Thanks for your input.....
Sort of hate to do this.. but you might find this amusing...
I read the Clinton executive order, and was wondering what the difference is between warrentless physical searches and seizures, and wire taps..
So, I went over to Atrio's blog and asked the question.. and they went nuts on me.. I mean, I didn't have a rational explanation to counter your "Clinton did it" argument.. so I went looking for one.. and all I got was a bunch of grief.
I will always consider myself a liberal, but god I am not that totally insane as some of these people..
http://www.haloscan.com/
comments...500916866042927
If you really want to read it.. do a search on "thomas" and I think it's like the 3rd or 4th hit down the thread where it starts.
Oh.. and as far as your "Clinton did it" argument goes.. all I can really say is that it's another "see, he's worse" type of rationale.. which I don't buy.
Oh.. and as far as your "Clinton did it" argument goes.. all I can really say is that it's another "see, he's worse" type of rationale.. which I don't buy.
I wasn't trying to say Clinton was worse, even though there's a difference between searches and wire taps. I was pointing out that the Pres. of the US, whoever it happens to be, has the power to enact these types of these things.
I know wasn't that clear on that but what else is new.
---------
And we talked a little about a section of the law with regards to wire taps over at FR this morning.
USC title 50 Sec 1802.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...s/1543216/
posts
But after reading it over the section (Sec 1802) does NOT apply to terrorists.
---------
And did you happen to mention Echelon?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...s/1543118/
posts
Tom-
RE: your quote
"Both seem to violate the 4th ammendment."
Would you agree it would be reasonable to search (tap) the phone number(s) that we find on terrorists when we capture them?
.
For example.
CNN
After spending a month in Egypt, Padilla traveled on and arrived at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May the 8th of 2002. He was carrying over $10,000 in U.S. currency given to him by his al Qaeda handlers. He was carrying the cell phone provided to him by Amar al-Beluki (ph), Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's right-hand man.
He was carrying the names is telephone numbers of his recruiter and his sponsor, and the e-mail address for Amar al-Beluki (ph), who he was to contact upon safely reaching the United States.
Let's say we started tracking these numbers after we caught JP and one of these number was making calls into the US. Wouldn't it be reasonable to then start tracking the calls made from the US phone, right away and without hesitation?
.
Thomas, every time I try to have a conversation with you, you end up insulting me personally, but since I agree with you and am seeing this more and more in the increasingly partisan USA, I'm going to give you my imput.
If you unquestionably accept that the sky is green, no amount of evidence will make you accept that the sky is blue, and you will accept the slightest hint of evidence that it's green.
The fact is, if you unquestionably accept that Bush is evil and Clinton great, then you're not prepared to believe any evidence that Clinton isn't perfect or that Bush can even unwittingly stumble onto a good policy. Thus, a fellow who doubtless has never read this will tell you "oh just go read it, Limbaugh obviously is lying, stupid." (or words to that effect)
The same thing goes on with Bush supporters and Clinton haters. A person could tell the average ditto head that Clinton molested sheep and he'd believe any hearsay you might throw at him. Yet when all the evidence points to administration mistakes, they seem unwilling to accept that the administration isn't perfect.
Fact is, political affiliations are becoming more and more like loyalty to professional sports teams. You don't think about who you like to see play best, you are loyal to the uniform of your city or whatever. Nowadays it seems as if President Bush could endorse a policy that Bill Clinton fostered, and Repubs would cheer and Dems would boo. Likewise Hillary Clinton could suggest a policy fostered by Ronald Reagan and the republicans wouldn't support it. It's all about supporting the uniform.
That's why genuine thinkers who occasionally "break ranks" are so despised by the extreme wings of their parties. Limbaugh seems to genuinely despise John McCain, a guy I think is super, while left-wingers are practically burning Hillary Clinton in effigy for saying anything good about Iraq. They're like my Utah Jazz's Karl Malone going off to the Lakers, no longer in the uniform, no longer "with us."
Tom-
This may shed some light on how Pres. Bush has the power to surveil.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/
2...dex.php#a000818
&
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/
2...dex.php#a000820
---------
BTW I did read that link you posted from Atrios, man they were sure you were a troll. And they sure have a way with words.
.
man they were sure you were a troll. And they sure have a way with words.
I've never been under the misimpression that there are no crazy people on the left. I just was rather surprised when the seeming "regulars" went off on me, when all I did was ask how one situation compares to the other. The really amusing part is that I had the link to my blog in my comments of course.. and ended up with a bunch of emails with the common message "not everyone is like that". I was shocked at the length of some of the emails I got..
It really is my belief that liberal thinking people are more open to challenging their point of view.. but clearly there are some rabid freaks out there. Even if I was a right winger, what I wrote wasn't trolling.. it was a legitimate question..
Anyway.. as to the particular issue at hand.. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, and I'd imagine that these executive orders (both clinton and bush) were vetted by attorneys.. But, the larger question is why? My understanding is that law enforcement can do the warrntless search and then have 72 hours to get the warrant after the fact, so I wonder why that wasn't done? The only reason I can think of is that you don't want the court to know what you were doing.
I also find the comments from the Republican side highly offensive.. and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass.. This one from Ric Santorum is particularly good..
"The senator recognizes that in times of war, the President has the constitutional oversight or the constitutional ability to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," Santorum spokesman Robert L. Traynham said. "He fully supports the President's ability to protect American lives by going this step in terms of listening in on conversations."
This position is essentially saying that the President is a dictator during a time of war.. and because now we're at war with a tactic (terrorism), we will be at war for decades.. meaning that we give absolute authority to the president.. and I'm surprised that the right wouldn't be freaked out by that.
Furthermore, it may, in fact, be illegal, but like I said I'm not a constitutional lawyer.. nor a prosecutor.. so my opinion right now is that it's a bad idea whether Clinton or Bush does it.. and in fact it may be illegal.. but clearly there is no reason not to get warrants after the search when time is important..
Thomas, every time I try to have a conversation with you, you end up insulting me personally
Nick.. every time I try to have a conversation with you, you whine about my style and cry even though you agree with my point of view.. Again, you value presentation over substance and I'm not a fan of that. I am pretty much the polar opposite to ox's political point of view, but at least he debates on point and doesn't get stuck on extraneous issues.
But, I didn't come here to have that debate with you again.. just responding because you
because you brought it up.. :/
Ah.. found what I was looking for.... Go read http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12...e-echelon-myth/
----------
CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
---------
So.. I wonder who is lying here.. Is it Newsmax et. all, that said that Echelon was done without warrants.. Or is it the CIA director, who said they did get warrants?
One or the other is lying. Which is it?
Speaking of lying.. lying.. and more and more lying.. it's a non-stop parade of lying going on right now..
Bush, April 20, 2004:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Holy cow this story is exploding.. with conservative scholars saying Bush should be impeached..
link:
QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
----------
As I've mentioned before.. since the war is on a tactic, and not a certain country, a president can always claim we are "at war".. and a Democratic president can do anything they want to and claim it as a "defense of the american people".. and I guess you are okay with that?
I have my doubts that bush will be impeached.. because he'll just keep claiming the "24 defense".. American's appeare willing to give up their civil liberties under the pretense that somehow violating our constitution is okay to do when the alternative is getting blown up..
And if you agree.. I wonder how far do you take it. Is it okay to give up all our civil liberties in order to feel safe?
When they come for your guns.. I'll bet you won't think it worthwhile..
RE: Your Tenet quote.
That was in 2000, before Pres. Bush signed an Exec order like Carter and Clinton did.
Not all Exec. Orders are made public when they are signed.
----------------------------------
RE: Your Bush quote from 4-20-2004.
Do you really think the Pres. has to publicly tell our enemies what our full capabilities are? (ie.... tapping income calls w/o a court order)
The Tenet quote specifically relates to the Clinton order that was your original topic. You essentially said "Clinton did it", which I might add is the right wing talking point.. and a bald faced lie. The CIA director testified that they did obtain the proper warrants.
As far as the Bush quote goes.. I'm surprised you can even write that with a straight face..
You mean to tell me that if the "terrorists" knew that we could tap phone lines without a warrant, they would suddenly change how they do business? That's ridiculous beyond belief. You think they don't know their conversations or other electronic communications may be tapped? You are totally grasping at straws on that one.
I want to know where you draw the line.. but again, you're just a political hack, and you have no line. There is nothing King George could do that you would be opposed to, as long as he dressed it up as the "war on terra"... I was willing to wait to pass judgment on this until I collected more information.. which I have done.. and I think I agree with the conservative constitutional scholars.. bush needs to be impeached and resign.
There's oh so much more.. from Bob Barr, George Will, and on and on.. but you seem to support a totalitarian regime.. Anything goes, right?
Read here
http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml
The legal issues are obviously complicated, but the broader questions are not.
Why didn't the NSA get retroactive warrants? Apparently because it involved paperwork.
Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
I saw this morning that a judge for FISA resigned in protest.. Interesting.
It's awefully strange that it's the liberals that are arguing the "give me liberty, or give me death" point, and it's the conservatives that favor supreme executive authority.
I think the issue is more about politics really. Conservatives would be going insane if it was Al Gore that was authorizing wire taps without warrants, so it's very apparent to me that in the US today, the issue isn't the constitution or typical viewpoints on political decisions, the issue is republican/democrat.
That is why I think Republicans are morally bankrupt. I'd hang Bill Clinton out to dry if he pulled the same stunt, and I like him a lot. It's a good thing they got their warrants under Clinton's watch.
You probably know what a fanboi is, from gaming and such.... There does seem to be a lot of power fanbois, who would grant dictator authority to their idols. It is blind faith, exactly the same way that people gave god-like powers to Jimmy Swaggart, and so on. It's a weird personality trait I think...
But George Bush is not Jack Bauer. You cannot simply give one person dictator authority just because we live in a dangerous world. That is exactly the reaction the "terrorists" want from us. We cannot defeat them with bombs, obviously, but we can defeate them by placing human rights and civil liberties higher than any other principal.. and that includes defense.
One day you may get to suckle the teet of the powerful.. but I doubt it..
This is what it's all about..
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/o...005/12/
sos.html
Do you truly support King George.. or is it purely a republican/democrat thing for you?
Commenting by HaloScan
