Posted on 08/17/2006 9:06:43 AM PDT by sinkspur
A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.
"President Bush has broken NO law; not even the Constitution! Ergo, there goes your ridiculous "rule of law" line."
Really? Then why is there even this huge debate between consitutional scholars as it's legality? Why has the ABA strongly disagreed? The correct answer is that it's legality is disputed, and not just by a bunch of loons either.
"OTOH, this judge DID break the law. She has NO power, none whatsoever, with which to rule as she has done. Another court ( a HIGHER ONE ! ) has already said that the FISA rules are okay."
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? The president is trying to circumvent FISA, and therein lies the problem.
"Yes, this IS politics.....DEM politics, at a time of WAR; whether you don't want to call it that or not."
There are Democrat and Republican politics at play here, and it's all just noise as far as I am concerned. I just want the president to follow the law.
"You know what? You think like a damned DEM. There is absolutely NOTHING illegal in tapping phone calls of terrorist/al Qaeda, non-American citizens in another country and someone here. That has already been ruled on. Pakistanis and Egyptians and Afghanis et al, are NOT covered by the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the USA."
Correct. You can wiretap those conversations with a warrant. Unfortunately, this administration has not gotten warrants. One has to wonder why this is so.
"It really, really, REALLY sticks in your craw, doesn't it, that the blowing up of TEN or more plane loads of people, flying on American owned carriers was foiled. What a shame, what a pity, how dreadful it was that their plot was foiled, with the help of WIRE TAPPING! OMG......their "RIGHTS" were trampled on. The horror, oh the horror!"
While I am glad the plot was foiled, that does not excuse the administration's violation of FISA in not obtaining warrants.
"Of course you think that President Bush's "crimes" are far worse than Bill Clinton's perjury involving SEXUAL ASSAULT. After all, Clinton was only trying to save his own hide and his presidency, whilst he allowed those poor, poor terrorists to live free and plane the murder of thousand of INNOCENT Americans. Clinton wouldn't take bin Laden, THREE TIMES, because old binny hadn't committed any crime. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw3, it was NO CRIME whatsoever, planning, funding and sending out terrorists to blow up the USS COLE, bomb two American embassies, or even bombing the WTC in '93. Of course, I understand completely now.....NOT!"
So, let me get this straight. By criticising a policy of the Bush administration, you automatically assume I am a Democrat and a supporter of Bill Clinton. I suppose my susbscription to the American Spectator and National Review during the 1990's, plus my voting record (almost entirely Republican) means nothing. I'm here to argue issues, not political posturing. If you don't like it, tough.
"Nope, YOU don't want us to fight terrorism at all. You want President Bush to treat TERRORISM the same way Clinton did.....as petty crimes, to be handled by local policemen and women. Yeah.......that's the ticket. That sure worked, when it was tried; didn't it?"
No, it did not work. Which is why we needed new tools to fight terrorism. The Patriot Act, which I supported, was a good step taken during a trying time. Patriot though, was passed through Congress and has definite limits and oversight. That is a GOOD THING. If the president wants to do these kinds of wiretaps, let him get a warrant. If the warrants take too long, let them change FISA. It's that simple. We live in a Republic, not a dictatorship.
"You are NOT a conservative at all and you don't belong on this forum."
That's a rather juvenile thing to say, and wholly inaccurate. Maybe you can help me understand how Bush's warrantless wiretapping fits under the conservative umbrella? Is it social conservatism? Fiscally conservative? Limited government? Religious conservatism? State's rights? Strict constitutional constructionism? Or is it just Bushdoeswhateverthehellhewantsism?
And in all those situations we were in a state of declared war, with all of it's specific powers. Also, I don't think a suspension of habeus corpus or the detention of Japanese Americans are examples we need to be following here.
We have FISA, which is specifically designed to handle foreign surveillance. The president is ignoring FISA. I have a problem with that. No one is above the law.
I don't care about FISA.
The Executive is not the Legislative. They are not authorized to limit the constitutionally granted authorities of the president.
Any president with a single ounce of backbone would tell FISA to take a hike.
What would happen to a boxer who, in the middle of a fight, had to get permission from his corner before throwing a punch?
This is a different kind of "war" though. By definition, a "war on terrorism" might never be over. That is precisely the reason why we need strict rules of engagement. Don't you all understand? This is far more important than this president. Far more important than party politics.
I do not believe congress had the constitutional authority to pass FISA. Foreign intelligence is within the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. Congress cannot limit the powers that are constitutionally delegated to the executive branch.
The wiretaps were NOT unconstitutional, but the law that limited them was.
Where it affects our national security, the president not only has a right to disobey FISA, he has a DUTY to disobey it!
You don't want a president, you want a dictator. DO you support Hillary Clinton with those powers?
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, then she is charged with protecting this nation 24/7.
She should not be asking permission to get information vital to the security of the nation.
If she crosses the line into illegality, she can be voted out of office or impeached. IT's that simple.
When it comes to dealing with enemies of the US, terrorists, and the like, I would want her to be the vindictive, calculating b_tch that we all know she is.
This is the internet, you can say anything you care to, about your voting record or whatever else you care to. That doesn't mean that any of it is true or factual. OTOH, your posts are right before all of us and your own posted words are what you are being judged on. Most of them are directly cribbed from DNC talking points, of the most rabid kind. That this is how you feel, belies any other protestations of your supposed conservatism.
I'm positive that you share Bill Clinton's feelings on why refusing to take bin Laden, when he was offered thrice to him, was the "right" thing to do. After all, good old Osama hadn't stolen a car or even lied under oath, about sexually harassing a young woman, now, had he? What crime had OBL committed? Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...aren't American embassies, in foreign countries, considered to be on AMERICAN SOIL? What about American battle ships? Goodness knows, the WTC bombing, in '93, wasn't actually carried out by OBL, so why should he be prosecuted for planning, funding , and ordering it be done? Heck, what crime has OBL EVER committed? /sarcasm
Why is there a debate about every single thing that President Bush has EVER done or said in the past 1 1/2 terms? Couldn't be POLITICS, could it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw.....the ACLU and far lefty "scholars" and pundits and lawyers and moronic civil libertarians couldn't possibly have anything at all to do with it. It just has to be because we are a nation of laws; laws which political opponents misuse, abuse, and use to batter GOP politicans with.
Delays cause deaths. You want delays..........ergo, you approve of terrorist murders. None of what you claim you want changed, passed, approved of ( warrants ) can be done in a timely fashion. Most of it can't be done at all, in this climate! We only have what paltry few fools to use, because they were forced through Congress right after 9/11 and the likes of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Murtha, and on and on and on, want to revoke the Patriot Act. Should the damned Dems gain the majority in both Houses ( something I do NOT think will happen, in November ), they WILL revoke as many things as they possibly can and THAT will bes THE LAW.
Was it a crime, when FDR rationed food and gasoline and shoes and much else, during WW II? If not, why not?
Was it a crime when his administration used wire taps, without having anything even remotely like the Patriot Act? If not, why not?
Was the attempt to bring down the WTC, in '93 a criminal act, or was it an act of terror? And IF it was an act of terror, WHY was it handled like a criminal act, by LOCAL police and courts? Please explain.
I give up. You are as bad, in your own way, as anyone posting to DU is. I wonder what you would say, if someone you knew was killed by a terrorist act, which could have been stopped, if only wire taps had been used.
WOW! I didn't know that. Well, I guess that settles it - the judge was correct. Who knew all it took was some "declarations"?
Please...
Because this plays into the Democrat's agenda.
They want the Nation to be hit again so they can scream, "It is Bush's fault, he did not keep us secure!"
That is the reason they attack everything that President Bush does to prevent the international outlaws from attacking us again.
When we get hit again, not if we get hit again if the survivors do not take out on the alcu..... Well...
The alcu is doing everything in their power to ensure we get hit again, and again, and again.....
The constitution grants congress the right to declare war AND to authorize other conflict and military action short of wardifferent than war. It's a simple fact. Read your constitution.
Congress authorized both the WOT and the campaign in IRaq by constitutional means.
I respectfully disagree that the president has the right to deploy troops without a Congressional declaration of war. I realize this has been done many times, but I side with those who find it to be unconstitutional.
I'll answer your points in a general manner. I think Clinton's failure (with regards to terrorism) was a failure in understanding the nature of the problem. It's a matter that requires a serious national debate and new legislation. You act as though there's no time to do that, but I can point to Patriot, which was a good first step.
That's right, I support the Patriot Act.
I support it because it was done through Congress and with oversight. I do not support the current program because it does not follow the rules. It's really that simple. Sorry, but I'm just not going to engage you in political posturing and namecalling.
Yes, I think following the Constitution is pretty important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.