-
Re: come on "constructionists"
on the lighter side
Quote:
"The GOOD OLD PARTY line" - Republicans create millions of job opportunities
WASHINGTON D.C. - (NEWSWIRE) - January 13, 2006 - Save your country and get paid to help your fellow Americans have their voice heard.
Millions of positions available for the Bush administration's new "Reach Out and Tap Someone" program. According to a white house spokesman "The key to having your view heard in America is now as simple as picking up the phone, calling any friend, and mention words like terror, Jihad, or Guantanamo.
Once the government begins listening in you can mention bringing the troops home from Iraq, medical care for our citizens, and protecting the Alaska wilderness."
If the more than half of our country that didn't vote for George W. Bush begin to take advantage of this exciting new method of utilizing the first amendment it will require thousands of listeners. Not since the introduction of phone sex operators has a business opportunity been introduced that allows US workers to sit at home, watch TV, and make a living on the couch. Make money, and make a difference.
Apparently this offer is not void where prohibited about law.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I am uncomfortable with "known". By whom, some omniscient politician.
The Court is there to listen to the argument that the criminal / crime is "known" and to make a desion on whether or not the person making this judgement has reasonable grounds to do so.
By "known", I meant known in Pakistan and Afghanistan; on the "battlefield", as it were.
Should we seek domestically-issued warrants for foreign surveillance?
The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.
Reports indicate the desirability of warrantless surveillance was a factor, for tactical/technical/strategic reasons.
Sorry misunderstood, I thought you were talking about foreign calls into, or out off the US, being made by suspected terrorists.
I can fully understand why, in a war situation, you would not wish to go to the power you were against in order to obtain warrants. That would just be mental
What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.
"The "known" part is self-evident, stateside.", that's OK then.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.
I think we're basically OK with Pakistan; some of the calls originated there, we're told.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
What is your current position re Pakistan. Is the USA on poor diplomatic terms with them.
I think we're basically OK with Pakistan; some of the calls originated there, we're told.
To Afghanistan presumably.
Any reason you chaps didn't feel the need to get warrants in Pakistan, as you were bugging in their country.
Anyway, how would the Constitution have anything to do with this, if it wasn't US citizens and it wasn't in the USA.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Anyway, how would the Constitution have anything to do with this, if it wasn't US citizens and it wasn't in the USA.
Therein lies the irony.
The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.
Bush begs to differ.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.
Bush begs to differ.
Not just democrats. And who said the numbers are just those derived from overseas?...certainly not the whistleblower.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The Dems are screaming about stateside warrantless surveillance on numbers derived from the overseas component, raving that this constitutes rampant domestic infringement on the privacy of your average U.S. citizen.
Bush begs to differ.
Not just democrats. And who said the numbers are just those derived from overseas?...certainly not the whistleblower.
The whistleblower's name is Johnny-Come-Lately.
Time will tell, I guess.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
I'm confused again. Have the US authorities been intercepting calls to/from the USA sans warrant.
Any chance of one of you chaps giving a yes/no answer on this. Or is it all just spin.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I'm confused again. Have the US authorities been intercepting calls to/from the USA sans warrant.
Any chance of one of you chaps giving a yes/no answer on this. Or is it all just spin.
Yes they have. From 2001 at the very least.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Well what's all the talk about "tactical/technical/strategic reasons" and applying for domestic warrants for foreign intercepts. The warrants would be applied for in the US Courts, for intercepts in the US.
Is there some tactical/technical/strategic reason for not applying to your own Courts.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Well what's all the talk about "tactical/technical/strategic reasons" and applying for domestic warrants for foreign intercepts. The warrants would be applied for in the US Courts, for intercepts in the US.
Is there some tactical/technical/strategic reason for not applying to your own Courts.
Initially calls were made to the U.S. to numbers which in turn were surveilled.
It is from these taps the complaint derives.
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".
One wonders why, if there are nine to choose from, they've chosen to reveal the identity of the primary leaker, whose name ironically escapes me at the moment.
Is he the one who's associated with James Risen of the NYT and his abominable book?
Can't remember...
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".
On the flip side you omit the questionable nature of the "Executive prerogative" as indicated by congressional hearings. :rolleyes:
BTW his name is Russell Tice
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity; this prerogative is also indicated rather strongly by pending investigation of the Justice Dept. and the revelations of (to date) approximately nine "whistleblowers".
On the flip side you omit the questionable nature of the "Executive prerogative" as indicated by congressional hearings. :rolleyes:
BTW his name is Russell Tice
I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.
The Congressional hearings?
Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
Bush has taken to using signing statements when signing bills into law with the effect that he reserves the right to ignore such laws. He did it with the torture ban
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.
The Congressional hearings?
Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.
I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:
As to the timing well the story broke just before the holidays and the investigations were announced almost immediately. The story was "held down" because of the elections already. Should the hearings be delayed untill next year?
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Precisely why warrants for these taps were not pursued immediately has been claimed to be Executive prerogative by reasons of tactical/technical/strategic necessity
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:
Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-
If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-
You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.
Is that about right?
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I have noted previously just why the opposing Republican voices are making noise, and it should certainly be no mystery as to why the Dems are screeching.
The Congressional hearings?
Pay close attention to their timing and rhetoric relative to the Justice investigtion of the leak; it should be highly instructional.
I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:
What are you on about now?
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I take it you hold the impeachment of clinton by congress with the same "lack of importance" :rolleyes:
What are you on about now?
You seem to think that the hearings are purely about elections and nothing to do with the possibility that Bush could have broken the law. If this is the case then you must surely agree then that the clinton impeachment was about politics and nothing to do with purgery.
Glad you are with us on that.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:
Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-
If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-
You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.
Is that about right?
Are you suggesting that the secret court set up to deal precisely with this would refuse to allow tapping of those you described?
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Sounds like bunkum to me.
On the assumption that you can make application for warrant ex-parte what reason is there to preclude Judges from the process. I can think of only two.
1. You suspect your Judges to be in league with the subject of the warrant.
2. You really want the warrants, but don't think you have enough evidence to convince a Judge that you should get them.
The latter appears the more likely. It boils down to this, "We, your Government, will stick to the rule of law, unless it becomes inconvenient".
The fact that previous Governments have also done this is irrelevant.
It wouldn't happen here.
So , then, to distill the situation to it's salient factors:
Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it, OR-
If you choose to ignore the native legalisms in order to optimize the quality of the intelligence you are gathering, and the intelligence leads you inside your own borders to factions who are part of, or sympathetic to, those who are based overseas, THEN-
You must grant the interlopers the protections afforded average, non-combatant, bonafide U.S. citizens, thus affording them stealth status and rendering them impervious to any exceptional methods of deterrence.
Is that about right?
What does any of that have to do with whether or not you should apply for a warrant when conducting technical surveillance in the USA, possibly on US citizens. It's not even specious, it's bunk.
If you need to do it, you can get a warrant. No-one is suggesting the authorities shouldn't do it, that would be mental.
With regard to "Foreign surveillance should be practiced only to the extent the host country's legal system will sanction it". If the Pakistani's wanted to carry out technical surveillance on US citizens, would you expect them just to do it in any way they wanted. Or would you expect them to follow the rules under your law and your Constitution - please note this is rhetorical as I know the answer already.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Are you suggesting that the secret court set up to deal precisely with this would refuse to allow tapping of those you described?
I'm not suggesting anything except that I am not privy to the reasoning for bypassing that particular process, and note only that this was apparently done for a reason, because the administration has said that this is so.
I have not seen or read anything that indicates they are obligated to divulge the "why" of this, at least until the investigations pending are complete.
Once the status of the leak/leaker(s) is more firmly fixed, we may know more.
I think you'll find our "right to know" such things doesn't supercede the process.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
please note this is rhetorical as I know the answer already.
It would seem this qualifier could be stickied to most of what we write here. :D
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
please note this is rhetorical as I know the answer already.
It would seem this qualifier could be stickied to most of what we write here. :D
:lol:
Indeed, the shoe fits, I shall wear it.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think you'll find our "right to know" such things doesn't supercede the process.
Unlike your administration's right to circumvent process.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think you'll find our "right to know" such things doesn't supercede the process.
Unlike your administration's right to circumvent process.
Did you miss something? :huh:
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Unlike your administration's right to circumvent process.
Did you miss something? :huh:
Often, but not this time.
You - POTUS doesn't have to go to Court to get warrants and he says he has his reasons.
You (out of character) - We should just accept he has good reasons and STFU.
Me - Such circumvention of process should only be when it is absolutely necessary e.g. no time.
Me - technical/tactical/strategic reasons = talking pish.
It's the torture thing all over again mate, follow rules until they become inconvenient.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Did you miss something? :huh:
Often, but not this time.
You - POTUS doesn't have to go to Court to get warrants and he says he has his reasons.
You (out of character) - We should just accept he has good reasons and STFU.
Me - Such circumvention of process should only be when it is absolutely necessary e.g. no time.
Me - technical/tactical/strategic reasons = talking pish.
It's the torture thing all over again mate, follow rules until they become inconvenient.
Me - He has the power and legally-spelled-out authority to do what he did, though certain officials believe this not to be true; investigations are ensuing.
Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.
Until that point we can only lay rightful claim to a tortuous curiousity.
You - But what about the Constitution?
Me - See above.
You - But he's cheating!
Me - Not until it is proven; see above.
You - But you're talking pish.
Me - Prove it.
You - That's pish, too.
Me - No it's not.
You - Yes, it is.
Me - You talk pish yourself.
You - No I don't.
Me - Yes, I'm afraid you do.
You - Prove it.
Me - Prove it's not.
You - But what about the Constitution?
Me - Vid, is that you? :huh:
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Me - He has the power and legally-spelled-out authority to do what he did, though certain officials believe this not to be true; investigations are ensuing.
Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.
I beg to differ very strongly.
We may not have the right to know exactly which calls he tapped (for security reasons) but we have every right to know the specifics of what he bases his right to act as he has. Just saying "I am protecting the American people" is not an answer.
The president is our servant, not the other way round.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Me - He has the power and legally-spelled-out authority to do what he did, though certain officials believe this not to be true; investigations are ensuing.
Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.
I beg to differ very strongly.
We may not have the right to know exactly which calls he tapped (for security reasons) but we have every right to know the specifics of what he bases his right to act as he has.
To steal a phrase, "That's just pish"
The president is our servant, not the other way round.
Come now, vid...that is only supposed to be true, but hasn't been since about 1800.
Go ahead and try to make the President your bitch.
I'll watch.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2
To steal a phrase, "That's just pish"
And that is not an arguement. (unless you use Bush reasoning). And this from someone that feels the president owes the whole country an apology and an explaination for getting his dick sucked. If you feel we don't have that right, put forward your reasons why.
If the president says "I have that right" then he should explain where he gets that right from.
If you feel the president owes us no explaination then I suggest you move away from calling him mr. president and substitute mr. dictator
What do you think elections are for ?
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
And this from someone that feels the president owes the whole country an apology and an explaination for getting his dick sucked.
If the president says "I have that right" then he should explain where he gets that right from.
Perhaps Clinton should have assayed his legal status vis a vis blow-jobs from fat girls (not his wife) in thongs.
He might have invoked Executive Privilege and avoided the whole thing.
I am saying that, as these matters will now be thoroughly investigated, Bush will be correct to reveal such particulars to those in charge of the ultimate disposition of the matter, which must assuredly ain't us.
You'll just have to wait for the impeachment, like we did for your boy Clinton.
BTW-this isn't an argument either, although it fits the bill as an answer perfectly. ;)
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.
Shall I ask for the Drawing Room to be closed, or have you already done that.
You - But what about the Constitution?
I really don't give a feck about the Constitution. I'm more interested in why he didn't apply to the Courts. Oh that's right, he had his reasons.
I tried to cut out as much bunkum as I could, it wasn't easy.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Until these investigations are complete, we have no right or overweening need to know the specifics of his reasonings; that is for the investigative effort to determine.
Shall I ask for the Drawing Room to be closed, or have you already done that.
You - But what about the Constitution?
I really don't give a feck about the Constitution. I'm more interested in why he didn't apply to the Courts. Oh that's right, he had his reasons.
I tried to cut out as much bunkum as I could, it wasn't easy.
:lol:
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gam3Guy
I think it's bullshit that the illegal wiretaps are the reason this attack was foiled...if this attempt even existed.
Tbh, this whole administration is getting tiresome. I'd like to believe the President but skeptism gets in the way.
Either way, I don't understand why he can't get legal wiretaps AND if not, governments do covert spying all the time.
If he's signing off on shit like this he's doing a shit job at keeping it "covert".
Ex. secret prisons - I'm sure we've had secret prisons for decades. I'm sure many countries do. Now ours are public knowledge.
This administration does nothing well.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
IT'S NOT A SECRET IF EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT.
too true.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gam3Guy
Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.
Some unnamed "asin country" is the hero here so it seems.
This was a political release to put pressure for the patriot act to be renewed.
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gam3Guy
Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.
Even if it did that's no reason for going thro' the proper procedures to get the warrants. Unless of course you get better evidence from an illegal tap. :blink:
-
Re: come on "constructionists"
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gam3Guy
Erm........... there is nothing about this that suggests the wiretaps had anything to do with it. If they had don't you think Bush would have been shouting it out loud.
Some unnamed "asin country" is the hero here so it seems.
This was a political release to put pressure for the patriot act to be renewed.
Actually it does... I got it off a news site which said Bush's wiretaps successfully foiled terrorist attemps. I agree that this sounds like bs too tho because even if Bush never said that they worked then more ppl would dislike him. He couldn't even say much details about how it worked or where they tapped.
