disapprove anything.

Fair enough, penalize me for my lazy use of language, but of course you knew what I meant.

Quote:

FISA specifies that the US Attorney General can authorize wiretapping of the conversations of our foreign enemies without a warrant or a judge's approval.

If you are talking foreign enemies talking to American citizens....for how many hours exactly.......

Not specified exactly!

What you apparently do not understand is that this lawful wiretapping is for securing Americans against would be terroists, and not for indicting anyone.

Sure it is, you can listen immediately w/o approval, but you have 72 hours to go back and obtain a warrent from a FISA judge, if you don't your in violation of the FISA laws.


I've underlined the pertinent sections for you.




http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

Quote:

an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.

blatham wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:

...
There's little that the rightwing talkshow nuts get right, but they do get how important future supreme court nominations will be to the advancement or curtailment of their movement.

Thus, the only activity worth engaging is moving your modern party and movement away from points of power.

Looks like you are recommending the USA move away from Constitutional points of power to unconstitutional points of power. To achieve what purpose?

Huh? You aren't holding up a mirror to the screen there to see if I might be writing in code, are you?

I am suggesting that george and I won't be able to bridge to each other on this matter because we have different philosophies. Outside of dogmatic bias, there's no good way we have of establishing whether the Federalist Society has a proper view of a wide range of legal questions or whether those who tend to oppose them have the proper view. It's not a matter of which shell holds the pea.

Thus, as a consequence, the matter will be "settled" by the philosophical make-up of the SC members. And, from my viewpoint which is opposed to george's, that means going for the WH and via that step, determining as much as possible, what the SC will look like up the road.

It also means getting clear on what the Federalist Society actually is and setting up matching institutions on the left to counter it.

Then please be more specific about what are the Federalist Society's views about what are Constitutional points of power versus what you think needs to be countered with your views of what are Constitutional points of power.

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:

...
There's little that the rightwing talkshow nuts get right, but they do get how important future supreme court nominations will be to the advancement or curtailment of their movement.

Thus, the only activity worth engaging is moving your modern party and movement away from points of power.

Looks like you are recommending the USA move away from Constitutional points of power to unconstitutional points of power. To achieve what purpose?

Huh? You aren't holding up a mirror to the screen there to see if I might be writing in code, are you?

I am suggesting that george and I won't be able to bridge to each other on this matter because we have different philosophies. Outside of dogmatic bias, there's no good way we have of establishing whether the Federalist Society has a proper view of a wide range of legal questions or whether those who tend to oppose them have the proper view. It's not a matter of which shell holds the pea.

Thus, as a consequence, the matter will be "settled" by the philosophical make-up of the SC members. And, from my viewpoint which is opposed to george's, that means going for the WH and via that step, determining as much as possible, what the SC will look like up the road.

It also means getting clear on what the Federalist Society actually is and setting up matching institutions on the left to counter it.

Then please be more specific about what are the Federalist Society's views about what are Constitutional points of power versus what you think needs to be countered with your views of what are Constitutional points of power.

Last attempt with you here.

If your party holds the WH, it has more power than if it did not.
If your party has a majority in the congress and/or senate, it has more power than if it did not.
If your party, in holding the WH, moves more partisan supporters into key positions of decision-making power within all the government agencies, then it has more power than if it had not.
If your party builds up institutions and personnel at the state level and moves effectively to establish decision-making power in those spheres, then it has more power than if it had not.
If your party determines the makeup of the SC, then it has more power than if it had not.
If your party builds up non-governmental institutions which are designed to forward the interests of your party to the detriment of the other party, then it has more power than if it had not.

There are points of power in governance which, in the US, are established by the constitution. And there are points of power concerning which the constitution does not involve itself.