In the UK, we only get ads like that in the run-up to elections.
Do they play stuff like that all the time in the US? Or just at moments of political controversy etc.?
T H F C f a n
BT Rep: +1
In the UK, we only get ads like that in the run-up to elections.
Do they play stuff like that all the time in the US? Or just at moments of political controversy etc.?
there is no god
it's an election year for senate and congress
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
go ahead.Originally Posted by j2k4
I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances.
Unless you'd grant an exception...
factcheck.org. only deals with facts and not partisan rhetoric.....this is the site cheney meant to point to in the edwards debate......it is not a partisan site, go check it out,...
Last edited by vidcc; 03-22-2006 at 09:40 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
T H F C f a n
BT Rep: +1
Oh yeah, sorry.
en(un)lightened
A recent column by Terence Jeffrey-he points out past (and relevant) Presidential practice, which, although you will no doubt object to as water under the bridge, has the effect of begging the question, What is different about Bush's use of the tactic, apart from his doing so in aid of a "war on terrorism"?
Unless, of course, you don't even believe that.
Jeffrey's point remains, nonetheless:
Unlike Sen. Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat seeking to censure President Bush for ordering the interception of communications in and out of the United States involving persons with suspected links to al-Qaeda, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt had no qualms about warrantless eavesdropping to protect the United States against attack.
Neither did Harry Truman.
There is a difference, however, between the eavesdropping Roosevelt and Truman authorized and the eavesdropping Bush is doing. Roosevelt and Truman did it in peacetime without congressional authorization. Bush is doing it during a war that Feingold voted on Sept. 14, 2001, to authorize.
Nonetheless, Roosevelt and Truman acted within their constitutional authority to defend the nation against attack. They were doing their duty, as is President Bush.
But in the Senate on Monday, while introducing his censure resolution, Feingold said, "The president's claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless."
FDR could not have agreed. On May 21, 1940, the United States was at peace, but Roosevelt wasn't taking chances. "It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassination and 'fifth column' activities are completed," Roosevelt wrote Attorney General Robert Jackson in a memorandum cited by Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts in a letter he sent last month to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter. "You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigation agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices directed to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens." (Emphasis added.)
Truman went further. Testifying before the Church Committee on Oct. 29, 1975, Attorney General Edward Levi quoted a letter that Attorney General Tom Clark sent Truman in 1946. Clark wanted to continue FDR's program. Warrantless eavesdropping, he argued, was needed "in cases vitally affecting the domestic security, or where human life is in jeopardy."
In his letter to Specter, Roberts notes that "Truman broadened the scope of the authorization by removing the caveat that such surveillance should be limited 'insofar as possible to aliens.'"
Federal appeals courts have upheld the authority Roosevelt and Truman used. "(B)ecause of the president's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm ... that the president may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the 1973 case of United States v. Brown.
Even after President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which required warrants for domestic intelligence wiretaps, Carter's Justice Department went into federal court to defend warrantless wiretapping for national security reasons.
Truong Dinh Hung, a Vietnamese national living in the United States, and Ronald Humphrey, a U.S. citizen who worked for the U.S. Information Agency, had appealed their espionage convictions, which resulted from Humphrey passing classified documents to Truong, who sent them to Vietnamese officials in Paris in 1977.
"Truong's phone was tapped and his apartment was bugged from May 1977 to January 1978," explained the Fourth Circuit's 1980 opinion in United States v. Truong. "The telephone interception continued for 268 days, and every conversation, with possibly one exception, was monitored and virtually all were taped. The eavesdropping device was operative for approximately 255 days, and it ran continuously. No court authorization was ever sought or obtained for the installation and maintenance of the telephone tap or the bug. The government thus ascertained that Humphrey was providing Truong with the copies of secret documents."
Lo and behold, Carter's Justice Department claimed Carter had a "constitutional prerogative" to conduct this warrantless wiretap. "In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the president may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs," the court explained.
The judges agreed. "First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy," they said. "A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence initiatives, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
Does Bush have the same "constitutional prerogatives" in an authorized war that Carter had in peace? Feingold claims not, demanding censure of the president -- which ought to earn Feingold the censure of enlightened opinion.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
has feingold claimed carter had that authority then?.
this is one mans opinion as to the legality of the wiretapping, what does it have to do with feingolds censure motion or the rnc adverts misinformation?
the motion wouldn't even have risen had an investigation on the legality not been blocked.
Btw.... if this program was legal, why the backroom negotiation to change it to make it so? and how can your opinion writer be so sure the wiretapping is legal..... after all the arguement has been made that feingold couldn't possibly know if it is illegal because it is secret and he doesn't know how it works..... is your columist privy to information denied to the rest of us?
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
Who can say for sure?has feingold claimed carter had that authority then?.
this is one mans opinion as to the legality of the wiretapping, what does it have to do with feingolds censure motion or the rnc adverts misinformation?
the motion wouldn't even have risen had an investigation on the legality not been blocked.
Btw.... if this program was legal, why the backroom negotiation to change it to make it so? and how can your opinion writer be so sure the wiretapping is legal..... after all the arguement has been made that feingold couldn't possibly know if it is illegal because it is secret and he doesn't know how it works..... is your columist privy to information denied to the rest of us?
Odd, though, that of the select few Dems who were kept abreast of the program (I don't recall which ones, off-hand), none of them are making censure/impeachment noises.
As you refer to any effort to quash the prospect of an investigation:
1. Who instigated the investigation?
2. Why do you suppose any previous such activity (Carter's, for instance) failed to prompt talk of an investigation, especially after he signed off on FISA?
EDIT:
I seriously doubt Feingold is even aware of Carter's activities, or if he is, he chooses to ignore the fact for it's inconvenience.
Last edited by j2k4; 03-23-2006 at 12:15 AM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
Tell me.
Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.
Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?
So.......I am still waiting for your refute of the facts as presented by factcheck on the claims made in the RNC advert. So far you have gone off on a tangent but nothing on the subject posted.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
How can you overlook the fact that all legal review and oversight so far conducted with regard to similar activities by other Presidents has not wrought any official proceeding?
Answer that first, if you please?
It has been recounted:
Carter, the "author" of FISA, did precisely what Bush did (in peace time!), with nary a peep from his congress nor any legal review, and, in fact, received legal sanction for same.
Is Feingold some sort of political genius?
Don't make me laugh
Don't forget to answer the question, now....
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
I will answer to this once you actually respond on the factcheck post which you suggested you could refute. If you wish to change the subject and not talk about the post to which you are replying then you have no right to expect me to respond to that changed subject.
I am guessing the reason you are not refuting the factcheck post is because it is just that....facts.
We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.
edit:
but then your question was answered before you asked
edit 2:Tell me.
Is murder legal because OJ is walking free?
What has anything Carter did or didn't do got to do with THIS ?
How many times do we have to say that something cannot be excused because someone tried it before. A wrongdoing then is still a wrongdoing now.
Should Bush get caught in the oval office being blown by condi...then lie about it, would it be a defense to say "well clinton did the same thing"?
btw. feingold voted for the clinton impeachment investigation....in case you missed that....he voted to investigate clinton
Last edited by vidcc; 03-23-2006 at 01:26 AM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks