Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: BayGBM on August 17, 2006, 12:51:55 PM
-
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A federal judge in Detroit ruled today that the Bush administration’s eavesdropping program is illegal and unconstitutional, and she ordered that it cease at once.
District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found that President Bush exceeded his proper authority and that the eavesdropping without warrants violated the First and Fourth Amendment protections of free speech and privacy.
“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote, in a decision that set the stage for further court battles.
In becoming the first federal judge to declare the eavesdropping program unconstitutional, Judge Taylor rejected the administration’s assertion that to defend itself against a lawsuit would force it to divulge information that should be kept secret in the name of national security.
“Predictably, the war on terror of this administration has produced a vast number of cases, in which the states secrets privilege has been invoked,” Judge Taylor wrote. She noted that the Supreme Court has held that because the president’s power to withhold secrets is so powerful, “it is not to be lightly invoked.” She also cited a finding in an earlier case by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that “whenever possible, sensitive information must be disentangled from nonsensitive information to allow for the release of the latter.”
In any event, she said, she is convinced that the administration could defend itself in this case without disclosing state secrets. Judge Taylor’s ruling came in a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars, lawyers and various nonprofit organizations who argued that the possibility of eavesdropping by the National Security Agency interfered with their work.
Although she ordered an immediate halt to the eavesdropping program, no one who has followed the controversy expects the litigation to end quickly. The Justice Department said it was preparing its response to the ruling, and it was widely assumed that that response would include a request to postpone enforcement of Judge Taylor’s decree pending appeals.
The request for a stay of enforcement could be lodged with Judge Taylor herself, or with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
But for the moment, the ruling by Judge Taylor caused elation among the plaintiffs.
“It’s another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism,” said Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the plaintiffs with the A.C.L.U. And Anthony Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said Judge Taylor’s ruling “confirms that the government has been acting illegally, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment.’’
The surveillance act was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to disclosures of previous government improprieties in eavesdropping. The act established a secret court to handle applications for surveillance operations, and set up procedures for them to take place while applications for warrants are pending in some limited circumstances and for limited times.
Judge Taylor said “the president has acted, undisputedly, as F.I.S.A. forbids,” thus defying the express will of Congress, and she was unpersuaded by the government’s stance that it could not defend itself in the lawsuit without doing the country harm.
“Consequently, the court finds defendants’ arguments that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit,” she wrote.
The judge, who heard arguments in the case in June, brushed aside several assertions made by lawyers for the National Security Agency. She held that, contrary to the N.S.A.’s assertions, the plaintiffs were suffering real harm, and had standing to sue the government.
“Here, plaintiffs are not asserting speculative allegations,” she said.
Judge Taylor, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, did not deal a total defeat to the administration. She dismissed a separate claim by the A.C.L.U. over data-mining of telephone records, agreeing that further litigation could indeed jeopardize state secrets.
But over all, Judge Taylor’s decision was a rebuke to the administration, as she made clear in closing by quoting Chief Justice Earl Warren’s words in a 1967 ruling: “Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart.”
-
Many people just say "Who cares? I'm not a terrorist."
But when you think about the fact that the govt can currently - without probable cause - search your home without a warrant and never tell you - it is terrifying.
-
Sounds like a good decision to me.
-
And long overdue. Everything in this country that happens in the public sphere (particularly actions taken by the government) happen under the scope of judicial review. Even 6th grade students in social studies know this: its called checks and balances; it’s part of our system of government and nothing--not even a time a war--can suspend it.
If laws governing the FISA court oversight are outdated then change the law, but do not act outside of it. The FISA law even allows for after the fact approval for wiretaps, but the idea that such taps can be undertaken without any judicial approval or scrutiny ever is simply illegal and undermines the very freedoms and system of government we claim to be defending and promulgating. >:(
-
Aren't illegal offenses sufficient grounds for impeachment?
-
Aren't illegal offenses sufficient grounds for impeachment?
Technically, yes. But a republican controlled Congress would not initiate such proceedings against the head of their own party.
-
Incredible that "checks and balances" have gone out the window in recent years.
-
This isn't any kind of impeachable offense. He thought what he was doing was okay. The judge disagreed. He'll now do what the judge says, absent a different interpretation from the appellate court. If the president secretly disobeys a court order, then we can talk impeachment.
-
Incredible that "checks and balances" have gone out the window in recent years.
No they haven't. The prez was just checked by a federal judge. That's precisely how the system is supposed to work.
-
And when there is another terrorism attack, and another "but what did Government do to stop this" they will all be screaming. Didn't they just bust some guys who were planning to use cell phones as detonators?
Guess until more people die, no one will stand up to it.
Think about it. Do you monotor you child's activity on the computer? Isn't that "survellance"? IMO if you have nothing to hide, then why be afraid?
-
Think about it. Do you monotor you child's activity on the computer? Isn't that "survellance"? IMO if you have nothing to hide, then why be afraid?
1. I ain't no child.
2. If I want to hide something that is not hurting anyone else, but is potentially embarrassing to me . . .that's my business, not Uncle Sam's.
-
1. I ain't no child.
2. If I want to hide something that is not hurting anyone else, but is potentially embarrassing to me . . .that's my business, not Uncle Sam's.
Bro it's not like it's going to be announced on the web. And the US Government could careless about the average Joe. It's the lobbyists that should be AFRAID.
But you don't feel that the US should have survellance on suspected terrorists or extremists without a warrant? And what if they can't get a warrant? What if they lived next door to you? Think about it. It's a different era. 10-15 years ago I never was aware of anyone (except a fine ass girl) on plane rides. Now (I fly from Washington Dulles to SF international every 6 months) I am always aware on the plane. Sad state of affairs.
-
Bro it's not like it's going to be announced on the web. And the US Government could careless about the average Joe. It's the lobbyists that should be AFRAID.
But you don't feel that the US should have survellance on suspected terrorists or extremists without a warrant? And what if they can't get a warrant? What if they lived next door to you? Think about it. It's a different era. 10-15 years ago I never was aware of anyone (except a fine ass girl) on plane rides. Now (I fly from Washington Dulles to SF international every 6 months) I am always aware on the plane. Sad state of affairs.
Good points OldSchool. I have the same concerns. I do think the government should be required to get a warrant, but it is definitely much more complicated when you're talking about your own backyard. Should a terrorist have the same rights as me? Heck no. But the problem is if you blur the line you open the door for the government to use these methods on law abiding citizens too.
-
Think about it. Do you monotor you child's activity on the computer? Isn't that "survellance"? IMO if you have nothing to hide, then why be afraid?
Ever read '1984'?
-
Bro it's not like it's going to be announced on the web. And the US Government could careless about the average Joe. It's the lobbyists that should be AFRAID.
Even if it's not on the web, I very strongly resent any diminishing of my privacy. And you never know when things can be leaked . . . what if you decide to run for office? Do people need to know who you were shtupping when you were in college? the govt. could accumulate all sorts of info on you, and interested people could leak it . . .
But you don't feel that the US should have survellance on suspected terrorists or extremists without a warrant? And what if they can't get a warrant? What if they lived next door to you? Think about it. It's a different era. 10-15 years ago I never was aware of anyone (except a fine ass girl) on plane rides. Now (I fly from Washington Dulles to SF international every 6 months) I am always aware on the plane. Sad state of affairs.
Yes, even if they were my neighbor, I would want them to have a warrant. Warrants are not too hard to obtain, and they protect you and me . . . what if it was your house they decided to barge into?
Yes, things have changed, but I want to keep as many of my rights as I can . . . that's what makes this nation great. that's what separates us from other nations. I could live anywhere in the world, but i choose to live in the US b/c of our rule of law . . . helps protect the individual from the "tyranny of the majority."
-
Warrentless?? I would assume if it not for the taps half of these plot would have happend...........but as such, they didn't!!
-
Warrentless?? I would assume if it not for the taps half of these plot would have happend...........but as such, they didn't!!
assuming is the first step on the road to becoming part of the jaguarenterprises A team.
-
Personally, I don't want anyone wire taping me with out the judicial system.
that's why we have a judicial system as part of our "checks and balances"
And i'm not a terrorist or do anything illegal.
FEAR is not a good enough motivator for me to give up my rights as an American citizen.
Who ever says i should do that can go pound salt.
-
its not illegal. its in a legal gray area. this judge is an idiot, they should keep this program going. they are not listening to you talkin to your aunt may in Iowa, they only use to to listen to int'l phone calls with known or suspected terrorists. besides, do you really thyink they give a shit about your phone calls.
i dont understand why this gets everybody so pissed off
-
its not illegal. its in a legal gray area. this judge is an idiot, they should keep this program going. they are not listening to you talkin to your aunt may in Iowa, they only use to to listen to int'l phone calls with known or suspected terrorists. besides, do you really thyink they give a shit about your phone calls.
i dont understand why this gets everybody so pissed off
Because Bush doesn't have to get permission from another branch of govt to do it, and there doesn't ever have to be a record of what they do, and no control over who they choose to investigate.
Because your neighbor can get pissed at your dogs barking and call the feds and tell them he overheard you talking about some plot, and they can spend 5 years bugging your house and searching it while you're at work, and never tell you.
how long until a party will *receive tips* that their rival political party might be doing something shady, and they decide to wiretap them? Nixon broke into his rival's office. bush can do it legally :)
-
As a history ww2 buff, and you are definatly a good one Cav22, you should know that the road to tyranny start with losing little freedoms like this in the name of protection.
I want a judge period. I don;t care how long it takes or how expensive it is. I want a dam judge to ok wire taps.
-
As a history ww2 buff, and you are definatly a good one Cav22, you should know that the road to tyranny start with losing little freedoms like this in the name of protection.
I want a judge period. I don;t care how long it takes or how expensive it is. I want a dam judge to ok wire taps.
I think the biggest issue is this............
People who are okay with the wiretaps trust teh govt to do the right thing.
People who are against them, do not trust the govt to do the right thing.
Historically, just about every group who has obtained absolute power has abused it.
People who are okay with the wiretaps aren't worried about that.
People who are against them, are worried about that.
That's it.
-
Technically, yes. But a republican controlled Congress would not initiate such proceedings against the head of their own party.
What do you think the chances of Impeachment are?
-
Technically, yes. But a republican controlled Congress would not initiate such proceedings against the head of their own party.
Exactly. The vast majority of the Republican party is comprised of bobble-headed sycophants. I'm sure Bush and his flunkies will find a way around the ruling, though; they always do.
-
hahahyahahahahaha
dude
foxnews is bashing the judge that made this decision
hahahahahahahahahahahaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
in 2002, she and another judge disagreed about something.
They're using this to discredit her, in her attempt to strike down the Bush admin's wireless taps.
What soulless bastards.
-
Personally, I don't want anyone wire taping me with out the judicial system.
that's why we have a judicial system as part of our "checks and balances"
And i'm not a terrorist or do anything illegal.
FEAR is not a good enough motivator for me to give up my rights as an American citizen.
Who ever says i should do that can go pound salt.
Clinton did it, how come he never caught any flack from it, and correct me if I'm wrong, he signed the original order for it!
-
What do you think the chances of Impeachment are?
Even if the Democrats gain control of the House and the Senate in the midterm elections, I think impeachment (over wiretaps) is unlikely. Personally, I would not call for impeachment over the wiretaps. I do, however, think the President should receive an official Censure over them. Doing so would lay down an important historical marker.
All these people out there (and on this board) who think that any executive branch can undertake such actions without judicial oversight are underscoring the depth of their ignorance. I’m content to leave them to it; every 1L in this country understands why judicial oversight can never--ever--be suspended. Wiretap all you want, but do it with judicial oversight and approval.
If the Democrats regain control of Congress I think there should be lots of committee investigations into things like war profiteering, the many no bid contracts, and contracts given to companies like Halliburton whom overcharge the government for lots of things to the tune of tens of millions of $ and still get to keep their contracts.
Look at who has and will continue to benefit from this war and it’s clear why checks and balances are necessary.
-
And we all know how effective the never-ending partisan committee hearings and special prosecutors have been over the past 20 years.
-
And we all know how effective the never-ending partisan committee hearings and special prosecutors have been over the past 20 years.
not very. But, they keep the politicians from going too far.
I voted for Bush twice, but he seriously seems to be doing some shady stuff.
-
Clinton did it, how come he never caught any flack from it, and correct me if I'm wrong, he signed the original order for it!
You mean Democrats make mistakes too? I'm shocked.
-
Clinton did it, how come he never caught any flack from it, and correct me if I'm wrong, he signed the original order for it!
Unlike yourself i'm not willingly chained to a political ideology.
I don't give a shit who did it. IT's WRONG.
-
not very. But, they keep the politicians from going too far.
I voted for Bush twice, but he seriously seems to be doing some shady stuff.
I voted for him twice too, but I don't think he's doing anything shady. He isn't trying to put money in his pocket, because he was wealthy before he took office. He isn't trying to get re-elected, because he is a lame duck. He isn't engaged in some sinister plot to destroy America. He's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country. Some agree with him, some disagree. It will always be that way, regardless of who is in office. Republicans demonized Clinton. Whichever Republican wins the 2008 will be just as hated as Clinton and Bush.
-
Unlike yourself i'm not willingly chained to a political ideology.
I don't give a shit who did it. IT's WRONG.
My point being is that no one gave Clinton shit, but since it's Bush it's now an issue.......I promise, if were a Democrat in office with the exact same circumstances, non of this political bullshit and bashing would be going on!
-
I voted for him twice too, but I don't think he's doing anything shady. He isn't trying to put money in his pocket, because he was wealthy before he took office. He isn't trying to get re-elected, because he is a lame duck. He isn't engaged in some sinister plot to destroy America. He's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country. Some agree with him, some disagree. It will always be that way, regardless of who is in office. Republicans demonized Clinton. Whichever Republican wins the 2008 will be just as hated as Clinton and Bush.
Actually, he is putting money in his pocket. He was barely rich before going into office (Cheney made 36M in 1999, Bush made 3M) and thanks to the saudi oil ties, he'll be worth an insane amount when he leaves office.
The shadiness I refer to, is his insistence on not telling the judicial system about the FISA taps he uses. They'll give him blanket premission - they just want to ensure that a record exists in case any are used illegally or unethically. Bush wants to use them, and not have to allow judicial to see them.
you don't see a problem there?
-
My point being is that no one gave Clinton shit, but since it's Bush it's now an issue.......I promise, if were a Democrat in office with the exact same circumstances, non of this political bullshit and bashing would be going on!
What difference does it make who gets shit or not? The issue here is our rights are being taken away RIGHT NOW. Don't you think that's more important than being dem or rep?
-
and if i remember it right he was getting shit for it.
-
Actually, he is putting money in his pocket. He was barely rich before going into office (Cheney made 36M in 1999, Bush made 3M) and thanks to the saudi oil ties, he'll be worth an insane amount when he leaves office.
The shadiness I refer to, is his insistence on not telling the judicial system about the FISA taps he uses. They'll give him blanket premission - they just want to ensure that a record exists in case any are used illegally or unethically. Bush wants to use them, and not have to allow judicial to see them.
you don't see a problem there?
I guess we have different definitions of "rich." :) I think anyone with a net worth in the millions is wealthy, and I'm pretty sure that was Dubya's situation before he took office.
Do I see a problem with warrantless wiretaps? Yes. Do I think Bush is being "shady"? No. Whether you agree with him or not, he's doing what he thinks is in the best interests of the country. "Shady" would be willfully violating a court order, unless national security is at stake. He's going to appeal the judge's ruling. Nothing wrong with that.
-
I'm going on record to predict that this decision will be reversed. There's nothing illegal about this measure.
-
What difference does it make who gets shit or not? The issue here is our rights are being taken away RIGHT NOW. Don't you think that's more important than being dem or rep?
Party affiliation means nothing in this. I would care equally if a Dem was in office doing this.
Bottom line, is that if the judicial branch is able to keep an eye on what taps the executive branch is using, everyone stays honest.
If you give ANY branch the ability to tap/search anyone at any time for any reason with no oversight, you invite trouble by tempting people who might not have strong integrity.
hell, who wouldn't want to secretly bug Warren buffet's office (on an anonymous tip of course!) and see where to put my money? :) See how there is going to be temptation for corruption if no one is able to check who is being tapped and why?
-
I'm going on record to predict that this decision will be reversed. There's nothing illegal about this measure.
it gives the Exec branch the ability to secretly follow, tap, search any american at any time for any reason.... and they never have to answer for it.
You're incredibly stupid if you don't see danger in this. no offense, but you have some pretty naive beliefs about people if you think this won't be abused.
Fact is, sharing info with Judicial does not hurt investigations or help terrorists. It just makes sure that there is a record of what is being done, so that people can be held accountable IF anything shady is done.
I don't see why you're so willing to put your fate in the hands of others. What is wrong with checks adn balances?
-
it gives the Exec branch the ability to secretly follow, tap, search any american at any time for any reason.... and they never have to answer for it.
You're incredibly stupid if you don't see danger in this. no offense, but you have some pretty naive beliefs about people if you think this won't be abused.
Fact is, sharing info with Judicial does not hurt investigations or help terrorists. It just makes sure that there is a record of what is being done, so that people can be held accountable IF anything shady is done.
I don't see why you're so willing to put your fate in the hands of others. What is wrong with checks adn balances?
YEP!
-
it gives the Exec branch the ability to secretly follow, tap, search any american at any time for any reason.... and they never have to answer for it.
You're incredibly stupid if you don't see danger in this. no offense, but you have some pretty naive beliefs about people if you think this won't be abused.
Fact is, sharing info with Judicial does not hurt investigations or help terrorists. It just makes sure that there is a record of what is being done, so that people can be held accountable IF anything shady is done.
I don't see why you're so willing to put your fate in the hands of others. What is wrong with checks adn balances?
I'm incredibly stupid then. :-\
-
I'm incredibly stupid then. :-\
sorry, that was rude of me.
I meant that there is a huge potential for corruption. As these guys in suits sit in their offices, with unlimited searching power, a lot can happen.
They might have the bright idea that planting a bug *here* might give them info they can use for stock market purchaes.
They might find that placing a bug *there* might give them job security (tapping the other party => get strategy info => win election => keep job.)
Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would pay some good money to have a search or bug of certain places.
See how this can be abused? of course we elect people we believe will do the right thing... but if you were in their shoes... 55 years old, govt paycheck, mortgage, health probs, kids in college... and an opportunity arose to earn a cool $10M cash for one wiretap, and you knew you wouldn't be caught... would you do it? many people would.
-
I'm incredibly stupid then. :-\
No you're not. On balance, I agree the government should get a warrant. I don't think it's that difficult to meet with a judge privately to show whatever evidence the government has to justify spying on people.
On the other hand, the people attacking you are only going through half of the analysis. People have short memories. We just had a number of "normal" looking men who lived among us and then murdered thousands of innocent civilians. Americans are vulnerable. What the prez is trying to do is track enemies living among us. Does anyone really think there aren't more terrorists living in our midst waiting to strike again? That would be pretty naive IMO. You can't ignore the extreme danger we face in the country.
-
On the other hand, the people attacking you are only going through half of the analysis. People have short memories. We just had a number of "normal" looking men who lived among us and then murdered thousands of innocent civilians. Americans are vulnerable. What the prez is trying to do is track enemies living among us. Does anyone really think there aren't more terrorists living in our midst waiting to strike again? That would be pretty naive IMO. You can't ignore the extreme danger we face in the country.
I agree completely there!!
Get as many taps/searches as they think they need. nothing at all wrong with that.
All i want, is for a nice record to be sent over to judicial so that a neutral party can read over it, and ensure that things are done in accordance with the law. Basically, it just keeps those doing the searches, honest.
-
I agree completely there!!
Get as many taps/searches as they think they need. nothing at all wrong with that.
All i want, is for a nice record to be sent over to judicial so that a neutral party can read over it, and ensure that things are done in accordance with the law. Basically, it just keeps those doing the searches, honest.
Well since we are all in agreement here let's notify a Judge and start a club. ;)
-
sorry, that was rude of me.
I meant that there is a huge potential for corruption. As these guys in suits sit in their offices, with unlimited searching power, a lot can happen.
They might have the bright idea that planting a bug *here* might give them info they can use for stock market purchaes.
They might find that placing a bug *there* might give them job security (tapping the other party => get strategy info => win election => keep job.)
Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would pay some good money to have a search or bug of certain places.
See how this can be abused? of course we elect people we believe will do the right thing... but if you were in their shoes... 55 years old, govt paycheck, mortgage, health probs, kids in college... and an opportunity arose to earn a cool $10M cash for one wiretap, and you knew you wouldn't be caught... would you do it? many people would.
When you say that the government has the potential to be corrupt, you DO realize that judges need to be included in that picture too, am I correct? A judge could decide not to issue a warrant based on his political convictions, which could help or hurt us in a situation like this. Agreed?
-
I'm going on record to predict that this decision will be reversed. There's nothing illegal about this measure.
i don't think it will . . . although roberts recused himself the last time the supreme court heard a similar case, if this reaches the supreme court, they will--as they are supposed to--uphold the lower court's decision and send it to congress w either a 5-4 or a 5-3 majority.
-
When you say that the government has the potential to be corrupt, you DO realize that judges need to be included in that picture too, am I correct? A judge could decide not to issue a warrant based on his political convictions, which could help or hurt us in a situation like this. Agreed?
I do agree there are currupt Judges but i don;t agree that they won't ok a wire tap based on political affiliations. The wire taps are for finding and convicting terrorists. what they are looking for is reasonable cause. Are you suggesting a certain political party isn't interested in finding an apprehending terrorists and that they would like terrorists to run amuck in our country?
I'm sure we are not that infected with propaganda are we?
The point is checks and balnaces that prevent people from abusing their power now and in the future.
Go back to the constitution... we set up a government based on checks and balances to aviod tyranny.
-
I think impeachment (over wiretaps) is unlikely. Personally, I would not call for impeachment over the wiretaps.
I would call for Impeachment over all the other illegal things he has done. :P
-
When you say that the government has the potential to be corrupt, you DO realize that judges need to be included in that picture too, am I correct? A judge could decide not to issue a warrant based on his political convictions, which could help or hurt us in a situation like this. Agreed?
yes. but then we have two points of failure, HIGHLY rare. Plus, we could have every search warrant/tap reviewed by 2 judges. Or 6 judges. It can be a random selection process to ensure that nobody knows which orders will be reviewed by which judges. Instead of the document being shredded at the end of the day, it goes into a federal record (albeit, a very top secret one).
If they know that any search warrant, once issued, will be randomly reviewed then made part of sealed public record forever, the chances of shadiness are going to drop tremendously.
-
yes. but then we have two points of failure, HIGHLY rare. Plus, we could have every search warrant/tap reviewed by 2 judges. Or 6 judges. It can be a random selection process to ensure that nobody knows which orders will be reviewed by which judges. Instead of the document being shredded at the end of the day, it goes into a federal record (albeit, a very top secret one).
If they know that any search warrant, once issued, will be randomly reviewed then made part of sealed public record forever, the chances of shadiness are going to drop tremendously.
In my opinion, the more judges involved the higher the chances of corruption. Remember, these judges are appointed by the sitting president. This is why politicians work so hard to fight for or against appointees. So politics will follow this warrant where ever it goes or is denied. All of these checks and balances are great, but there's still a tremendous amount opportunity for corruption.
-
In my opinion, the more judges involved the higher the chances of corruption. Remember, these judges are appointed by the sitting president. This is why politicians work so hard to fight for or against appointees. So politics will follow this warrant where ever it goes or is denied. All of these checks and balances are great, but there's still a tremendous amount opportunity for corruption.
Checks and Balnaces deminish the opportunity for curruption C-500. when you leave the power in the hands of fewer people with out checks and balances the potential for corruption increases.
-
Checks and Balnaces deminish the opportunity for curruption C-500. when you leave the power in the hands of fewer people with out checks and balances the potential for corruption increases.
I see the point you and 240 are making, Oz. But what I'm saying is that we give too much credence to our checks and balances system, as if it isn't corrupt itself. That's why I make the point about the judges. Right now, the buck stops with the judges. Who's checking behind them? So we get a review panel...who's watching the review panel? See what I mean? You end up with committee and sub-committees like we have in washington...who are doing absolutely nothing.
-
I see the point you and 240 are making, Oz. But what I'm saying is that we give too much credence to our checks and balances system, as if it isn't corrupt itself. That's why I make the point about the judges. Right now, the buck stops with the judges. Who's checking behind them? So we get a review panel...who's watching the review panel? See what I mean? You end up with committee and sub-committees like we have in washington...who are doing absolutely nothing.
Yeah i hear ya, but in the end...when it comes down to the "government" having access to my private stuff with out any measure of control or accountablity, then i'd like a Judge's approval first.
It's not an unreasonalbe thing to ask for citizens of the United States of America.
-
I see the point you and 240 are making, Oz. But what I'm saying is that we give too much credence to our checks and balances system, as if it isn't corrupt itself. That's why I make the point about the judges. Right now, the buck stops with the judges. Who's checking behind them? So we get a review panel...who's watching the review panel? See what I mean? You end up with committee and sub-committees like we have in washington...who are doing absolutely nothing.
You have hawks watching them, from BOTH parties, who 1) go to prison for leaking it, and 2) look very very good when they do find an anomaly in the warrants.
So they are very motivated to 1) Not leak anything, and 2) look for mistakes/shadiness.
"The more people watching, the more opportunities for corruption" doesn't make sense here, because if corrpution occurs at the beginning of the chain (exec branch), and it is viewed by 2 to 4 DIFFERENT people, ANY of which who sees an error will blow the whistle, you pretty much eliminate any chance for breaking the rules.
When you are required to write down every warrant, and you know that anything you write down will be viewed by people very eager to catch you breaking the law... are you going to break the law?
-
I would call for Impeachment over all the other illegal things he has done. :P
Most Libs would wether it was illegal or not.........they would want to Impeach just because he's George Bush and a Republican, nothing more nothing less!
-
Again.... chained to your party...
And republicans wouldn't want to impeach just becuase he/she was a democrat?
puh-leeze! :P
-
Yes, some kind of judge would be ideal. They need to set up some kind of system where there is one on call at all times and it doesnt take days and days to do the process.
As far as Bush goes, pisses me off. But i really hope as a president of the US you care a lot more about your country and your legacy than about gettin more saudi oil ties so you can get even richer when you retire.
-
one's opinion
-
one's opinion
Everyone deseerves equial treatment under the law.
And severe punishment when found guilty.
-
Yes, some kind of judge would be ideal. They need to set up some kind of system where there is one on call at all times and it doesnt take days and days to do the process.
Oh, it'll still be instant warrant approval, just as it is now. The issue is whether or not the exec branch ever has to let the judicial branch see it AFTER the fact.
If they have nothing to hide, I don't see why letting the judicial branch review the searches/taps for legality is a problem. Their insistance on "No one needs to ever know what we're doing", even another part of the govt, is just insane.
-
Again.... chained to your party...
And republicans wouldn't want to impeach just becuase he/she was a democrat?
puh-leeze! :P
No..I'm not, but everytime Bush makes a move the Democrats try to sabatage it.....it's rediculous. Have you listend to Nancy Polosi, Ted Kennedy, Gore, both Clintons, Murtha, etc,etc,etc? Their (Dems) are out to get him at any cost, they cock block the every move!
-
No..I'm not, but everytime Bush makes a move the Democrats try to sabatage it.....it's rediculous. Have you listend to Nancy Polosi, Ted Kennedy, Gore, both Clintons, Murtha, etc,etc,etc? Their (Dems) are out to get him at any cost, they cock block the every move!
Yeah i know that, Are you implying the republicans don't do the same stuff? Com on. Remember: I'm sick of both parties. Just not as sick of the dems at the moment...but give me a little more time ;D
-
No..I'm not, but everytime Bush makes a move the Democrats try to sabatage it.....it's rediculous. Have you listend to Nancy Polosi, Ted Kennedy, Gore, both Clintons, Murtha, etc,etc,etc? Their (Dems) are out to get him at any cost, they cock block the every move!
I agree - the dems are full of shit and they have no message and no real idea what they woudl do if they got into office.
the repubs, well, they have a pretty clear idea - they are working to garner some serious control over this country. This is good for safety, but their secrecy - to the point of HIDING IT FROM OTHER BRANCHES - is absurd.
I'm still a repub, but I think it needs to go back to being the party FOR personal liberties. They've been playing the boogeyman card for a tad too long now.
-
Yeah i know that, Are you implying the republicans don't do the same stuff? Com on. Remember: I'm sick of both parties. Just not as sick of the dems at the moment...but give me a little more time ;D
Of course I realize both parties do it, but at least the Republicans can disagree with one another and not get shit canned from the party and get their back turned on them. Leiberman is a great example, for a long time I liked this guy, he had strong principles and a fantastic track record for over 30 years, if he would have been nominated and ran against Bush and Bush lost, I thought he would have made a great President, I would have been happy either way, but because he disagreed with ONE issue and stood by the President on it, he more or less got ousted from his party and they turned thier back on him.....not right, simply not right!
-
This isn't any kind of impeachable offense. He thought what he was doing was okay. The judge disagreed. He'll now do what the judge says, absent a different interpretation from the appellate court. If the president secretly disobeys a court order, then we can talk impeachment.
Actually BeachBum, Bush knew it was illegal. He's been advised of that many times and has indicated he'd do it anyway. He just attorney shops til he finds an attorney who will give a skewed enough interpretation, then, acts based on advise from counsel. In the end, he just points to faulty advise from counsel. :-\ Personally, I don't think the wiretapping is as serious an offense as some of his other offenses which are most definitely impeachable. They do have grave implications though. He really should be brought to justice.
-
Even if it's not on the web, I very strongly resent any diminishing of my privacy. And you never know when things can be leaked . . . what if you decide to run for office? Do people need to know who you were shtupping when you were in college? the govt. could accumulate all sorts of info on you, and interested people could leak it . . .
LOL! You think the Government leaks that info? Try the media bro.
Yes, even if they were my neighbor, I would want them to have a warrant. Warrants are not too hard to obtain, and they protect you and me . . . what if it was your house they decided to barge into?
LOL, again. You must not work around law enforcement. Ask a Dectective how difficult it may be to get a warrant. Not to mention that events can happen in minutes, where a warrant to be granted could take up to hours. As for my home, it was searched because I ALLOWED them to come in with out a warrant when someone in my family was being "checked " on for supposed selling of drugs. They were polite and didn't wreck anything.
Yes, things have changed, but I want to keep as many of my rights as I can . . . that's what makes this nation great. that's what separates us from other nations. I could live anywhere in the world, but i choose to live in the US b/c of our rule of law . . . helps protect the individual from the "tyranny of the majority."
This is "one" right you should be willing to give up for the safety of others. You must live in a non-violent area because there are many who wished that criminals were "watched" more closely.
-
Most Libs would wether it was illegal or not.........they would want to Impeach just because he's George Bush and a Republican, nothing more nothing less!
I swear to you.... I loved George W Bush when he first ran, but anyone that is still a supporter after he has fucked this country in so many ways is an anti American pussy <unt.
-
Actually BeachBum, Bush knew it was illegal. He's been advised of that many times and has indicated he'd do it anyway. He just attorney shops til he finds an attorney who will give a skewed enough interpretation, then, acts based on advise from counsel. In the end, he just points to faulty advise from counsel. :-\ Personally, I don't think the wiretapping is as serious an offense as some of his other offenses which are most definitely impeachable. They do have grave implications though. He really should be brought to justice.
Of course, he purposly blames it on fautly Counsil ::).....again, if you think he should be brought to justice, then go after the Presidents before him as well, but that ain't gonna happen because it wasn't illegal!!
-
LOL! You think the Government leaks that info? Try the media bro.
More specifically, the NY Times!
-
LOL! You think the Government leaks that info? Try the media bro.
LOL, again. You must not work around law enforcement. Ask a Dectective how difficult it may be to get a warrant. Not to mention that events can happen in minutes, where a warrant to be granted could take up to hours. As for my home, it was searched because I ALLOWED them to come in with out a warrant when someone in my family was being "checked " on for supposed selling of drugs. They were polite and didn't wreck anything.
This is "one" right you should be willing to give up for the safety of others. You must live in a non-violent area because there are many who wished that criminals were "watched" more closely.
I don't care....... F**K that. The answer isn't to violate our rights the answer is to fix the system so they can get a warrant faster.
Just becuase you got "polite" police doesn't mean they are all that way. When someone or some government agency has the right to snoop in my affairs with out "Checks and Bakances" at one point or another there will be abuse. We broke from England to get away from shit like that.
-
I swear to you.... I loved George W Bush when he first ran, but anyone that is still a supporter after he has fucked this country in so many ways is an anti American pussy <unt.
Amen.
-
More specifically, the NY Times!
hahaha, and who spoke to the NY Times, and who authorized it. c'mon guys, don't get all jaguarish on me . . . let's get to the bottom of things.
-
LOL! You think the Government leaks that info? Try the media bro.
LOL, again. You must not work around law enforcement. Ask a Dectective how difficult it may be to get a warrant. Not to mention that events can happen in minutes, where a warrant to be granted could take up to hours. As for my home, it was searched because I ALLOWED them to come in with out a warrant when someone in my family was being "checked " on for supposed selling of drugs. They were polite and didn't wreck anything.
This is "one" right you should be willing to give up for the safety of others. You must live in a non-violent area because there are many who wished that criminals were "watched" more closely.
1. no judge is going to deny a reasonable claim. if not, they can ask the party to let them in . . . like they did with you. if the party denies them entry and if they think it's serious, then they can put them under surveillance . . .
2. no, i'm not giving up any of my rights . . . as Ozmo said, fix the system.
-
Actually BeachBum, Bush knew it was illegal. He's been advised of that many times and has indicated he'd do it anyway. He just attorney shops til he finds an attorney who will give a skewed enough interpretation, then, acts based on advise from counsel. In the end, he just points to faulty advise from counsel. :-\ Personally, I don't think the wiretapping is as serious an offense as some of his other offenses which are most definitely impeachable. They do have grave implications though. He really should be brought to justice.
Who advised Bush many times that his wiretaps were illegal?
He can't "attorney shop." He has a finite group of counselors: AG, U.S. Attorney, White House Counsel, etc. If his counsel tells him his actions are legal then he cannot "know" his actions are illegal, particularly if Clinton did the same thing. I'll be very interested to see if one or more appellate court judges agrees with Bush.
Bush hasn't done anything to warrant impeachment and doesn't need to be "brought to justice." I know you believe he is a "psychopath" and the head of an "evil cabal," but you don't have any facts to support that opinion.
-
Who advised Bush many times that his wiretaps were illegal?
He can't "attorney shop." He has a finite group of counselors: AG, U.S. Attorney, White House Counsel, etc. If his counsel tells him his actions are legal then he cannot "know" his actions are illegal, particularly if Clinton did the same thing. I'll be very interested to see if one or more appellate court judges agrees with Bush.
Bush hasn't done anything to warrant impeachment and doesn't need to be "brought to justice." I know you believe he is a "psychopath" and the head of an "evil cabal," but you don't have any facts to support that opinion.
We don't really think the AG, U.S, Attorney, White House Counsel, etc. didin't know what they were advising was illegal do we? These are top attorneis in their fields. Of course they knew. And they knew they could get away with it.
-
We don't really think the AG, U.S, Attorney, White House Counsel, etc. didin't know what they were advising was illegal do we? These are top attorneis in their fields. Of course they knew. And they knew they could get away with it.
No they didn't. They came up with a legal argument to justify warrantless wiretaps, just like Clinton's advisers did. A federal judge disagreed. I agree with the federal judge, but one or more appellate court judges might not.
-
its not illegal. its in a legal gray area. this judge is an idiot, they should keep this program going. they are not listening to you talkin to your aunt may in Iowa, they only use to to listen to int'l phone calls with known or suspected terrorists. besides, do you really thyink they give a shit about your phone calls.
i dont understand why this gets everybody so pissed off
The first group of people that could ostensibly be targeted are journalists. Once you have successfully squashed the journalists, the road is paved with gold for any corrupt government. Doesn't anybody read history books. Look at how swiftly successful the Third Reich was with this tactic.
-
Not only that, ...but who is to say that the information gathered will not be abused by current or future authorities? You may not be committing crimes, ...but how would you like your information sold to marketers? It's conceivable.
-
I think Karl Rove, the DM genius, was already on top of that, years ago.
-
Not only that, ...but who is to say that the information gathered will not be abused by current or future authorities? You may not be committing crimes, ...but how would you like your information sold to marketers? It's conceivable.
Very true.
I'd pay some serious $ for a list of everyone who's ever muttered, "But where can we get a cheaper website?"
:)
-
Very true.
I'd pay some serious $ for a list of everyone who's ever muttered, "But where can we get a cheaper website?"
:)
{LOL} Nothing like key words huh? ;D
-
No they didn't. They came up with a legal argument to justify warrantless wiretaps, just like Clinton's advisers did. A federal judge disagreed. I agree with the federal judge, but one or more appellate court judges might not.
I see. Well in any event, I'm still aginst it.
-
I see. Well in any event, I'm still aginst it.
So am I. I just don't make it more than what it is.
-
No they didn't. They came up with a legal argument to justify warrantless wiretaps, just like Clinton's advisers did. A federal judge disagreed. I agree with the federal judge, but one or more appellate court judges might not.
Are you sure? There have been more than a few news stories published that indicate John Yoo was given the specific task by the Bush government of finding the loopholes to facilitate justification for surveillance outside of FISA.
-
Are you sure? There have been more than a few news stories published that indicate John Yoo was given the specific task by the Bush government of finding the loopholes to facilitate justification for surveillance outside of FISA.
Deedee I'm not certain, because I wasn't privy to everything that was said behind closed doors, but a loophole in a law means you can engage in certain conduct without violating that law. Nothing wrong with that. People do it all the time. I do it every year when I sit down with my tax lady and we try to figure out how we can give as little of my money as possible to the government. In other words, we're looking for loopholes. :)
-
Loophole was my word, and perhaps the wrong one to use in this case. (I know what it means lol, and one day I'm sure my accountant will agree that my hair appointments should be write-offs). I was under the impression that the Bush government was aware that what they were doing was illegal, that the NYT sat on the story for a year, then when they finally ran the story, it was John Woo's task to write the backstory, i.e. find any lawyerly blather to explain away these covert activities.
-
any lawyerly blather to explain away these covert activities.
ain't nothing wrong with a little blather. :)