| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 933
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 8:40 pm: | 
|
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bush-warants-fis.mov
11 Republican Senators have publicly questioned the program: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, as well as Sam Brownback of Kansas, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Larry Craig of Idaho, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Dick Lugar of Indiana, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10528
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 6:03 am: |
|
This is typical of Bush. It all depends on what you mean by "wiretap". Traditionally, this is putting a physical bug on a phone, not just listening in to wireless communications. Jesh, I thought everyone knew that.
To be honest I am in favor of monitoring overseas phonecalls into the US from known and even suspected terrorists. However, to allow any administration to do this without oversight will lead to the abuses of the past during the Nixon and Johnson administrations. They can't help themselves.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5681
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 8:32 am: |
|
Or as Harry Shearer said, and would that it were true...
Quote:If absolute power corrupts absolutely, does absolute powerlessness make you pure?
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10531
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 9:09 am: |
|
Duncan, something to think about.  |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 635
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:17 am: |
|
Bob K
It also depends on what you mean by the word "is" 
-SLK |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Just read Jim Risen's book, State of War, to get some views on this. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3151
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Do you really think Alberto Gonzales genuinely wants to "limit the program?"
He said, "This is a very limited program."
Do you all really think he thought of going around FISA without Bush?
Don't you think he was told by Bush to say what he's been saying?
Why do people take the fall like this for Bush?
Sorry if I'm offending anyone. I'd really like to know what you all think (hopefully it won't be insulting.)
It's almost worse than the wiretapping itself, to have people go out and try to defend Bush's directives, eg. (on another issue, the environment) Christie Whitman and the EPA saying it was "safe" to go back to WTC area,
Gonzales saying this NSA program is "limited,"
even Cheney maintaining that there was a connection between Al Qaida and Hussein. I sense a single source for all of these types of statements. I sense that Bush is asking people close to him to take the fall for him, or his "people" are asking others to do so.
Please give me evidence that this is not the case, and that the President's men...and women...and making all of these claims independently.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14515
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:33 pm: |
|
I support the wiretapping program.
And I didn't speak to Bush. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4024
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:37 pm: |
|
I agree with Specter. It isn't the wiretapping, it is the failure to brief FISA and senior congressional leaders on the general program. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3152
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
If Congress is not trusted by the President to review wiretapping plans, how can the President be trusted by Congress to be following the law? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3153
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 7:10 pm: |
|
FISHY
|
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 176
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:18 am: |
|
However you come out on this, be aware that the outcome will likely be forever. This is not a war that will end with the siging of documents on the deck of a battleship. This is the age of terrorism and nasty weapons. Its like the permanent war in 1984. Weigh that in deciding whether the executive should have unchecked surveillance authority. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4027
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:27 am: |
|
Good points Eric. All the more reason for Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 787
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
But why couldnt he answer Specters question about why they did not ask FISA for the authorization? It was a simple question and he completely dodged it, just like all the other questions he dodged.
Every Senator seemed to be realizing that this is wrong - and in seeing that I am assuming some pressure from their constituents has been brought to bare.
Gonzales is the 'torture' guy. His policy statement allowed for the evils of guantanamo and abu ghraib to be considered 'legal'. I certainly understand why he would not want to testify 'under oath'.
I heard someplace this morning that someone on the 9/11 commission specifically asked the administration if they needed the law changed so that these types of surveillance activities could be accomplished without getting a warrant and the answer was an emphatic 'no'. That the administration does not want the law changed. Well thats certainly not the case today is it?
Heres the thing about the information that is being gathered illegally in all our names - if the evidence is ever used in a court of law to convict a terrorist of planning or actually commiting the act, it is likely that a judge would have to throw any conviction out because of the illegal manner in which the information was gathered.
Bad for the USA. Get the warrants you have 72 hours. If you need more time pass a law to give you a week, a month. It allows citizens to be safe in the knowledge that our government is one of law and that our government has checks and balances that protect not just the people and assets of the country but also the individuals and freedoms of the country. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8545
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 9:53 am: |
|
That judge wouldn't have been appointed because wiretapping would have shown the powers that be that he was an independent thinker. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10551
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
I posted in a thread a couple of months ago that the whole controversy here is more about Presidential powers than spying.
After the abuses Nixon years, Congress put a number of controls on how the President can operate. Both Cheney and Rummy were officials in the Ford administration when most of this took place. They, and many other proponents of Presidential power feel Congress went to far and the Bush administration is pushing back. I suspect they feel that they now have enough votes on the Supreme Court to get their way. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 788
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Maybe they do, and maybe they dont. There is a violation of law here and the senators seem to be in agreement that the law has not been met. That in and of itself is a miracle in this most partisan, kiss bush's ••• at all times, time.
Might have something to do with mid-term elections or it might just be that the sorry state of this country is finally dawning on the republicans. I am optimistic that at some point in the future - be it this year or after the Bush regime is thankfully over - there will be court cases addressing these crimes and the truth will eventually be told. (will anyone be listening?) |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Hoops,
I'm sure there will be a big time investigation in about 10-15 years. Maybe Fitz will be available after he wraps up the big "Plamegate" that was Bigger than Watergate. Of course, all this will pale compared to the new Teapot Dome scandal. I mean, that story is just on the top of every news shows these days. You Dems sure are pretty lame. You hop from story to story hoping to gain traction. Why don't you simply elect competent leaders who have the ability to discuss policy coherently. You make fun of Bush, yet he whipped Gore and Kerry in the debates and then you give us Pelosi. She makes Biden sound like a real Presidential candidate and this guy represents Delaware! |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 793
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
Southerner your take on the issue is frankly both alarming and lame.
In your world it is OK for the president to ignore the law because he claims to be 'protecting' us. No thats not your position at all is it? Your position is still stuck on "the republicans won the election, so too bad".
Sorry but that does not cut it. If the Dems were in power now and this was what they were doing do you think that I wouldnt be railing against it? Its plain wrong. If anything the President of the United States should be the first one to make sure that no laws are being broken.
I will laugh myself silly when and if this does get to a court.
As far as the debates of 2000 and 2004, sorry Bush did not win even one of them. The only thing Bush won were two highly questionable elections and since then has spent the majority of his time emptying the treasury. I hope your grandchildren can afford to live here. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Hoops,
How many times must your ilk claim the sky is falling. You guys have become a punch line. At least Travis had the good sense to leave this board after his nonsensical prediction. Bush didn't break the law and so therefore there will be no trial. And Gonzalez made those Dems look silly and petty. Again, why don't we let the electorate decide which side they agree with it. After the upcoming elections we will see which party has control of Congress. It is a fairly straight forward proposal. If you are right then the Dems should control. If I am then the Repubs should control. The proof is in the vote not in anyone's analysis. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 935
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Lets Imagine Hillary as President-- And she inherited all those spy programs from BUSH....
I dont think we want that, do we.
On the other hand there looks to be 12 votes on the Judiciary Commitee to move this to Impeachment in the house.
Maybe Bush will be impeached by August. |
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:59 am: |
|
Southerner
you seem like more of a football fan, with the Reuplicans your favorite team and the "Dems" their bitter rivals, than a true conservative. True conservatives MISTRUST unchecked government power regardless of the party in charge. You should look beyond shrill cartoonish politico talk like Rush and O'Reilley and maybe read some books to broaden your horizons. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
Eric,
Nice personal potshot. Do I get to you that bad? If so, then maybe you need to relax. Why do you feel the need to make a personal remark when I have never done this to you? I simply talk about Dems and Repubs but never get personal.
And your post is comical. That is the problem, everyone wants to analyze, hold discussions, and read books. I am far from agreeing with the Repubs on many issues. But in our current state of political affairs, we have two options from which to choose. While I don't agree with the Repubs on many, many issues, overall I agree with them many more times than I agree with the Dems. Therefore, I support the Repubs. And my premise has always been that you can only affect change if you are in power and run the Congressional Committees. That is where the power is located.
I look at the Democratic Party and see them as having a good chance to win power if they could control their own constituents. But they can't. Once you upset a special interest within the Democratic Party, they are quick to abandon you and go third party. As close as these elections have been all it takes is a few lefty wackjobs to go Nader and then a Repub wins.
Eric, let me ask you a question, would you support a Dem who you disagree with on many issues or would you support a southern conservative Republican? Something tells me you would support the Dem because the alternative is unfathomable. That is how I feel about the current Democratic party. I would hope we can disagree on political issues without getting personal and nasty.
And lastly, what didn't you like about my post. I basically said let the people decide. What is wrong with this? |
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 182
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Southerner
I rarely get invovled in these Dem vs. Pubs squabbles but I do read them. I can't help but notice that no matter what the subject, your likely to launch some bilous, canned snipe re the "libs" this or "dems" that, of the type that makes the popular radio and TV talk shows so discreditable and shallow. That's all I have against you - not your underlying political principles, whatever they are. Why do you jump to conclusions about my political philosophy by the way? I would always vote for the candidate who I thought was better (or less bad). FYI, I view myself as fiscally conservative and skeptical about government so you can save your "Dem/Lib" slogans for someone else. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Eric,
Okay, we aren't so far apart. I use the terms Dem/Repubs/Libs/Cons because that is much better than attacking individual posters as you kind of did to me with your "broaden your horizons" comment.
Listen, I only jump in when someone makes a totally ridiculous statement that is politically speaking incorrect. This is a political forum and I expect the posters to be somewhat literate on the subject. I have no problem with folks disagreeing with my conservative brethren, but when posters make silly claims "Bigger than Watergate", "Teapot Dome", "Impeach Bush", you are darn right I will call them on it because it shows their lack of understanding of politics. Believe me, if cjc or Straw claimed that Corzine wasn't a legitimately elected Governor of your state, I would soundly refute them. In politics, the proof is in the pudding. We can hold forums and take polls are year long, but the only thing that matters is who wins on election day. Rather than broaden my horizons, you should take a step back and see that politics isn't all that hard to figure out.
(Here's a little example: no matter what happens between now and November, the Repubs will maintain control of Congress. This isn't a partisan shot, but a reality check of the seats that will be contested and the voters in these areas. It has nothing to do with partisanship but with facts of looking at each race and understanding the Dems cannot pick up enough seats to take Congress back.) But I will be called a shallow thinker for stating this. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page