WASHINGTON Feb 6, 2006 (AP)— Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush is fully empowered to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror. He exhorted Congress not to end or tinker with the program.

Gonzales' strong defense of Bush's program was challenged by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and committee Democrats during sometimes contentious questioning.


Article quote:
"My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not."
US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at today's NSA hearing


Then put his ass under oath. Did the Congress proceed to? Hell No. Why? Here's why:

Article Quote:
Monday's hearing got off to a rocky start when Republicans and Democrats disagreed over whether Gonzales should be sworn in. Democrats said he should, but Specter said it wasn't necessary.

Jeez, given the controversey that this surveilance program has created, and also it's dubious and secretive nature, one would think that Congress would be more than obliged to swear in the person who gave legal counsel affirming the legality of it, and specificailly all it entailed right?

Wrong. According to the article it didn't happen. Pg. 2 of article:
He wasn't.

Golly. For those who testify regarding the warrantless wiretaps - insert Alberto Gonzales name here - are afforded by members of Congress (who are supposed top be the investigators for crying out loud) the opportunity to not be sworn in.

God bless the good 'ol USA :(

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1586381&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

And if he had been sworn in, would you believe what he said? If not, your argument is baseless. It only has merit if the swearing in would impact his credibility in your mind. I believe you have already made up your mind, and it doesn't matter WHAT Gonzales says.

They don't want him sworn in so he can't get busted if he lies.

If he's not sworn in, and it is discovered he lied, then is it not perjury?
I'm not clear on the relationship between sworn testimony and perjury, so I'm hoping somebody else does.

WASHINGTON Feb 6, 2006 (AP)— Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush is fully empowered to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror.

Admittedly I am quite prejudiced aainst ANYTHING which grants the government, police, authorities any POWER. Without taking partisan sides can someone ANYONE explain

1. What gives Bush this empowerment?
2. What's such a big deal about getting a warrant?

Admittedly I am quite prejudiced aainst ANYTHING which grants the government, police, authorities any POWER. Without taking partisan sides can someone ANYONE explain

1. What gives Bush this empowerment?
2. What's such a big deal about getting a warrant?

The Constitution gives the president explicit power to do just about anything necessary during a time of war. Nearly every president we've had has intercepted mail, phone calls, telegraphs, and other communications they deemed necessary. Congress passing a statute (FISA) can't override that. Therefore, FISA itself may be unconstitutional and the president can't be bound by it. Getting a warrant ensures that a judge, supposedly a disinterested party that knows the law, has determined that the tapping is legal and approves of it.

If FISA was unconstitutional, wouldn't the Supreme Court have ruled as such during the time from 1978 to now?
It would seem to me that the President ignoring Congressional oversight is more likely to be unconstitutional. Nothing in the Consitution grants the executive branch limitless power.

Admittedly I am quite prejudiced aainst ANYTHING which grants the government, police, authorities any POWER. Without taking partisan sides can someone ANYONE explain

1. What gives Bush this empowerment?

That's the issue now. Pres. Bush believes that the authorization to use military force, and also article II (I believe) of the US Constitution gives him the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps. However, this belief appears to be in contravention of the 1978 FISA law which states that FISA is the exclusive means by which domestic surveilance can be conducted. Pres. Bush didn't obtain the warrants thru FISA, so therefore hearings are being conducted right now in Congress to determine what the heck is going on.

2. What's such a big deal about getting a warrant?

The big deal is that Bush didn't get the required warrants, yet he authorized the NSA to conduct electronic surveilance of Americans. So there is an apparent breaking of the FISA law issue here. The crime is punishable by up to 5yrs in prison I believe.

And if he had been sworn in, would you believe what he said? If not, your argument is baseless.

That our highest office holders shouldnt be sworn in before questioning's to ensure that they tell the truth, and if not are punished accordingly? Yea, how mad is that idea.

The BA's new motto: Cant touch this.


It only has merit if the swearing in would impact his credibility in your mind. I believe you have already made up your mind, and it doesn't matter WHAT Gonzales says.

No. It ensures that he tells the truth. If he doesnt, and isnt sworn in, then people can go 'he was lieing', but no legal action can be taken to justify the situation.

Remember back when Alaska-freak-out-republican battled like hell so that the oil executives didnt have to be sworn in: and then they blatently lied several times and absolutly no action was taken.

See, theres a reason we swear people in hadit. Its really not just to inconvience your favorite corporate masters and dictators with our silly petty laws.

I heard about the oil execs not being sworn in. ^

If FISA was unconstitutional, wouldn't the Supreme Court have ruled as such during the time from 1978 to now?
It would seem to me that the President ignoring Congressional oversight is more likely to be unconstitutional. Nothing in the Consitution grants the executive branch limitless power.

The SC can only rule on cases brought before them. If no challenge was ever brought to FISA, they couldn't rule on it.

That's the issue now. Pres. Bush believes that the authorization to use military force, and also article II (I believe) of the US Constitution gives him the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps. However, this belief appears to be in contravention of the 1978 FISA law which states that FISA is the exclusive means by which domestic surveilance can be conducted. Pres. Bush didn't obtain the warrants thru FISA, so therefore hearings are being conducted right now in Congress to determine what the heck is going on.


That's is the point. FISA cannot and does not trump the Constitution.


The big deal is that Bush didn't get the required warrants, yet he authorized the NSA to conduct electronic surveilance of Americans. So there is an apparent breaking of the FISA law issue here. The crime is punishable by up to 5yrs in prison I believe.

Only if the law itself even applies.

The Constitution gives the president explicit power to do just about anything necessary during a time of war.


So as long as the President keeps a war going somewhere at all times, he's a Constitutional dictator?

That our highest office holders shouldnt be sworn in before questioning's to ensure that they tell the truth, and if not are punished accordingly? Yea, how mad is that idea.

The BA's new motto: Cant touch this.


The BA is not involved in the swearing in issue. That's Congress' perogative.


No. It ensures that he tells the truth. If he doesnt, and isnt sworn in, then people can go 'he was lieing', but no legal action can be taken to justify the situation.

Remember back when Alaska-freak-out-republican battled like hell so that the oil executives didnt have to be sworn in: and then they blatently lied several times and absolutly no action was taken.

See, theres a reason we swear people in hadit. Its really not just to inconvience your favorite corporate masters and dictators with our silly petty laws.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you if he was sworn in or not. You're simply going to label any inconvenient thing he says a lie. This isn't even a real issue. The democrats in this hearing are simply trying to get Gonzales into a situation where they think they can force him to release information damaging to the war effort. Actually, the war is secondary to them. All they really want is Bush.

So as long as the President keeps a war going somewhere at all times, he's a Constitutional dictator?

If it is about national security, he has a pretty free hand. Think about all the abuses Lincoln and FDR performed. They did a whole heck of a lot worse things than listening in on phone calls from known enemies.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you if he was sworn in or not. You're simply going to label any inconvenient thing he says a lie. This isn't even a real issue. The democrats in this hearing are simply trying to get Gonzales into a situation where they think they can force him to release information damaging to the war effort. Actually, the war is secondary to them. All they really want is Bush.

The Republicans are trying to avoid anything that might make them take responsibility for their actions, and you're blaming that on Democrats. Cute trick.

The Republicans are trying to avoid anything that might make them take responsibility for their actions, and you're blaming that on Democrats. Cute trick.

Actually, the Republicans are looking forward to these hearings, because they know the democrats will come out looking like they are on the side of those who want to kill us. That's the cute trick.

If it is about national security, he has a pretty free hand. Think about all the abuses Lincoln and FDR performed. They did a whole heck of a lot worse things than listening in on phone calls from known enemies.

FISA was adopted in 1978; those president's terms were up before then. Plus, we're talking specifically about warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Let's stay on point here.

Actually, the Republicans are looking forward to these hearings


Good, then let them take a legally binding oath to tell the truth.

Actually, the Republicans are looking forward to these hearings, because they know the democrats will come out looking like they are on the side of those who want to kill us. That's the cute trick.

Depends on who you asK I guess:

WASHINGTON -- Four Republican senators yesterday joined Democrats in challenging Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's insistence that President Bush broke no law when he authorized the military to spy on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails in a contentious daylong hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/07/gop_senators_add_heat_on_spying/

FISA was adopted in 1978; those president's terms were up before then. Plus, we're talking specifically about warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Let's stay on point here.

The point still remains that the president is not bound by FISA if the Constitution grants him more power than FISA does. And those presidents violated clear Constitutional protections in their prosecution of the wars they were in.

Good, then let them take a legally binding oath to tell the truth.

If the committee chair requires him to be sworn in, he will.

The point still remains that the president is not bound by FISA if the Constitution grants him more power than FISA does. And those presidents violated clear Constitutional protections in their prosecution of the wars they were in.

According to an article I read, the Administration asked literally minutes before the Senate's vote to pass the AUMF, that wording be included in the resolution that would've permitted this warrantless wiretapping. They were denied. Which leads one to wonder why they now are arguing that this authority to eavesdrop on American citizens w/o warrants is inherent in the US Constitution. In other words, why would it be necessary to ask for something you already have.

The point still remains that the president is not bound by FISA if the Constitution grants him more power than FISA does. And those presidents violated clear Constitutional protections in their prosecution of the wars they were in.

If the FISA act was not ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch, then the executive branch is bound by that law.
The executive branch does not get to violate existing laws under any circumstances.
And, the FISA act was passed precisely because Presidents were spying on Americans. This act made it explicitly illegal for them to do so.

If the FISA act was not ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch, then the executive branch is bound by that law.
The executive branch does not get to violate existing laws under any circumstances.
And, the FISA act was passed precisely because Presidents were spying on Americans. This act made it explicitly illegal for them to do so.

Right on.

So as long as there is a 'war on terror' the executive branch can do what it wants????? Phooey to that.

There is NO WAY you can convince me that the checks and balances designed into our constitution would have allowed for the blatant misuse of such empowerment.

GET A WARRANT

If the FISA act was not ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch, then the executive branch is bound by that law.
The executive branch does not get to violate existing laws under any circumstances.
And, the FISA act was passed precisely because Presidents were spying on Americans. This act made it explicitly illegal for them to do so.

That is not the case. Presidents have always maintained that they have authority from the constitution that supercedes other statutes. FISA has not been ruled on because it hasn't been challenged in court yet. And, yes, the executive branch DOES get to violate existing laws under certain circumstances, war being one of them.

So as long as there is a 'war on terror' the executive branch can do what it wants????? Phooey to that.

There is NO WAY you can convince me that the checks and balances designed into our constitution would have allowed for the blatant misuse of such empowerment.

GET A WARRANT

I don't have to convince you. The courts can do that. Presidents have done this for a very long time. It is not original with George Bush. As for "blatant misuse", do you know just what this flap is about? They monitored very specific conversations, originating from outside the US, from known enemy operatives. That's hardly "blatant misuse".

According to an article I read, the Administration asked literally minutes before the Senate's vote to pass the AUMF, that wording be included in the resolution that would've permitted this warrantless wiretapping. They were denied. Which leads one to wonder why they now are arguing that this authority to eavesdrop on American citizens w/o warrants is inherent in the US Constitution. In other words, why would it be necessary to ask for something you already have.

Politics. They knew the democrats would try to manufacture a scandal out of this, and wanted to short-circuit the process.

You're argueing that the president has the right to break the law, can do whatever he wants, wow..

A reminder, this is the United States, not North Korea, did you make a wrong turn somewhere?

That is not the case. Presidents have always maintained that they have authority from the constitution that supercedes other statutes. FISA has not been ruled on because it hasn't been challenged in court yet. And, yes, the executive branch DOES get to violate existing laws under certain circumstances, war being one of them.

Yeah, and then Richard Nixon taught us why that's not a good idea.
The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He is not the King of his Subjects in the USA.

Yeah, and then Richard Nixon taught us why that's not a good idea.
The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He is not the King of his Subjects in the USA.

He's not being a king. You're over-reacting. Remember, this whole thing is over very specifically targeted communications, originating outside the US. If you are talking with a member of Al-Queda, you SHOULD expect to be observed. I want you to be observed. The government would be remiss if they did NOT listen in. I very clearly remember the constant drumbeat of condemnation after 9/11 about how the BA did not "connect the dots". Remember that? Remember as well that the investigators might have been able to stop it had they been able to check out one of the highjacker's laptop but couldn't? Some of the president's most virulent critics would be first in line to criticize him for NOT doing this if we were hit again and we could have stopped it.

You're argueing that the president has the right to break the law, can do whatever he wants, wow..

A reminder, this is the United States, not North Korea, did you make a wrong turn somewhere?

No, I'm saying that the Constitution trumps legislation. Every president claims that power.

He's not being a king. You're over-reacting. Remember, this whole thing is over very specifically targeted communications, originating outside the US.

Wrong. This whole thing is over the warrantless wiretapping of domestics conducted by the NSA per the authorization of Pres. Bush.

Moreover, the article below refutes the assertion made by you that the warrantless wiretaps of domestics were specifically targeted communications:

Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects

Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.

Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401373.html

...Some of the president's most virulent critics would be first in line to criticize him for NOT doing this if we were hit again and we could have stopped it.

And the difference it makes to get a warrant first is?

Mark

The BA is not involved in the swearing in issue. That's Congress' perogative.

The mentality that goes along with the BA. The fact that you truly dont believe despite the swirling pools of corruption that surround there pedastal, that they havent been touched. Not in Plamegate (K, so an underling took the blame), not in Delay's incident, not in Abramoff--Where Jack himself was going to the whitehouse to meet officials. Not in wiretapping US citizens, not in the war in Iraq.

Jesus Christ. To piss you off, appearintly GWB would have to slit the throat of a baby in the middle of his state of the union address, and even then im guessing youd say the baby was a terrorist.



Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you if he was sworn in or not.

No, it does matter. It gives him a reason to not lie.

Why exactly wouldnt he be sworn in? It takes all of a few moments. Theres only one reason I can see that you wouldnt want to be sworn in.

The mentality that goes along with the BA. The fact that you truly dont believe despite the swirling pools of corruption that surround there pedastal, that they havent been touched. Not in Plamegate (K, so an underling took the blame), not in Delay's incident, not in Abramoff--Where Jack himself was going to the whitehouse to meet officials. Not in wiretapping US citizens, not in the war in Iraq.


1. Plamegate? Please. To say that Libby took the blame is like saying Clinton took the blame for sexual harrassment when he was impeached for perjury and abuse of power. He didn't, and neither did Libby.
2. Delay? That's about him, not Bush.
3. Abramoff? That's going to be interesting. I want to see ALL who benefitted from him. It will be fun to see how many democrats are involved. This is probably the issue that will impact the mid-term elections the most.
4. Wiretapping citizens? Be honest with what it is. Tapping conversations from known or suspected enemy operatives during a war.
5. Iraq war? Not a scandal.


Jesus Christ. To piss you off, appearintly GWB would have to slit the throat of a baby in the middle of his state of the union address, and even then im guessing youd say the baby was a terrorist.


He made me mad early on, when he refused to hold the line on the insane spending, allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill, and pushed that monstrous Medicare drug bill through. What's your point, that no one must at any time support anything Bush ever does?


No, it does matter. It gives him a reason to not lie.

Why exactly wouldnt he be sworn in? It takes all of a few moments. Theres only one reason I can see that you wouldnt want to be sworn in.

There is a good reason, and it's why the democrats are pushing for this. They want to get him into a situation where they can force him to reveal other security efforts to the world. If they really wanted the truth, and really cared about national security, the hearings would be closed to the public.

If the government, including the Bush administration, took more time and effort to explain the American people what it is doing, and why, then I don't think this would be such an issue.
As it stands, the government response when the public finds out something is "oh no, we can't talk about that. It's secret stuff and you can't know about it.".
Smart Americans, at least in my opinion, should be just as scared of our government as we are of the terrorists. The US government can do a lot more to mess up our lives than a few terrorists can.
What worries me in the political debates I see here isn't really that some people are devoutly conservative while others are devoutly liberal. It's the ones that simply defer to the government on everything. That is frightening, and completely not in the spirit of our country.

If the government, including the Bush administration, took more time and effort to explain the American people what it is doing, and why, then I don't think this would be such an issue.
As it stands, the government response when the public finds out something is "oh no, we can't talk about that. It's secret stuff and you can't know about it.".
Smart Americans, at least in my opinion, should be just as scared of our government as we are of the terrorists. The US government can do a lot more to mess up our lives than a few terrorists can.
What worries me in the political debates I see here isn't really that some people are devoutly conservative while others are devoutly liberal. It's the ones that simply defer to the government on everything. That is frightening, and completely not in the spirit of our country.

That's one extreme. The other extreme insists that there be no secrets, no classified information, nothing hidden at all. That is equally dangerous. We cannot simply reveal to the enemy all the steps we are taking to gain intelligence on him, and the Senators at these faux hearings are attempting to do exactly that. Even briefing some of these Senators in private amounts to publishing the information in the NYT, they leak so badly.

If the government, including the Bush administration, took more time and effort to explain the American people what it is doing, and why, then I don't think this would be such an issue.As it stands, the government response when the public finds out something is "oh no, we can't talk about that. It's secret stuff and you can't know about it."


Shameless plug.

Worse Than Watergate - The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. By John Dean

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446694835/sr=8-1/qid=1139509841/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1716259-0883939?%5Fencoding=UTF8

hadit, you're posting some straight up BS in this tread. SS owned you in post 36. Why don't you go back and reread your partisan Repub talking point and holla back. Got the nerve to consider yourself nonpartisan. Gimme an f'in break. Bushite.

That's one extreme. The other extreme insists that there be no secrets, no classified information, nothing hidden at all. That is equally dangerous. We cannot simply reveal to the enemy all the steps we are taking to gain intelligence on him, and the Senators at these faux hearings are attempting to do exactly that. Even briefing some of these Senators in private amounts to publishing the information in the NYT, they leak so badly.

But we don't live in a closed society...our government is supposed to be open for the most part.
And, there is an argument to be made that by trying to control the flow of all information, the ability to control the flow of the most important information is compromised.
Furthermore, I don't think the idea that the government is accountable to the people to be extreme. Rather, it is what should be considered the norm.
The government can't be accountable to the people if we don't know what it's doing, can it?
The notion that we must have security at all costs is for cowards and idiots.

1. Plamegate? Please. To say that Libby took the blame is like saying Clinton took the blame for sexual harrassment when he was impeached for perjury and abuse of power. He didn't, and neither did Libby.
2. Delay? That's about him, not Bush.
3. Abramoff? That's going to be interesting. I want to see ALL who benefitted from him. It will be fun to see how many democrats are involved. This is probably the issue that will impact the mid-term elections the most.
4. Wiretapping citizens? Be honest with what it is. Tapping conversations from known or suspected enemy operatives during a war.
5. Iraq war? Not a scandal.

1. Good grief, did you read anything about that situation? That was the most worthless analogy in history, and its all your post consisted of. But why am I not the least bit surprised that anytime the BA got into undeniable trouble, you bring up Clintons BJ. So pathetic and predictable hadit.

2. Strong ties to the BA. Corruption swirling around him.

3. If so, republicans are in trouble. They clearly got the largest cut of the scandel, and the white house, weeks later, still has to refuse daily to comment on why Abramoff, someone who had no reason to be, was meeting with white house officials.

4. And, yet again--I'll direct you to another thread in this forum, entitled: wiretapping net yields few suspects.

5. "We know he's got em" "He's got (insert amount) of (insert chemical), we know it", "We know where the weapons are located" "We know he's got em"

You might not be lieing when you say 'we think', but there assertion of positivity was absolute bullshit. It is, by far, the largest 'scandel' in US president history. Sad that this pop culture country cant get over Clintons BJ, but doesnt really mind being misled into war.


He made me mad early on, when he refused to hold the line on the insane spending, allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill, and pushed that monstrous Medicare drug bill through.

But you didnt mind the insane pork barrel spending, where the republican chairman of the bill took the biggest slice with a bridge to an island, so expensive it would be cheaper to buy every citizen of the town a plane and pay for the fuel and maintance for centurys? Your inane little jabs amuse me but mean nothing. Besides, you should be happy--Republicans successfully stonewalled thousands of students from going to college, and there NCLB is perhaps the worst school program ever invented. So they got quite a bit going on ****ing over education for there corporate masters.


What's your point, that no one must at any time support anything Bush ever does?

No. That blind support is pathetic, and thats all you do--Blindly support Bush without ever considering the things that he's said and done. And if you do hear something with a negative spin, its instantly 'liberal slop'. Which is why I jest that even if he slit the the throat of a baby, the baby would have to be a terrorist, just so Bush didnt do anything wrong. So ****ing faithfull and dogmatic are your views, and you cant even see that. I dont even hate Bush 1/2 as much as I did up untill 2005. However, your still 100% as blind in your faith.



There is a good reason, and it's why the democrats are pushing for this. They want to get him into a situation where they can force him to reveal other security efforts to the world. If they really wanted the truth, and really cared about national security, the hearings would be closed to the public.

No, they should be open to the American public. Good god, its like the wizzard of Oz. You want the magical face protect you, even if its just men in a closet. Guess what? If Gonzales is forced to speak on a matter of security, he can state why he doesnt want to speak on an issue, and it can be explained and discussed later, and if the committee feels that its justified, then they can say 'alright, we see'. But, when your refusing to be sworn in, your refusing to be honest with the American public.

And deepest appologies, but I dont trust any politican enough to start giving them power to do whatever they want in the name of americans, without americans there to observe them somewhat.

1. Good grief, did you read anything about that situation? That was the most worthless analogy in history, and its all your post consisted of. But why am I not the least bit surprised that anytime the BA got into undeniable trouble, you bring up Clintons BJ. So pathetic and predictable hadit.


Talk about predictable. You never seem to read what I actually write, do you? I clear Clinton of blame for something you claim we always accuse him of, and you think it's a slam against him. Oh, well. Check it out again. No one has been indicted for leaking Plame's name.


2. Strong ties to the BA. Corruption swirling around him.


In an ongoing trial now. If corruption ties to Bush come up, we'll deal with them. So far, it's only about his issues, not Bush.


3. If so, republicans are in trouble. They clearly got the largest cut of the scandel, and the white house, weeks later, still has to refuse daily to comment on why Abramoff, someone who had no reason to be, was meeting with white house officials.


I won't be a bit surprised if several Republicans and democrats lose their seats over this, and they should. And if Bush is involved in corruption, he'll have to pay for it too. Simply having Abramoff in the White House isn't enough, is it? Hate to spoil it for you, but Clinton had several unsavory creatures in his White House, and that wasn't an automatic corruption, was it?


4. And, yet again--I'll direct you to another thread in this forum, entitled: wiretapping net yields few suspects.


I'm well aware of that thread. I've been on it. Your point?


5. "We know he's got em" "He's got (insert amount) of (insert chemical), we know it", "We know where the weapons are located" "We know he's got em"

You might not be lieing when you say 'we think', but there assertion of positivity was absolute bullshit. It is, by far, the largest 'scandel' in US president history. Sad that this pop culture country cant get over Clintons BJ, but doesnt really mind being misled into war.


It's a scandal in your own mind, but that's about as far as it goes. Most people don't see it that way. Most people realize that the situation at the time made invasion imperative.


But you didnt mind the insane pork barrel spending, where the republican chairman of the bill took the biggest slice with a bridge to an island, so expensive it would be cheaper to buy every citizen of the town a plane and pay for the fuel and maintance for centurys? Your inane little jabs amuse me but mean nothing. Besides, you should be happy--Republicans successfully stonewalled thousands of students from going to college, and there NCLB is perhaps the worst school program ever invented. So they got quite a bit going on ****ing over education for there corporate masters.


Bull. I support the Senator who tried to get that boondoggle trashed. NCLB is a Ted Kennedy special, so I'm not surprised that massively expensive power grab is worthless. Why don't you mention the Medicare fiasco while you're at it, as another place where I support Bush?


No. That blind support is pathetic, and thats all you do--Blindly support Bush without ever considering the things that he's said and done. And if you do hear something with a negative spin, its instantly 'liberal slop'. Which is why I jest that even if he slit the the throat of a baby, the baby would have to be a terrorist, just so Bush didnt do anything wrong. So ****ing faithfull and dogmatic are your views, and you cant even see that. I dont even hate Bush 1/2 as much as I did up untill 2005. However, your still 100% as blind in your faith.


See, now that is an excellent example of your partisan blindness. I just gave you multiple examples of where Bush severely screwed up, and you completely ignored them. I truly believe you can't stand the idea of anyone, anywhere, supporting anything Bush has ever done.


No, they should be open to the American public. Good god, its like the wizzard of Oz. You want the magical face protect you, even if its just men in a closet. Guess what? If Gonzales is forced to speak on a matter of security, he can state why he doesnt want to speak on an issue, and it can be explained and discussed later, and if the committee feels that its justified, then they can say 'alright, we see'. But, when your refusing to be sworn in, your refusing to be honest with the American public.

And deepest appologies, but I dont trust any politican enough to start giving them power to do whatever they want in the name of americans, without americans there to observe them somewhat.

Are the Senators not Americans? Is it not their JOB to observe in these situations? I would much rather secrets be vetted for release before Osama and crew get to hear them.

But we don't live in a closed society...our government is supposed to be open for the most part.
And, there is an argument to be made that by trying to control the flow of all information, the ability to control the flow of the most important information is compromised.
Furthermore, I don't think the idea that the government is accountable to the people to be extreme. Rather, it is what should be considered the norm.
The government can't be accountable to the people if we don't know what it's doing, can it?
The notion that we must have security at all costs is for cowards and idiots.

Let's be careful here. There really is an extreme, when we insist on open disclosure of EVERY measure undertaken for defense. What better way for an enemy to know the vulnerabilities than for a blowhard Senator to blab everything on TV? Not having ANY secrets is a monumentally stupid way to fight a battle of any kind.

Talk about predictable. You never seem to read what I actually write, do you? I clear Clinton of blame for something you claim we always accuse him of, and you think it's a slam against him. Oh, well. Check it out again. No one has been indicted for leaking Plame's name.

Nope. Which says something, doesnt it? We know a name was illegaly leaked, we know the general area it came from, we know that, for reasons beyond us, Libby lied to a grand jurry and obstructed the truth. Jee. Wonder why a guy would do that.


I won't be a bit surprised if several Republicans and democrats lose their seats over this, and they should. And if Bush is involved in corruption, he'll have to pay for it too. Simply having Abramoff in the White House isn't enough, is it? Hate to spoil it for you, but Clinton had several unsavory creatures in his White House, and that wasn't an automatic corruption, was it?

Unsavory maybe, but did they have some purpose? Could Clinton at least mention where they were, who they were talking to, and so forth?

The white house is as of right now stonewalled why little old corrupt son of a bitch Abramoff was walking into there doors regularly, who he met with, how long he was there for, what was discussed, so forth and so on. But Im sure its a matter of national security. Abramoff was secret vice-leader of homeland security. Yea, sure, thats it.



I'm well aware of that thread. I've been on it. Your point?

Your fine with the government going threw and investigating its citizens as it feels fit, without bothering with the checks and ballances in place to protect citizens? Im sorry, but it shouldnt be illegal to talk to Terrorists, anymore then it should have ever been illegal to associate with Communists. The US goernment just doesnt have the right.



It's a scandal in your own mind, but that's about as far as it goes. Most people don't see it that way. Most people realize that the situation at the time made invasion imperative.

Most people? Where in the **** do you get that?

Most people, excluding: The CIA, The UN, Dozens of scientific organizations, and the most protestors in earths history. Near as I can tell: The BA and its tools are about it.



NCLB is a Ted Kennedy special,?

Wowa. What a lie my friends:


The act is the result of U.S. President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind proposals Bush campaigned on during the 2000 presidential campaign. Several of the proposals were based on the reform strategies instituted by President Bush during his tenure as governor of Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCLB

Yea. But Im sure Mr. Kennedy was whispering sweet nothings into Bush's ear in your mind.




See, now that is an excellent example of your partisan blindness. I just gave you multiple examples of where Bush severely screwed up, and you completely ignored them. I truly believe you can't stand the idea of anyone, anywhere, supporting anything Bush has ever done.

Are you shitting me? The only thing you disparove about Bush, is the fact that he tolerates the opposing views!!!! I always figure your joking when you make such pathetic quips, but now Im loath to think you actually believe yourself. :|



Are the Senators not Americans? Is it not their JOB to observe in these situations?

Those who would sacrifice a little bit of freedom, in return for a little bit
of security, are deserving of neither. - Ben Franklin

Let's be careful here. There really is an extreme, when we insist on open disclosure of EVERY measure undertaken for defense. What better way for an enemy to know the vulnerabilities than for a blowhard Senator to blab everything on TV? Not having ANY secrets is a monumentally stupid way to fight a battle of any kind.

Let me put it this way:

The government can have hundreds of secrets, as im sure they do, that involve my protection.

However, one of those secrets, can not be: Oh, btw, we're spying on you.

K? Thats kinda where the line gets drawn.

Let's be careful here. There really is an extreme, when we insist on open disclosure of EVERY measure undertaken for defense. What better way for an enemy to know the vulnerabilities than for a blowhard Senator to blab everything on TV? Not having ANY secrets is a monumentally stupid way to fight a battle of any kind.

A battle? I thought we were at war.
Anyway, I'm not saying the government shouldn't keep secrets. But, the way they operate domestically cannot be the same as how they operate overseas.
The government can't spy on us all like we're suspected terrorists. To do that admits defeat anyway.
Also, have you ever seen any of the old WWII posters and films? Back in those days, the government enlisted the help of its citizens (with the exception of interned japanese of course).
Americans weren't considered the potential enemy then...they helped our government to victory. The same tactic could be used today if our government wasn't so damn paranoid.

A battle? I thought we were at war.
Anyway, I'm not saying the government shouldn't keep secrets. But, the way they operate domestically cannot be the same as how they operate overseas.
The government can't spy on us all like we're suspected terrorists. To do that admits defeat anyway.
Also, have you ever seen any of the old WWII posters and films? Back in those days, the government enlisted the help of its citizens (with the exception of interned japanese of course).
Americans weren't considered the potential enemy then...they helped our government to victory. The same tactic could be used today if our government wasn't so damn paranoid.

Your statement contradicts itself. Americans WERE considered a potential enemy in WWII, as you noted in the case of the interned Japanese-Americans, a far worse abuse than anything Bush has ever done. Remember something else from WWII. They had posters up all over the place reminding everyone that "loose lips sink ships". Our Senators today want everyone to know everything we're doing, a recipe for disaster. And in this case, you can't really separate how the government operates domestically vs. overseas because today the threat is already here. We're not dealing with an enemy who has to move a large army or navy across the ocean to attack us. We're dealing with an enemy that can kill thousands of people with a handful of agents, and good intel is the only way we have a chance to stop them.

Let me put it this way:

The government can have hundreds of secrets, as im sure they do, that involve my protection.

However, one of those secrets, can not be: Oh, btw, we're spying on you.

K? Thats kinda where the line gets drawn.

They're spying on you if you're talking to Al-Qaeda. Have you been talking to Al-Qaeda? If not, they're not spying on you.

Nope. Which says something, doesnt it? We know a name was illegaly leaked, we know the general area it came from, we know that, for reasons beyond us, Libby lied to a grand jurry and obstructed the truth. Jee. Wonder why a guy would do that.


We know a name was leaked. It hasn't even been established that it was illegally leaked. I mean, come on, you're projecting your own bias on the situation.


Unsavory maybe, but did they have some purpose? Could Clinton at least mention where they were, who they were talking to, and so forth?

The white house is as of right now stonewalled why little old corrupt son of a bitch Abramoff was walking into there doors regularly, who he met with, how long he was there for, what was discussed, so forth and so on. But Im sure its a matter of national security. Abramoff was secret vice-leader of homeland security. Yea, sure, thats it.


Wouldn't it make sense to first find out what Abramoff has to say before giving up his travel itinerary? The opposition today is unprincipled. They are going to attack the president no matter what, so why even say boo?


Your fine with the government going threw and investigating its citizens as it feels fit, without bothering with the checks and ballances in place to protect citizens? Im sorry, but it shouldnt be illegal to talk to Terrorists, anymore then it should have ever been illegal to associate with Communists. The US goernment just doesnt have the right.


I'm fine with the government listening to conversations originating from the enemy. I keep coming back to all the vitriol about how the government failed everybody by not connecting the dots before 9/11. Now they're trying to connect the dots, and you're still complaining.


Are you shitting me? The only thing you disparove about Bush, is the fact that he tolerates the opposing views!!!! I always figure your joking when you make such pathetic quips, but now Im loath to think you actually believe yourself. :|


TOLERATES the opposing views? The man allows Congress to spend more than any president in our history, shoves a massive new entitlement no one wanted down our throats, and you call that TOLERATING the opposing views? Get a grip. You're still mad because I don't hate him like you do, and you can't stand the idea that anyone might support anything he does.


Those who would sacrifice a little bit of freedom, in return for a little bit
of security, are deserving of neither. - Ben Franklin

Are you saying that the Senators aren't doing their jobs? That's not a good reason to make all top secret security efforts known publically.

Your statement contradicts itself. Americans WERE considered a potential enemy in WWII, as you noted in the case of the interned Japanese-Americans, a far worse abuse than anything Bush has ever done. Remember something else from WWII. They had posters up all over the place reminding everyone that "loose lips sink ships". Our Senators today want everyone to know everything we're doing, a recipe for disaster. And in this case, you can't really separate how the government operates domestically vs. overseas because today the threat is already here. We're not dealing with an enemy who has to move a large army or navy across the ocean to attack us. We're dealing with an enemy that can kill thousands of people with a handful of agents, and good intel is the only way we have a chance to stop them.

No, I didn't contradict myself. Notice in my sentence I said "with the exception of.."
Remember "Of the people, for the people"? That describes our form of government. And right now, it's not living up to its promise.
If you disagree, then I envy you. I wish I could be as docile about it.

I'm fine with the government listening to conversations originating from the enemy. I keep coming back to all the vitriol about how the government failed everybody by not connecting the dots before 9/11. Now they're trying to connect the dots, and you're still complaining.

The BA could have acted legally before 9/11 to thwart the attacks just as the government could have acted legally by obtaining warrants to spy on these people. It chose to do nothing in the former and to act illegally in the latter. :|

The government is increasingly infringing on individual rights and has begun blatantly and unapologetically operating above the law. If this is okay with you then the terrorists have already won huge.

So, why didn't the BA attempt to get warrants? Why didn't they try to get the legislative branch to change the laws such that they'd be legally allowed to do what they did?

The point still remains that the president is not bound by FISA if the Constitution grants him more power than FISA does. And those presidents violated clear Constitutional protections in their prosecution of the wars they were in.

wrong wrong wrong

In the past , the SCUTUS has shot down these superconstitutional-presidential power cases with both barrels

and the FISA act was written to cover this type of situation

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance.--In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy.153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155


The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled.156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard.157

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment04/05.html

wrong wrong wrong

In the past , the SCUTUS has shot down these superconstitutional-presidential power cases with both barrels

and the FISA act was written to cover this type of situation



http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment04/05.html

"The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled.156 ". That's the crucial point, right there. Congress writing legislation does not trump the president's constitutional powers, which haven't been judicially settled, according to your quote there. This is my point. The president, no surprise, is asserting his constitutional authority. The Congress, also no surprise, is asserting that it can limit and control the president's wartime authority.

I don't see this as being much different from the situation where judges are alledgedly writing law from the bench. The executive branch is trying to bypass the checks and balances that have been legislated.

I want the 'bad guys' ( whether terrorist or violent hate-monger) to be stopped BEFORE anything happens. But at the same time I want to be sure its not just a vendetta type reaction such as when the anti-war investigations were done with warrantless wiretappings

If the CIA and FBI and the Pentagon etc had demonstrated scandal free behaviors in the past AND if the misuse of political powers was not so prevalent AND if the Bush Administration had not already demonstrated its secretive nature perhaps things could be different.

I heard one radio person say this warrantless surveillance was for 'foreigns' only. Bush admits other than that.

I wonder when the sheeple are going to wake up to the insidious erosion of privacy. Rights??? Losing them by the minute