According to McG, any Attorney General that knows the law is in itself evidence they never break the law.
Accordingly, all attorneys that knows the law also never break the law, because they know the laws better than John-Q Public.
Case closed.
Free Duck wrote: What is your point?
Precisely!
His point is that circling the wagons seems to have worked for Gonzales so far, so hell, why can't it work for McG as well?
Cycloptichorn
McG needs to remove those shades to see the "light of day." LOL
Does this mean Al Qaeda is no longer a threat McG?
It must mean as much since the WH has backed off on its claim that its strategy of not going to the FISA court " may be the only way to alert us to the presence of an al Qaeda agent in our country and to the existence of an unfolding plot."
What has changed McG? Other than the Dems have taken Congress? The law hasn't changed. Is Al Qaeda no longer a threat?
Quote:He added: "Nothing has changed in the program except the court has said we've analyzed it and it's a legitimate way to protect the country."
Nothing has changed. Good.
You realize, McG that George Bush is the president of a democratic nation and not a King of a monarchy, do you not? If in fact you are correct that nothing has changed, then the federal case will go forward and the investigations from congress. Congress makes the laws in this country, they are also in charge of impeachments. Democrats are in control, if Bush pushes them too far, they will act and I do believe they can get enough republicans to back them along with a majority of the American people.
It is exactly this kind of arrogant behavior that got you guys out of power in November, it would benefit ya'll to remember it.
When Bush becomes supreme ruler and dictator of the world Revel, I'll be one of those guys herding people like you into railcars for "re-education".
McGentrix wrote:Quote:He added: "Nothing has changed in the program except the court has said we've analyzed it and it's a legitimate way to protect the country."
Nothing has changed. Good.
But the court isn't allowed to tell us what it actually looked at and what it actually said, because that's secret. This is just another tactic where they are trying to avoid accountability by taking an action they think will allow them to have a case dismissed rather than decided. It's chickenshit, really. If it's a legitimate program, they should be able to defend it in court.
It's a secret program Freeduck. There has to be a time when Americans need to trust the government they have elected to do what's right to defend us. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it, as a whole, can not be trusted not to leak secret information to the press.
If details of the terrorist surveillance program were to be leaked, do you honestly think that would be a good thing? Do you think that information would be helpful at all to anyone but the terrorists it is being used against?
Congress has a committee that gets briefed on the details of programs like this. It is small to keep secrets secret.
We are a nation of laws, not trust.
McGentrix wrote:It's a secret program Freeduck. There has to be a time when Americans need to trust the government they have elected to do what's right to defend us. Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it, as a whole, can not be trusted not to leak secret information to the press.
If details of the terrorist surveillance program were to be leaked, do you honestly think that would be a good thing? Do you think that information would be helpful at all to anyone but the terrorists it is being used against?
Congress has a committee that gets briefed on the details of programs like this. It is small to keep secrets secret.
Do you have a link where it says congress has a committee where the details of the program will be provided? Gonzales has said they will not release the details of the program, didn't say anything about providing it to a select committee.
Quote:Because FISA applications are one-sided affairs, with no one arguing the other side, there is no losing party who can appeal from the orders. In a letter on Wednesday, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the presiding judge of the 11-member court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said she would have no objection to the release of the relevant orders to lawmakers if the Justice Department approved.
But Mr. Gonzales indicated that the department would object to the release of at least the "operational details" disclosed in the orders.
source
That is true, and according to the Attorney General, the terrorist surveillance program, as it has been run, was perfectly legal.
Now, many people, especially those opposed to Bush and anything he does, have raised questions about the legality to which Gonzalez answered. I linked his response earlier in which he outlines why it is legal.
Let me ask you a question; How do laws get created? Are they not created by those we elect? Do we not have to trust our legislators to create the laws our country follows?
McGentrix wrote:That is true, and according to the Attorney General, the terrorist surveillance program, as it has been run, was perfectly legal.
Now, many people, especially those opposed to Bush and anything he does, have raised questions about the legality to which Gonzalez answered. I linked his response earlier in which he outlines why it is legal.
Let me ask you a question; How do laws get created? Are they not created by those we elect? Do we not have to trust our legislators to create the laws our country follows?
I already answered that question before you asked it, Congress creates the law, therefore they are entitled to know the details of how those laws are executed, they are not being allowed to know.
Tell me that I don't have to explain to you how the three branches of our government are supposed to work. Our government was built on mistrust, that's why we have three separate, co-equal branches of government who share power and who provide checks and balances to one another.
The people who are opposed to this program are opposed on quite legitimate grounds. You may feel that it is just a morphing opposition to Bush himself, but that's based on your proxied persecution complex and not on fact.
FreeDuck wrote:The people who are opposed to this program are opposed on quite legitimate grounds. You may feel that it is just a morphing opposition to Bush himself, but that's based on your proxied persecution complex and not on fact.
Riiiight... There's no political games being played with national security.
