1
   

The President Bush Wrongdoing Thread

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:44 am
Why does Brandon hate America?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:47 am
He clearly doesn't share its values.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:54 am
As I said, you guys apparently prefer to throw a lot of dirt around and hope that some sticks to Mr. Bush, but have no capacity or desire to list allegations against the president in your own words, one at a time, under a set of rules which encourage fairness and objective competition of ideas.

BTW, I take these posts of yours as leave to post off topic in any of your threads forever. Should you or any admin every direct the tiniest criticism against me for doing so, I'll remember to cut and paste from this thread of mine.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 08:59 am
Boy, that'll show us, for sure . . .

That Brandon, he's such a Mensch ! ! !
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:04 am
For you, brandon, to criticize either setanta or I for insufficient detail is justa about as ridiculous as anything I've ever read here. Either of us has previously set out extended and fully cited analyses of hundreds of issues, often dozens of times in repetition, so that lazy and thoughtless jerks like you might get a clue.

It seems impossible that you'd belief the things you write. Tell me you don't so that I can retain even a thimbleful of respect for you.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:07 am
Allegations have been listed ad nauseum Brandon.
This is just another baited thread where you can look at any evidence put forth and either deny it, question the credibility of the source, deny it, blame Clinton, or deny it.

This feels like groundhog's day.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:11 am
Don't forget the opportunity for Brandon to claim that he's been personally insulted, and declare himself the winner.

Brandon, what kinds of prizes do you win?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:13 am
Yaknow, it could just as easily be said that no Bush supporters - including yourself, Brandon - are interested in attempting to defend him from valid, sourced and debatable accusations which are not grounded in any sort of irrational hate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:17 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yaknow, it could just as easily be said that no Bush supporters - including yourself, Brandon - are interested in attempting to defend him from valid, sourced and debatable accusations which are not grounded in any sort of irrational hate.

Cycloptichorn

If I make any assertion in any post, it's my responsibility to support it with logic or evidence, at least if specifically requested to.

If you post an assertion, I am entitled to ask you to support it, and I am not obligated to seek evidence to support my contention that it's wrong prior to stating such a contention.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:18 am
You missed my point -

I have made assertions, and noone has seen fit to step up and respond to them. Nor have they stated it was wrong, nor have they asked me for more information. Just a bunch of silence, really.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:20 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You missed my point -

I have made assertions, and noone has seen fit to step up and respond to them. Nor have they stated it was wrong, nor have they asked me for more information. Just a bunch of silence, really.

Cycloptichorn

I absolutely agree with you, and I am disappointed. Speaking only for myself, it was never my intention when I created this thread to respond personally to every post.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:21 am
Okay, but I would like to see you chide and show disappointment in your fellow Righties for being unwilling to step up to the plate the same way you chose to do so with the Lefties.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:21 am
I think it's a conservative phenomenon to either prematurely declare victory, or declare victory where victory can be neither established nor quantified.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:26 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okay, but I would like to see you chide and show disappointment in your fellow Righties for being unwilling to step up to the plate the same way you chose to do so with the Lefties.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps, but they would be expected to come in and reply after some accusations against Mr. Bush had been made. Yours was the only one they might have replied to. Nonetheless, I concede your point that both sides seem to prefer undisciplined, irresponsible, subjective debate.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 09:55 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'll start.

It was both morally wrong, UnAmerican, and Illegal for Bush to authorize spying on American citizens without a warrant. He is specifically prohibited from doing so by FISA, a law written specifically to limit the president in this area and signed into law by a president. He also has broken the 4th amendment rights of American citizens by doing so.

Terrorism is a never-ending threat, and therefore, those who claim that we must give up our freedoms 'temporarily' are wrong; there will never be an end to the war on terror, just as there is no end to wars against other emotions or concepts. Bush is morally wrong in abusing his powers as an executive officer of the US government, and quite UnAmerican in his statements that we are in more danger now than at any point in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

Cycloptichorn


Setting the Record Straight: Democrats Continue to Attack Terrorist Surveillance Program

Fact sheet Setting the Record Straight

"The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States. It is a limited, hot pursuit effort by our intelligence community to detect and prevent attacks. Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and outlandish charges about this vital tool that helps us do exactly what the 9/11 Commission said we needed to do - connect the dots. It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority while their own party leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times - only after there was a leak and subsequent media coverage did they start criticizing the program. Such irresponsible accusations will not keep us from acting to stay a step ahead of a deadly enemy that is determined to strike America again."

- Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary

Setting The Record Straight On The Legality Of NSA Activities To Safeguard Americans.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Claims That The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Is Illegal. SEN. KERRY: "It is a violation of law. ... There's nothing in the FISA law that we passed that suggests the President has this power." (ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

But The President's Authorization Of The Terrorist Surveillance Program Is Consistent With U.S. Law.

* The President Has The Inherent Authority Under The Constitution, As Commander-In-Chief, To Authorize The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. AG GONZALES: "I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* The Congress Confirmed And Supplemented This Authority When It Passed The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In The Wake Of The 9/11 Attacks. AG GONZALES: "Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ... requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday ... unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* The Supreme Court Ruled That The AUMF's Authorization To "Use All Necessary And Appropriate Force" Encompasses The "Fundamental Incident[s] Of Waging War." AG GONZALES: "[O]ne might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past - in 2004, the Hamdi decision. ... [In Hamdi, the Supreme Court said that] it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder - the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, 'detention,' she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, 'authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force.'" (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* Interception Of Communications Has Been Authorized Since President Roosevelt In 1940. "[Interception of communications for foreign intelligence purposes] have been authorized by Presidents at least since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1940." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)

* Every Federal Appellate Court To Rule On The Issue Has Concluded That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Searches. "The courts uniformly have approved this longstanding Executive Branch practice. Indeed, every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that, even in peacetime, the President has inherent constitutional authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct searches for foreign intelligence purposes without securing a judicial warrant." ("Legal Authorities Supporting The Activities Of The National Security Agency Described By The President," U.S. Department Of Justice, 1/19/06)

Setting The Record Straight On Congressional Briefings On The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program To Safeguard Americans.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) Claims That The Administration Is Violating The National Security Act Of 1947. REP. HARMAN: "I think the Administration is violating the National Security Act of 1947 by failing to brief the full intelligence committees." (ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

But The Administration Has Repeatedly Briefed Congress On The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program.

* Congressional Leaders "Have Been Briefed More Than A Dozen Times" On The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. THE PRESIDENT: "Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization." (President Bush, Radio Address, 12/17/05)

* Rep Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Says That Members Of Congress Had Multiple Opportunities To Ask Questions And Express Concerns. REP. HOEKSTRA: "When the program began, I guess, roughly four years ago, you know, congressional leaders were brought in. The leadership of the House and the Senate, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees - I've been chair for about 15 months - I've been briefed four times on this, I've been given every opportunity to ask questions about the program, to ask questions about the legality of the program, to understand the scope of the program and how it works and, most importantly, the impact it has. I've had every opportunity to get information on the program. And I have a responsibility, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that if I believe the law is being broken to stand up in that meeting and say, stop it and we're going to do everything in Congress. The problem that we have right now is we have a whole bunch of Democrats who were for this program before they were against it and the only thing that has changed is that the story was illegally, in a damaging way, leaked to The New York Times." (ABC's "This Week," 1/22/06)

* These Briefings Are Fully Consistent With The National Security Act Of 1947. The Act expressly states that Executive Branch briefings should be conducted in a manner consistent with "due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." (50 USC 413a(a))

Setting The Record Straight On The Use Of The FISA Court.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says The Administration Should Be Using The FISA Court. FOX NEWS' CHRIS WALLACE: "Senator, let's talk about the NSA wiretap program, though. We all saw the Osama bin Laden tape that came out late this week. If someone from Al Qaida in Pakistan is calling someone here in the U.S., don't you want to know what they're talking about?" SEN. DURBIN: "Absolutely. And that's why we created the FISA court." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 1/22/06)

But The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Provides The Speed And Agility Needed To Prosecute The War On Terror.

* Former Clinton Administration Associate Attorney General Writes That "FISA Does Not Anticipate A Post-Sept. 11 Situation." "The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance 'authorized by statute' is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action. But even if the NSA activity is 'electronic surveillance' and the Sept. 11 resolution is not 'statutory authorization' within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, 'encroach upon the president's constitutional power.' FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment." (John Schmidt, Op-Ed, "President Had Legal Authority To OK Taps," The Chicago Tribune, 12/21/05)

* The Government Continues To Use The FISA Court But Must Preserve The Flexibility To Act With Speed In All Circumstances. AG GONZALES: "Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. ... The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology ... since then." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)

* Because Of Its Speed, The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Has Provided Crucial Information Otherwise Not Available. GENERAL HAYDEN: "I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available." QUESTION: "Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?" GENERAL HAYDEN: "Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful." (The White House, Press Briefing, 12/19/05)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 10:09 am
Moral judgements aside, the terrorst surveillance program was not illegal as shown in my previous post. I am interested though in your definition of "unAmerican".

What makes you the judge of what can be considered "unAmerican"? Racism is morally wrong, is that also "unAmerican"? It would seem to me that many, not only in America, but abroad would suggest that racism is a very American attribute. I would disagree, but only because I am not a racist and find the idea objectionable. So, you find the terrorist surveillance program objectionable and you have labeled it it "unAmerican". Is that about right?

I find defending our nation VERY American. If the terrorist surveillence program (TSP because I am sick of writting that over again) helps defend our nation and hastens the capture of those plotting against American interests and lives then it should be allowed to continue and should be legislated into proper existance. If the TSP is shown to do nothing but eavesdrop on Betty talking to Sue about Bobby, then it is not being used as it should be and should be brought to a hasty end. It is up to those officials in the know to determine how it has been used. I am sure there are many aspects of the TSP that general populace does not have access to that officials have been briefed on. So far, no action has been brought against teh TSP that would cease its operation. That tells me that those that have inside knowledge have been satisfied as to the need, usefulness and legality of the program.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 10:21 am
So, in the "Bush Wrongdoing" thread, you post an alleged wrongdoing, and then refute it.

I think the "wrongdoing" part was Bush himself saying it required warrants, with full knowledge of it's warrantless operations.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 10:25 am
candidone1 wrote:
So, in the "Bush Wrongdoing" thread, you post an alleged wrongdoing, and then refute it.

I think the "wrongdoing" part was Bush himself saying it required warrants, with full knowledge of it's warrantless operations.


Yes, he should have instead told everyone in the world of the secret program our government was using to find and capture terrorists plotting the deaths of fellow Americans instead when ask a question about it. Perhaps he could also share information on battle plans in Iraq?

Why bother having any secret programs at all?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 10:28 am
Typical rightwing idiocy. The idea is that this is a nation of laws, predicated upon the Constitution, so it is illegal to have secret operations which violate constitutional and/or legislative provisions.

Duh . . .
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 10:36 am
The declaration of war on Iraq was given well in advance....didn't seem to mess things up too badly.
Besides, how many terrorists are in the US vs how many innocent Americans personal lives were infringed upon because of the illegal spying.
Would it make sense to bomb a school full of children because there are 2 terrorists inside?
The same logic can be applied with wiretaps, albeit on a different moral scale.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 06:01:36