America... Spying on Americans II

McG thinks the president is above the laws of this country.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG thinks the president is above the laws of this country.

I do? That's news to me.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FISA established a special court, composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered terms and are from different circuits.

Wasn't the Chief Justice Bush appointed? What makes you think that the judicial branch is anymore trustworthy?

Trustworthy? Separate, is what I'm looking for.

Quote:

No one is allowed to see the records and files, so how can anyone be sure that it is anything more then a rubber stamp?

Then why the resistance to using it? The point is that someone from the judicial branch is now deciding whether a wiretap violates someone's right against unreasonable search and seizure. No-one was doing that before, or if they were, they were from the executive branch.

Now I don't like having a secret court. I won't argue that everything is all better. But it's better than having an administration who operates outside the law and flips our civil liberties the finger. If it's a rubber stamp court, why did they ever need to circumvent it?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
FISA established a special court, composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered terms and are from different circuits.

Wasn't the Chief Justice Bush appointed? What makes you think that the judicial branch is anymore trustworthy?

Trustworthy? Separate, is what I'm looking for.

Quote:
No one is allowed to see the records and files, so how can anyone be sure that it is anything more then a rubber stamp?

Then why the resistance to using it? The point is that someone from the judicial branch is now deciding whether a wiretap violates someone's right against unreasonable search and seizure. No-one was doing that before, or if they were, they were from the executive branch.

Now I don't like having a secret court. I won't argue that everything is all better. But it's better than having an administration who operates outside the law and flips our civil liberties the finger. If it's a rubber stamp court, why did they ever need to circumvent it?

They didn't flip anyone's civil liberties the finger, they are using a tool to prevent future terrorist attacks. They are continuing to do so. It seems silly that now that a judge has signed a piece of paper that they are no longer flipping your civil liberties the finger. The program hasn't changed.

0 Replies

McG, You are naive to think that any president can ignore the laws of this country for any purpose. That's the reason the FISA court was established; to ensure that anything done for the security of our country remains legal to protect American citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG, You are naive to think that any president can ignore the laws of this country for any purpose. That's the reason the FISA court was established; to ensure that anything done for the security of our country remains legal to protect American citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

C.I., quit being an ass. I've never thought the President is above the law and I have never said the President is above the law. Your red herring smells, please take it home with you.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
McG, You are naive to think that any president can ignore the laws of this country for any purpose. That's the reason the FISA court was established; to ensure that anything done for the security of our country remains legal to protect American citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

C.I., quit being an ass. I've never thought the President is above the law and I have never said the President is above the law. Your red herring smells, please take it home with you.

What about your red herring that nothing has changed McG? That one stinks to high heaven.

0 Replies

McG wrote: They didn't flip anyone's civil liberties the finger, they are using a tool to prevent future terrorist attacks. They are continuing to do so. It seems silly that now that a judge has signed a piece of paper that they are no longer flipping your civil liberties the finger. The program hasn't changed.

For you, it's silly for a judge to sign a piece of paper which is required by the FISA law. Get your own head out of your ass.

0 Replies

McG wrote: They didn't flip anyone's civil liberties the finger, they are using a tool to prevent future terrorist attacks. They are continuing to do so. It seems silly that now that a judge has signed a piece of paper that they are no longer flipping your civil liberties the finger. The program hasn't changed.

For you, it's silly for a judge to sign a piece of paper which is required by the FISA law. Get your own head out of your ass. As all of your previous posts show, you're still in the "dark."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McG wrote: They didn't flip anyone's civil liberties the finger, they are using a tool to prevent future terrorist attacks. They are continuing to do so. It seems silly that now that a judge has signed a piece of paper that they are no longer flipping your civil liberties the finger. The program hasn't changed.

For you, it's silly for a judge to sign a piece of paper which is required by the FISA law. Get your own head out of your ass. As all of your previous posts show, you're still in the "dark."

It's not silly at all. I am glad they are because it's one less way the liberals can make our country less safe. Now they can no longer whine about how Bush is trying to be above the law.

0 Replies

McG wrote: It's not silly at all. I am glad they are because it's one less way the liberals can make our country less safe. Now they can no longer whine about how Bush is trying to be above the law.

ROFLMAO We're talking about Bush who has claimed along with Gozales that "oversight by tthe FISA court was not required." McG is still in the dark.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

They didn't flip anyone's civil liberties the finger, they are using a tool to prevent future terrorist attacks. They are continuing to do so. It seems silly that now that a judge has signed a piece of paper that they are no longer flipping your civil liberties the finger. The program hasn't changed.

If they searched your house without that silly piece of paper I think you'd be singing another tune. That silly piece of paper is the evidence that there is probable cause.

Tha fact of the matter is that the goverment needs a warrant before they can spy on its citizens. We set up a special court to issue such warrants in cases of national security. Bush disregarded the law and spied without the warrants. You may think that warrants are silly, but I don't. We are a nation of laws and if we have a government that won't abide by them then we have a problem.

0 Replies

If what they did was illegal, which according to Gonzalez it was perfectly legal, why didn't any of the investigations yield any fruit? As I said, I am glad to see the administration return to the FISC. They worked out whatever was holding up the move and that is indeed progress.

0 Replies

Quote:

which according to Gonzalez it was perfectly legal

Sure, let's ask those we suspect of breaking the law whether or not they have been breaking the law. That's a great way to find out the truth.

Quote:

why didn't any of the investigations yield any fruit?

Which investigations are you referring to, exactly?

Bush blocked the Office of Professional Resopnsibility from investigating the DOJ and the Republicans in Congress certainly didn't investigate the Executive branch. So what are you referring to?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If what they did was illegal, which according to Gonzalez it was perfectly legal, why didn't any of the investigations yield any fruit? As I said, I am glad to see the administration return to the FISC. They worked out whatever was holding up the move and that is indeed progress.

What investigations?

If what they did was perfectly legal, why change it now?

0 Replies

Quote:

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

Are you suggesting Gonzalez doesn't know the law and the difference between what is legal and illegal?

The investigations I am speaking of are the ones done by congress when all this bru-ha-ha started.

0 Replies

The Republican cronies in Congress didn't investigate this at all. You seem to be a little confused about what 'investigation' means.

Quote:

Are you suggesting Gonzalez doesn't know the law and the difference between what is legal and illegal?

Oh, he knows, he's just lying and spinning to avoid admitting that they broke the law. Their best defense is that they consider the law to be unconstitutional. Maybe I'll try that one next time I get pulled over; but it isn't a valid legal defense.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Republican cronies in Congress didn't investigate this at all. You seem to be a little confused about what 'investigation' means.

Quote:

Are you suggesting Gonzalez doesn't know the law and the difference between what is legal and illegal?

Oh, he knows, he's just lying and spinning to avoid admitting that they broke the law. Their best defense is that they consider the law to be unconstitutional. Maybe I'll try that one next time I get pulled over; but it isn't a valid legal defense.

Cycloptichorn

You'll have to excuse me if I decide that the Attorney General knows more about the law then you.

0 Replies

He may very well know the difference. I don't see how it matters.

McG, you've been in on this conversation since the beginning so I know that you know what the arguments are for and against the legality of this program. Give me a link to the findings of just one comprehensive congressional or otherwise independent investigation. I recall hearings, during which the administration refused to tell congress exactly what it was doing, but I recall no serious, comprehensive investigation into the legality of the program, though you can bet that one was coming.

This is a tactic the admin has used more than once. They did this same thing with Padilla. They asserted that they had the absolute authority to do what they were doing until it became clear they were losing the argument, at which time they filed charges to prevent the case from being decided. Rather than go through and investigation of the spying program and have an actual decision made as to whether it was legal, they punted. You must be very proud of your people.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The Republican cronies in Congress didn't investigate this at all. You seem to be a little confused about what 'investigation' means.

Quote:

Are you suggesting Gonzalez doesn't know the law and the difference between what is legal and illegal?

Oh, he knows, he's just lying and spinning to avoid admitting that they broke the law. Their best defense is that they consider the law to be unconstitutional. Maybe I'll try that one next time I get pulled over; but it isn't a valid legal defense.

Cycloptichorn

You'll have to excuse me if I decide that the Attorney General knows more about the law then you.

I didn't say that I knew more about the law then they did. I said that they were lying about whether or not they were breaking the law. This implies that Gonzales knows the law quite well and is well aware that they are breaking it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

America... Spying on Americans II

Quick Links

My Account

able2know