Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Purge_WTF on August 27, 2007, 07:17:33 AM
-
He's resigning today. I'm at work and can't copy-and-paste a link, but I saw it on several news pages.
Brick by brick.
-
Oh, you beat me :P
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Watch, today Bush will say how Gonzo did a heck of a job and before he leaves office, will pin a damn medal on him.
-
Watch as the witch hunts mysteriously stop. Too bad he buckled.
-
Bush said he was a good man who had his name dragged through the mud for "political reasons" uh huh... ::) Somebody sure did something they shouldn't have for political reasons :) Byebuy Gonzo, you will not be missed.
-
Rove and Gonzalez is a nice start, getting Bush or Cheney out of office would be the ultimate coup de grâce.
I was hoping to read more delusional neotaint rhetoric defending this twit Gonzalez, I'm a little disappointed. Well, at least they've got the continuing death and destruction of Iraq to look forward to.
-
The link for you guys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/washington/27cnd-gonzales.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, announced his resignation in Washington today, declaring that he had “lived the American dream” by being able to lead the Justice Department.
-
Watch as the witch hunts mysteriously stop. Too bad he buckled.
Come on now, he was not a good AG and I can point to several things that show that:
*advised president that he could break FISA with impunity and spy on americans---wrong
*Advised president as to quaintness of geneva conventions in lauding US sponsored torture
*stood by as a tool for firing federal prosecutors not charging enough democrats with crimes during election cycles
*advised president that Habeus Corpus was not a good idea anymore (even though any person (citizen or not) is entitled to it under our Constitution)
*lied to Congress repeatedly about his role in the above
I will await your list of positive accomplishments of this small evil man.
-
Come on now, he was not a good AG and I can point to several things that show that:
*advised president that he could break FISA with impunity and spy on americans---wrong
*Advised president as to quaintness of geneva conventions in lauding US sponsored torture
*stood by as a tool for firing federal prosecutors not charging enough democrats with crimes during election cycles
*advised president that Habeus Corpus was not a good idea anymore (even though any person (citizen or not) is entitled to it under our Constitution)
*lied to Congress repeatedly about his role in the above
I will await your list of positive accomplishments of this small evil man.
Tell me how you really feel. :) I don't have a scorecard. I'm sure if I looked I could find a summary of things he did right. I think his biggest problem was being an atrocious witness.
Democrats got a feather in their cap. Another head for the mantle. I am not impressed.
-
Tell me how you really feel. :) I don't have a scorecard. I'm sure if I looked I could find a summary of things he did right. I think his biggest problem was being an atrocious witness.
Democrats got a feather in their cap. Another head for the mantle. I am not impressed.
I really mean it Beach Bum.
Tell me what this guy has done that would do the office of AG well?
I'm off to home, so have a great night my friend.
-
I really mean it Beach Bum.
Tell me what this guy has done that would do the office of AG well?
I'm off to home, so have a great night my friend.
Well . . . his boss said he is a good guy:
Mr. Bush called him "a man of integrity, decency and principle," and touted among Mr. Gonzales' accomplishments some of the same legislation and policies that have most angered civil liberties groups, including the Patriot Act and the law allowing accused terrorists to stand trial by military commission.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082807dnnatgonzales.7541271e.html
He had a tough job. Taking over in this new era. Helping with the war on terror. As Bush pointed out, Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act were under his watch. But you probably think those are bad laws.
And how do you judge whether he did a good job anyway? His office isn't a legislative body. I certainly wouldn't judge him based on the partisan witch hunts that were all smoke, no fire, and resulted in his resignation.
-
Well . . . his boss said he is a good guy:
Mr. Bush called him "a man of integrity, decency and principle,"
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/roll_eyes.gif)
Oh ya, ...so much integrity, decency, honesty & priciple he continued to lie through his teeth right up til the end,
...as well as instruct members of his staff to lie too. A whole lot of integrity there. Good riddance to bad rubbish!
-
He had a tough job. Taking over in this new era. Helping with the war on terror. As Bush pointed out, Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act were under his watch. But you probably think those are bad laws.
And how do you judge whether he did a good job anyway? His office isn't a legislative body. I certainly wouldn't judge him based on the partisan witch hunts that were all smoke, no fire, and resulted in his resignation.
Here's how you judge his effectiveness as AG---especially in battling terrorism: was he true to the US Constitution?
I would say, "no."
FISA, Habeus Corpus, lying to Congress and torture all show that this man was performing his duties in a manner not consistent with our Constitution.
-
Here's how you judge his effectiveness as AG---especially in battling terrorism: was he true to the US Constitution?
I would say, "no."
FISA, Habeus Corpus, lying to Congress and torture all show that this man was performing his duties in a manner not consistent with our Constitution.
All a matter of opinion. He was probably in over his head, but looks to me like he was trying to protect us. I credit him for that.
-
Here's how you judge his effectiveness as AG---especially in battling terrorism: was he true to the US Constitution?
I would say, "no."
FISA, Habeus Corpus, lying to Congress and torture all show that this man was performing his duties in a manner not consistent with our Constitution.
there is precedent that says the president is not (as) accountable to congress when it comes to foreign affairs . . . can think of sutherland off the top of my head, and rehnquist too.
also, precedent suggests that emergency situations give the executive (and indeed the govt.) emergency powers.
granted, as the great robert jackson pointed out, emergencies and emergency powers are hard to limit . . . and black (i think) noted that what's foreign shouldn't have domestic impacts.
-
All a matter of opinion. He was probably in over his head, but looks to me like he was trying to protect us. I credit him for that.
Yes, my informed opinion tells me that:
The Framers extended Habeus Corpus to all people and not just citizens before AG smashed that right,
The constitution has a right to protection from warrantless searches and a right to privacy and AG ruined that with his FISA advice,
The Framers went out of their way to denounce/bar cruel and unusual in the 8th amendment but AG is beating the drum for torture.
The man is evil. My opinion. But evil nonetheless.
Protect us? From what? Our constitutional rights.
I guess all that stuff about god given inalienable rights in the constitution is crapola.
-
Yes, my informed opinion tells me that:
The Framers extended Habeus Corpus to all people and not just citizens before AG smashed that right,
TELL THAT TO LINCOLN . . . HE THOUGHT HE DID IT FIRST. ALSO SEE WWII and JAPANESE INTERNMENT
The constitution has a right to protection from warrantless searches and a right to privacy and AG ruined that with his FISA advice,
NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT. GRANTED, THERE WAS NOT "STRICT SCRUTINY," BUT AGAIN, THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR EMERGENCIES.
The Framers went out of their way to denounce/bar cruel and unusual in the 8th amendment but AG is beating the drum for torture.
THE ADMIN CHANGED ITS POSITION ON TORTURE A LONG TIME AGO . . .AFTER THE OLC's TORTURE MEMO WAS LEAKED TO THE PRESS. AG WAS NOT AG THEN. AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK OVERSEAS, there is the whole "does the constitution follow the flag?" controversy
The man is evil. My opinion. But evil nonetheless.
He is sort of an asshole, and he blundered . . . he's a V&E lawyer, after all . . . but it's not as clear-cut as you make it.
Protect us? From what? Our constitutional rights.
I guess all that stuff about god given inalienable rights in the constitution is crapola.
[/quote]
-
there is also a power to suspend habeas in case of emergencies. it is likely that the power is in cong, but it isn't specified . . . also, you don't have to declare it an emergency.
-
TELL THAT TO LINCOLN . . . HE THOUGHT HE DID IT FIRST. ALSO SEE WWII and JAPANESE INTERNMENT
The constitution has a right to protection from warrantless searches and a right to privacy and AG ruined that with his FISA advice,
NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT. GRANTED, THERE WAS NOT "STRICT SCRUTINY," BUT AGAIN, THERE IS A PRECEDENT FOR EMERGENCIES.
The Framers went out of their way to denounce/bar cruel and unusual in the 8th amendment but AG is beating the drum for torture.
THE ADMIN CHANGED ITS POSITION ON TORTURE A LONG TIME AGO . . .AFTER THE OLC's TORTURE MEMO WAS LEAKED TO THE PRESS. AG WAS NOT AG THEN. AND IF YOU WANT TO LOOK OVERSEAS, there is the whole "does the constitution follow the flag?" controversy
The man is evil. My opinion. But evil nonetheless.
He is sort of an asshole, and he blundered . . . he's a V&E lawyer, after all . . . but it's not as clear-cut as you make it.
Protect us? From what? Our constitutional rights.
I guess all that stuff about god given inalienable rights in the constitution is crapola.
The Lincoln reference is not really relevant is it? Civil war and a terrorist attack are two different things.
As for FISA and the US constitution, there is no absolute constitutional right.
And for torture:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6479334/site/newsweek/ shows AG's memo praising torture. True he wasn't AG at the time, but who cares?
Evil is evil.
-
Yes, my informed opinion tells me that:
The Framers extended Habeus Corpus to all people and not just citizens before AG smashed that right,
The constitution has a right to protection from warrantless searches and a right to privacy and AG ruined that with his FISA advice,
The Framers went out of their way to denounce/bar cruel and unusual in the 8th amendment but AG is beating the drum for torture.
The man is evil. My opinion. But evil nonetheless.
Protect us? From what? Our constitutional rights.
I guess all that stuff about god given inalienable rights in the constitution is crapola.
If I recall correctly, a number of judges and members of Congress agreed with him.
-
If I recall correctly, a number of judges and members of Congress agreed with him.
congress has pretty much ratified everything the administration has wanted until recently. and the courts have held that congress and the exec have had the power to do what they did.
Decker, it's all a matter of perspective. you can say that lincoln had greater grounds to do so, but it's all a matter of perspective. these powers are extended, and then they are taken away. happened w the civil war, and it's happening now.
-
congress has pretty much ratified everything the administration has wanted until recently. and the courts have held that congress and the exec have had the power to do what they did.
Thanks. That's what I thought. Sort of takes the sting out of the "evil man" argument. Reminds me of the reprint of a commentary I posted a while back (Maybe Evil One Is Just Wrong): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=149392.0
Seems like a cycle. Clinton was evil. Bush is evil. Hillary/Rudy/Romney will be evil. . . . .
-
congress has pretty much ratified everything the administration has wanted until recently. and the courts have held that congress and the exec have had the power to do what they did.
Decker, it's all a matter of perspective. you can say that lincoln had greater grounds to do so, but it's all a matter of perspective. these powers are extended, and then they are taken away. happened w the civil war, and it's happening now.
Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus as part of the imposition of martial law during the Civil War was unconstitutional. I was just pointing out that he faced a much different threat than that of a terrorist attack. [ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.]
As for FISA, it was enacted with the express purpose of curbing excesses of presidential power, the kind of which Nixon practiced, and Bush merely ignored the law thanks to AG's advice. A warrant is necessary and Bush blew it off. I don't trust the president to have unchecked powers to spy on US citizens.
That is not permissible by a president sworn to uphold the laws of the US.
Your contention that Congress pretty much ratified everything Bush did does not address the issue that Bush simply ignored the Congress, broke the law, then sought retroactive help from a rubberstamp spineless republican led congress.
Everything is a matter of perspective. Let's not go down that relativistic hole.
Bush and AG's main crime is that they acted as if the law/constitution did not apply to the exercise of executive power. It does.
-
Thanks. That's what I thought. Sort of takes the sting out of the "evil man" argument. Reminds me of the reprint of a commentary I posted a while back (Maybe Evil One Is Just Wrong): http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=149392.0
Seems like a cycle. Clinton was evil. Bush is evil. Hillary/Rudy/Romney will be evil. . . . .
I measure evil in terms of fidelity to the US constitution. I don't bandy the word 'evil' around to score a political point. Bush is evil--illegal/unconstitutional wars, illegal spying on american citizens, illegal stripping of habeas corpus, and we could run a list of the fiscal improprieties of the man with his shady budgets. But for Bush's actions as president, tens of thousands of people would still be alive today. He sure looks like a war criminal from where I'm sitting. He is evil and so is his legal adviser AG.
-
I measure evil in terms of fidelity to the US constitution. I don't bandy the word 'evil' around to score a political point. Bush is evil--illegal/unconstitutional wars, illegal spying on american citizens, illegal stripping of habeas corpus, and we could run a list of the fiscal improprieties of the man with his shady budgets. But for Bush's actions as president, tens of thousands of people would still be alive today. He sure looks like a war criminal from where I'm sitting. He is evil and so is his legal adviser AG.
You must have a long list of evil people:
- Every member of the House and Senate that endorsed "illegal/unconstitutional wars" after they started.
- The lawyers, judges, and members of prior administrations (I think?) who thought "illegal spying" was actually legal.
- Every member of Congress who stripped foreign terrorists of habeas corpus by voting for the Military Commissions Act. By the way, how can it be illegal if it's now the law of the land?
-
You must have a long list of evil people:
- Every member of the House and Senate that endorsed "illegal/unconstitutional wars" after they started.
- The lawyers, judges, and members of prior administrations (I think?) who thought "illegal spying" was actually legal.
- Every member of Congress who stripped foreign terrorists of habeas corpus by voting for the Military Commissions Act. By the way, how can it be illegal if it's now the law of the land?
I do have a long list of people doing evil.
Show me the judges and lawyers and members of prior administrations that thought FISA just didn't apply to the president.
Stripping of habeas corpus was done prior to any congressional grant of authority.
-
I do have a long list of people doing evil.
Show me the judges and lawyers and members of prior administrations that thought FISA just didn't apply to the president.
Stripping of habeas corpus was done prior to any congressional grant of authority.
My list is pretty short. :) Well, actually it's pretty long if you consider all of the people working for the tobacco industry. . . .
Here you go:
Executive Orders
Executive orders by other administrations including Clinton's [3] and Carter's [4] authorized the Attorney General to perform warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence threats. These Executive Orders were exercises of executive power under Article II consistent with FISA.
. . .
Clinton Administration
On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."[9]
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States
Now, I disagree with warrantless wiretaps, but there has clearly been a difference of opinion on whether they are constitutional. I don't think people who advocate warrantless wiretaps are evil. They're just wrong.
-
My list is pretty short. :) Well, actually it's pretty long if you consider all of the people working for the tobacco industry. . . .
Here you go:
Executive Orders
Executive orders by other administrations including Clinton's [3] and Carter's [4] authorized the Attorney General to perform warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence threats. These Executive Orders were exercises of executive power under Article II consistent with FISA.
. . .
Clinton Administration
On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."[9]
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States
Now, I disagree with warrantless wiretaps, but there has clearly been a difference of opinion on whether they are constitutional. I don't think people who advocate warrantless wiretaps are evil. They're just wrong.
Clinton and Carter never authorized warrantless spying on americans. Never.
Here's what Clinton actually signed: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
Here's the relevant portion: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html
Here's what Carter actually signed: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
Here's the relevant portion: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check
Bush ignored the FISA requirement that spying on any US citizen requires a warrant either before or w/in 3 days of the act.
Bush violated FISA. Clinton and Carter did not.
-
Clinton and Carter never authorized warrantless spying on americans. Never.
Here's what Clinton actually signed: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
Here's the relevant portion: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html
Here's what Carter actually signed: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm
Here's the relevant portion: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check
Bush ignored the FISA requirement that spying on any US citizen requires a warrant either before or w/in 3 days of the act.
Bush violated FISA. Clinton and Carter did not.
So this is wrong?
On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant.
Clinton didn't use his "inherent authority" to search the home of an American citizen without a warrant?
-
So this is wrong?
On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant.
Clinton didn't use his "inherent authority" to search the home of an American citizen without a warrant?
I must have missed the part of her testimony where she claimed that the presidential directive re warrantless wiretapping which Clinton signed applied to US citizens.
-
I must have missed the part of her testimony where she claimed that the presidential directive re warrantless wiretapping which Clinton signed applied to US citizens.
Now you lost me. Isn't the part of the reason you believe Bush and Gonzales are evil based on warrantless wiretaps?
-
Now you lost me. Isn't the part of the reason you believe Bush and Gonzales are evil based on warrantless wiretaps?
The warrant requirement for FISA applies to acts of spying on americans. Warrantless spying on americans is what is illegal.
The US gov. can spy on foreigners w/out warrants.
For the record, the FISA violations were illegal and immoral. Torture and avoidance of congressional oversight are the evils these men did.
-
The warrant requirement for FISA applies to acts of spying on americans. Warrantless spying on americans is what is illegal.
The US gov. can spy on foreigners w/out warrants.
For the record, the FISA violations were illegal and immoral. Torture and avoidance of congressional oversight are the evils these men did.
So how do you classify Clinton's warrantless spying on Ames? I really don't see a logical distinction between the spying done by Clinton and the spying done by Bush. (I disagree with both.)
We're kinda going in circles, but the things you classify as evil (the wars, habeas, etc.) were condoned by a whole lot of people. It's really just a policy/legal disagreement, not good vs. evil. But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.
-
So how do you classify Clinton's warrantless spying on Ames? I really don't see a logical distinction between the spying done by Clinton and the spying done by Bush. (I disagree with both.)
We're kinda going in circles, but the things you classify as evil (the wars, habeas, etc.) were condoned by a whole lot of people. It's really just a policy/legal disagreement, not good vs. evil. But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.
You're misreading the application of FISA. Under Clinton, FISA had no application to physical searches. Gorelick (Clinton's) assertion that the president has the power to conduct physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes is true. But the Clinton administration was certainly not asserting that the president is not subject to FISA.
He clearly is.
After '94, Clinton supported Congressionally approved legislation subjecting physical searches to FISA.
The Ames investigation took place before the change in the law were made official.
So neither Clinton nor Carter violated FISA.
Only president Bush committed that felony.
-
So how do you classify Clinton's warrantless spying on Ames? I really don't see a logical distinction between the spying done by Clinton and the spying done by Bush. (I disagree with both.)
We're kinda going in circles, but the things you classify as evil (the wars, habeas, etc.) were condoned by a whole lot of people. It's really just a policy/legal disagreement, not good vs. evil. But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.
What is evil? As I pointed out, in the political arena, the constitution is our ten commandments. Bush has done all he can, w/ AG's help, to avoid any congressional oversight of the official discharge of his presidential duties. That is the case with FISA and torture.
This is not just a policy disagreement Beach Bum. These transgressions go to the heart of our country's ideals: checks and balances of the powers of government and accountability to the democratically elected reps of Congress.
-
You're misreading the application of FISA. Under Clinton, FISA had no application to physical searches. Gorelick (Clinton's) assertion that the president has the power to conduct physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes is true. But the Clinton administration was certainly not asserting that the president is not subject to FISA.
He clearly is.
After '94, Clinton supported Congressionally approved legislation subjecting physical searches to FISA.
The Ames investigation took place before the change in the law were made official.
So neither Clinton nor Carter violated FISA.
Only president Bush committed that felony.
I understand. My point is both approved warrantless spying. If your issue is with obeying the law, that is one thing. If your issue is warrantless spying, both administrations did it.
-
What is evil? As I pointed out, in the political arena, the constitution is our ten commandments. Bush has done all he can, w/ AG's help, to avoid any congressional oversight of the official discharge of his presidential duties. That is the case with FISA and torture.
This is not just a policy disagreement Beach Bum. These transgressions go to the heart of our country's ideals: checks and balances of the powers of government and accountability to the democratically reps of Congress.
Checks and balances works just fine. Bush got checked by the Supreme Court. He did what he thought was "legal" in an attempt to protect American citizens. The Supreme Court told him to stop. He did. System worked.
And Congress actually approved of one of things you consider evil (taking away habeas from suspected foreign terrorists).
-
I understand. My point is both approved warrantless spying. If your issue is with obeying the law, that is one thing. If your issue is warrantless spying, both administrations did it.
No they both did not spy without a warrant.
A physical search of a suspected spy is not under the umbrella of FISA at that time. Clinton is in the clear.
Bush's spying on Americans without a warrant is a direct violation of FISA. The FISA law was created exactly for the kind of abuse of power that Bush authorized.
The two instances are entirely different and the factual details make a difference.
-
Checks and balances works just fine. Bush got checked by the Supreme Court. He did what he thought was "legal" in an attempt to protect American citizens. The Supreme Court told him to stop. He did. System worked.
And Congress actually approved of one of things you consider evil (taking away habeas from suspected foreign terrorists).
It is not the constitutional duty of the Sup. Ct. to provide oversight to the actions of the president. That is the constitutional duty of the Congress.
The Sup. Ct. does not issue advisory opinions. Do you know the supreme court case that checked Bush's abuse of power. It sounds like something a lower court would do.
-
Have a great night Beach Bum. I'm off to a job interview.
-
Have a great night Beach Bum. I'm off to a job interview.
Good luck Decker. Make sure you use proper English. :D