Imagine my surprise!
Would this fall into the "pot calling the kettle black" category?
1 posted on
02/13/2006 4:55:16 AM PST by
seanmerc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: seanmerc
Carter's idiocy knows no bounds.
The man is a disgrace...and never should've come close to the presidency.
To: seanmerc
But Carter loves communist dictatorship. Why would he authorize warrantless wiretaps unless VN had a beef with Cuba?
4 posted on
02/13/2006 4:58:15 AM PST by
saveliberty
( :-) I am a Snowflake and Bushbot.)
To: seanmerc
. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S. The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants. Carter signed FISA - however, the "inherent authority" was not his to give away, since it is a constitutional power of the executive - just as SCOTUS did not allow Congress to give the President a line-item veto without amending the Constitution.
In a way, this is a good debate - it is educating people about the nature of the relationship of powers between the various branches of government. And it is showing how the Dems politicize everything.
HOWEVER, the middle of wartime is NOT the time to be having such a debate!!!!
5 posted on
02/13/2006 4:58:16 AM PST by
dirtboy
(I'm fat, I sleep most of the winter and I saw my shadow yesterday. Does that make me a groundhog?)
To: seanmerc
"If al Qaeda is calling you ... we'd like to know why."
'Nuff said.
7 posted on
02/13/2006 5:06:43 AM PST by
The G Man
(The Red States ... the world's only hope for survival.)
To: seanmerc
Even the ugly peanut man can get little girls to sit in his lap..
8 posted on
02/13/2006 5:08:35 AM PST by
Beth528
To: seanmerc
Does Jimmy even know what the USS Jimmy Carter can do ?
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.html
Some outside analysts and U.S. intelligence officials think the NSA should abandon such efforts in favor of more narrowly targeted intelligence-gathering efforts. One intelligence official estimates that tapping all the world's undersea cables, assuming it could be done, would cost more than $2 billion a year. And no one knows whether the NSA will ever have enough computing power to analyze the resulting gusher of digital data.
Even so, the agency has been pushing ahead. At General Dynamics' Electric Boat shipyard in Groton, Conn., the Navy is deep into a five-year, $1 billion retrofit of the USS Jimmy Carter, a nuclear-powered vessel that intelligence experts say will be the premier U.S. spy sub when it hits the seas in 2004. Among its many planned features, says one former official familiar with the project: state-of-the-art technology for undersea fiber-optic taps.
The NSA's Lt. Gen. Hayden and Navy officials decline to comment on the USS Jimmy Carter's mission.
To: seanmerc
No... more like the cashew calling the macadamia... NUTS.
10 posted on
02/13/2006 5:15:41 AM PST by
johnny7
(“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
To: seanmerc
So I wonder why Jimmy did not get a warrant? It's inexplicable.
Is it too late to impeach him?
To: seanmerc
Jimmy Carter: the least qualified and most unsuccessful American President in modern times...and undeniably the worst past-President of all times.
A true embarrassment to the Democratic party if not all Americans.
12 posted on
02/13/2006 5:20:26 AM PST by
O6ret
To: seanmerc
13 posted on
02/13/2006 5:21:23 AM PST by
kitkat
To: seanmerc
Multiple repeat of various articles.
14 posted on
02/13/2006 5:30:36 AM PST by
em2vn
To: seanmerc
Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution. The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.The article never backs up the claim that Carter ever agreed that Congress doesn't have poewr to regulate the President's authority.
17 posted on
02/13/2006 2:46:05 PM PST by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: seanmerc
. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S. The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants. Carter signed FISA - however, the "inherent authority" was not his to give away, since it is a constitutional power of the executive - just as SCOTUS did not allow Congress to give the President a line-item veto without amending the Constitution.
In a way, this is a good debate - it is educating people about the nature of the relationship of powers between the various branches of government. And it is showing how the Dems politicize everything.
HOWEVER, the middle of wartime is NOT the time to be having such a debate!!!!
29 posted on
02/13/2006 5:02:51 PM PST by
dirtboy
(I'm fat, I sleep most of the winter and I saw my shadow yesterday. Does that make me a groundhog?)
To: seanmerc
You have to admit, it is kind of ironic that the Rats have been relegated to turning coffins into soap boxes of intellectual dishonesty and outright Bovine Excrement.
40 posted on
02/13/2006 8:55:17 PM PST by
DoNotDivide
(Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.)
To: seanmerc
41 posted on
02/13/2006 8:56:31 PM PST by
GOPJ
(If Dems had courage, they could have "the courage of their convictions", if they had convictions.)
To: seanmerc
45 posted on
02/14/2006 6:41:02 AM PST by
Preachin'
(Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
To: seanmerc
Ha! You mean the ugly face of the democrats has been outprecedented again?
48 posted on
02/14/2006 4:55:39 PM PST by
freeangel
( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
To: seanmerc
Bookmark to read later...
59 posted on
02/15/2006 5:39:04 AM PST by
DocRock
To: seanmerc
Peanuthead is afraid of bunny rabbits. What else could we expect from such a character?
66 posted on
02/15/2006 6:27:19 AM PST by
CodeToad
To: seanmerc
I like Griffin Bell. He's a conservative who supported Bush in both 2000 and 2004.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson