So What else in the US Constitution Doesn't Apply During a Self-Declared War?

[WildCat]

Here's another lie from those guys. In reason number 12, they claim that the FISA court of review does not address the question of "the scope of that presidential authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion." Indeed, that very decision addresses it as clearly as can be done in the English language. As best I can tell, the only question really at issue is whether a FISA search conducted without a FISA warrant would be admissible in a criminal court -- the searches themselves and the use of the intelligence gathered therefrom is already well addressed by the courts.

And that's exactly what I've been trying to point out, this trumps all other legal questions and makes them moot. There is no grounds to impeach Bush.

 

[Manny]

And that's exactly what I've been trying to point out, this trumps all other legal questions and makes them moot. There is no grounds to impeach Bush.

Whilst prior attempts at impeaching a president have been grounded in actual crimes, impeachment is itself a political act. If the Democrats wish impeach the President over this issue they can of course attempt to do so. I guess to attach a crime to it they could conclude that one or a few or several US citizens make an al Qaeda sleeper cell not "substantially" comprised of "United States Persons" and further conclude that surveillance aimed at preventing an attack on US soil by al Qaeda is not foreign intelligence gathering but rather domestic intelligence gathering.

 

[WildCat]

Whilst prior attempts at impeaching a president have been grounded in actual crimes, impeachment is itself a political act. If the Democrats wish impeach the President over this issue they can of course attempt to do so. I guess to attach a crime to it they could conclude that one or a few or several US citizens make an al Qaeda sleeper cell not "substantially" comprised of "United States Persons" and further conclude that surveillance aimed at preventing an attack on US soil by al Qaeda is not foreign intelligence gathering but rather domestic intelligence gathering.

Of course you're right. But IMHO it would be political suicide if the Dems attempt this.

But I think the real goal is to let it quietly go away, so they can reurrect it all over again just before the '06 election. National security seems to be a political game to some.

 

[Manny]

Of course you're right. But IMHO it would be political suicide if the Dems attempt this.

Shhhhh!

 

[Beerina]

Of course you're right. But IMHO it would be political suicide if the Dems attempt this.

It's the one viable branch of popularity that still has leaves on it for Bush -- that the Democrats are considered less capable of executing the war on terror. Look for his popularity to go up should they attempt this.

 

[Paulhoff]

How things change, at one time Democrats where called warmongers.

Paul

 

[Freakshow]

A very worrying post. This sort of suggestion needs to be stepped on quickly as the last thing JREF needs is trouble at TAM from people who think they can chest thump on forums.

Actually, I think this is a good thing. If people aren't willing to back up their words, they shouldn't say them. What I hate is people that are total jack@$$es online, then turn on this sweet nice-guy act in person, then immediately go back to being jack@$$es online again, as soon as everybody is separated by 1000's of miles.

Be consistent. If someone wants to be mean and nasty here, fine. But have the guts to be mean and nasty to their face, too. If you don't, then start being nice here.

The threat of violence is a good thing sometimes, because it makes people be a bit nicer to each other. If you can't say it to somebody's face, you shouldn't be saying it here. Maybe if people keep in mind that they might have to actually meet these people face-to-face someday, they would be a bit more polite.

 

[fishbob]

. . . -- that the Democrats are considered less capable of executing the war on terror. . . .

That is a scary thought.

 

[hammegk]

Terrorism tends to be a self-correcting act for the Democrats' idea that it's a "law enforcement problem" -- when the perps kill themselves too ...

 

[Jitterbuggery]

I wanted to join in on this topic of discussion because it fascinates me. I apologize if I repeat something that has already been said as I don't have THAT much time at work to sit on the internet...

I think a phrase I hear said a lot to support the whole dang mess is: "We live in a different world since 9/11."

I want to offer this: We live in the EXACT SAME world. It's just been brought to our doorstep for the first time. I think the fear the U.S. is living in is based completely on being pissed off that now WE have to worry about being one of those no-name countries where people die just trying to go to work.

We are a selfish culture of people in the United States. It's not that we're bad people, necessarily, we just want to be left alone. We get up every morning, have our work/school routine, come home, have some sort of recreation in there and rinse and repeat. So when we're told we've been attacked by some f'ed up towel head in some country we'd never think twice about... OHMYGOD! MY ROUTINE!

Bush's rally cry after 9/11 was "Go Shopping!" Don't worry your silly little heads about this. I'll take care of it so you guys can go on being consumers and no ripple will invade your self absorbed little lives. We have spent 4 years just letting the administration tell us who to be afraid of and that only our beloved government's actions will save us from losing our Routine.

We are self absorbed people. We're okay with all of these breeches of our constitutional rights because they aren't hurting us, personally. There's an impression only the "bad" people are sitting in Abu Ghraib with no trial getting the life sucked out of them by torture.

We're losing our Freedoms. But we will have U.S. Soldiers give their lives for our Routine.

The only way this citizenship will pull themselves away from their televisions and give a damn about ANY of the unconstitutional, illegal, immoral acts this administration is doing... is when the FBI comes knocking on THEIR door.

But don't worry! They WON'T! Because you're a good guy. You don't have anything to hide! Now why don't you go on over to WalMart and buy some cheap crap you don't need to keep the U.S. Corporate machine running, hmmm?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, I think this is a good thing. If people aren't willing to back up their words, they shouldn't say them.

I find that point of view medieval. We should be able to have a vigorous discussion of important issues without some idiot thinking that this legitimises a fistfight.

The threat of violence is a good thing sometimes, because it makes people be a bit nicer to each other. If you can't say it to somebody's face, you shouldn't be saying it here. Maybe if people keep in mind that they might have to actually meet these people face-to-face someday, they would be a bit more polite.

At the same time people who like violence or who are bigger than others can engage in rudeness with impunity, because they will win most fights they pick, whereas pacifistic or small people cannot do so.

 

[KelvinG]

I find that point of view medieval. We should be able to have a vigorous discussion of important issues without some idiot thinking that this legitimises a fistfight.



At the same time people who like violence or who are bigger than others can engage in rudeness with impunity, because they will win most fights they pick, whereas pacifistic or small people cannot do so.

Of course, this is the point where the ante gets upped. The small people might need a baseball bat, a knife, mace, a gun, etc.
Then you got a very ugly situation.
People who are good with their fists might consider that not everyone shares their same sense of valour or honour. Challenging a smaller, less skilled person to a fight might result in your combatant trying to level the playing field.
It's easy to talk tough about smacking around someone you consider lippy should you ever meet in person. You just better hope that person shares the same sense of chivalry as you.

 

[Jitterbuggery]

It truly is pointless in today's society for people to argue about their viewpoints anyway. No one is going to take a moment and listen to the other side's point of view. It's all the rage now to make your mind up about something and then dig in. Once you've gotten an opinion, it is now your job to make sure no one dares give you an argument that might change your mind. So when facts or even a different approach to the subject arrises, insult, degrade, threaten, slander, and do everything necessary to not hear what is being said. It is far more noble to fight to the death for a stupid idea than to be a human being and learn and grow and potentially change your own point of view.

I don't intend this to be an attack on any particular side of thinking, either. EVERYONE is guilty of this. However, in this type of situation, it is usually the mainstream collective that won't listen to alternative suggestions.

There IS a difference between being willing to stand behind your words and threatening to beat the sh** outta anyone who dares to oppose you.

 

[Freakshow]

I find that point of view medieval. We should be able to have a vigorous discussion of important issues without some idiot thinking that this legitimises a fistfight.

"Vigorous discussion" does not have to mean being nasty and mean and personal.

ETA: And you provided a couple of great examples right in your post. "Medieval", and "idiot". Maybe you should improve your debating techniques.

At the same time people who like violence or who are bigger than others can engage in rudeness with impunity, because they will win most fights they pick, whereas pacifistic or small people cannot do so.

Not what I said at all.

 

[Mycroft]

I find that point of view medieval. We should be able to have a vigorous discussion of important issues without some idiot thinking that this legitimises a fistfight.

Except the words being discussed (human sacrifice?) are not opinions in a political discussion, but personal comments and/or threats.

 

[Mycroft]

It truly is pointless in today's society for people to argue about their viewpoints anyway. No one is going to take a moment and listen to the other side's point of view. It's all the rage now to make your mind up about something and then dig in.

I disagree. I learn about many issues by reading the discussions here, even when I don't take part.

I think most people who have learned enough about an issue to form an opinion are unlikely to make a complete turn about just because someone else disagrees with them, but many do moderate their opinions.

 

[joe1347]

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably

By John W. Dean

Friday 30 December 2005

Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security. On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons. . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/123005I.shtml

*****************

John Dean's thoughts on the topic.

 

[Manny]

Uh huh. And what are your thoughts? Before I go and bother to read what John Dean says (and I'll need a link other than truthout -- I'll not give them a click) I'll be looking to you to comment on the last lying crock of crap you spewed all over this thread.

 

[Freakshow]

I disagree. I learn about many issues by reading the discussions here, even when I don't take part.

I think most people who have learned enough about an issue to form an opinion are unlikely to make a complete turn about just because someone else disagrees with them, but many do moderate their opinions.

If someone has their opinion turned 180 degrees on a topic by reading a few paragraphs here...I have to wonder how they came to their original opinion in the first place. It does not sound to me like the original opinion was arrived at through a careful and lengthy process.

 

[President Bush]

Here's another lie from those guys. In reason number 12, they claim that the FISA court of review does not address the question of "the scope of that presidential authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion." Indeed, that very decision addresses it as clearly as can be done in the English language.

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

I think you, maybe, left out an important sentence, manny...

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.