leejo

If there is a shred of evidence that this program has been used to spy on political opponents, I will join the chorus calling for impeachment.

A lot of conservatives are understandably nervous about big government. A lot also recognize that during times of War the President's power becomes nearly plenary. Those students of history know that individual rights in this country are not linear - sometimes the rights of the individual take priority and sometimes the - oh Christ I'll say it - needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Jerk. See what you made me do?

Diceman

Source? Can you also please provide some explanation for what a FISA judge does then? As far as I'm aware, their sole purpose is to hand out warrants.I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't argue with the idea that congress can't tell the pres. who to listen to and so on, but they are able to set restrictions on what the president can and can't do. That's exactly what FISA was; a set a regulations which clearly provided for the lawful monitoring of foreign nationals, but some conditions had to be met.

Lastly, on the issue of mailing verizon phones: are you suggesting that the NSA uses call display to determine whether or not to tap the line? That sounds more like a prank than a professional surveillance operation.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Steeler

And how exactly shall we collect evidence on a secret classified program that even the whistle-blower who acknowledged its existence is not at liberty to discuss? These sorts of structures stay in place long past their useful lifespan and open up a world of opportunity for abuse. You can't take the leash off the dog and then say, "well, I'll put it back on if he bites someone."

Pity that doesn't seem to apply to tax law, Spock.

In the end, though, we are left with the basic rift between those who think that we are in a war of civilizations and those who think politicians and idealogues have manufactured a war for political gain. And the bridge across that chasm is pretty rickety.

And I will always reject the notion that our personal liberty is conditional on the whims of the current sitting President, regardless of the circumstances.

__________________

leejo

No, you kill the dog if it bites someone. Congress can kill the dog by cutting off it's air supply any time it pleases.

Whistleblowers should go to jail for griping to the NY Times. Those people are traitorous rats. A true whistleblower would have voiced concerns up the chain of command, to members of the House or Senate Intelligence Committees, etc. As we all know, Congress WAS briefed on this program and chose not to take any action. Until it became expedient, anyway.


I said sometimes, not any damn time you want to help yourself to some of my money.

Arf

We have a viable and effective alternative that was created just so we could avoid situations where the rights of regular citizens might be subverted. In my opinion the government is for the people and not the people for the government. At the top of the chain of command is always American citizens and that's who the whistleblowers should report to when the government shows signs of corruption.

Also anyone can sound like Winston Churchill when the person writing their answers also writes their questions, personally I find the scripted interviews patronizing.

__________________

IceCold

You just hit on the crux of this entire issue. Can we use evidence that is the fruit of an unlawful search in our legal system? No. It seems that you all understand this and that this is what you take issue with.

The thing is, there aren't any plans to put anybody in jail for this stuff. These wiretaps are to identify, locate and kill the enemy while preventing their organizations from harming the United States of America. Nobody's worried about evidence not being admitted to a courtroom.

There's a reason why we have such laws for our legal system, and there's a reason why our national security gets to sidestep these rules. They're two completely different ballgames.

The potential for abuse is there, yes. But it's always there, regardless of whether or not the President is hunting terrorists.

__________________

Diceman

If it's so easy to see why the wiretaps were needed, then why weren't the warrants sought? It's not like they're hard to get.

Without wanting to put too fine a point on it, it seems to me that if there is a body of regulations that comprise, in part, the law of the land and someone violates that law, doesn't that make them a criminal? Is there something wrong in that logic? It seems to me that the only way out of that quandry while preserving the reputation of President is to say that, when he is acting in the interests of national security, the President is only bound by those laws that he chooses to follow.

For an answer to this, I defer to Steeler:

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Diceman

As an extension to this question, do you think that Deep Throat should have (or perhaps still should) go to jail? Was he a traitorous rat, or an american hero?

After all, he did have a critical hand in bringing down a heinously corrupt administration, that purposefully and systematically sought to undermine the rule of law.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

leejo

This is the article I was thinking of:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...mevpm.asp?pg=1

leejo

The only thing Congress can tell the president to do is beat it by impeaching and convicting him. Congress does how power to influence the President by manipulating public opinion, budgets, etc., but Congress has zero authority to dictate surveilance requirements to the President. You seem to assume that the Framers envisioned the Presidency as being subservient to Congress in any form or fashion. It is not.

So the Source is the Constitution and the explanation for what a FISA judge does is basically draw a paycheck to perform a service that everyone in Washington can usually appreciate: provide political cover. I can appreciate the sincere desire to take action and ensure the public's faith in government in the aftermath of Watergate, when FISA was enacted, but every President during and since its enactment has asserted that he retained the authority to conduct surveilance without submitting to this law.

The Constitution does not empower the President to conduct surveilance on his political enemies or for personal gain. When caught shaming his office in this fashion, Congress should rightly impeach and convict him. I'm not aware of any claim that the President has abused his authority in such a manner. As the article I just posted points out, even his critics don't suggest that the surveilance should stop, merely that there should be a warrant. Does anyone seriously suggest that the President should conduct intelligence gathering during a time of war, military conflict, tension, whatever you want to call it, UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW? When did that start? Did Roosevelt have to check in with the judges during WWII? Did Eisenhower get warrants for the intelligence operations that surely were conducted against North Koreans in the United States? No. In fact this is the first protracted conflict in which anyone has suggested that the President ought to be constrained in this manner. It's ridiculous.

Diceman

I didn't mean to give that impression. I appreciate that the executive power is a seperate and distinct branch of government, but it is not unfettered power. There are checks and balances in place. The president, while not subservient to Congress, cannot act without some regard for the will of Congress.

Consider the following as examples where the President is restrained:

• Congress has the power to deny presidential judicial nominations.
• The President must ask Congress for permission to declare war.
• Congress can pass veto-proof legislation.

There are myriad more examples of where the President must work with Congress. Swearing to uphold the law is just one more area where the President accepts constraints on his power.

The Framers were also very concerned about unrestrained executive power. All these conditions and provisios on presidential power are there for a reason; a good many of them. They were not designed to be disregarded at any time; not wartime, nor peacetime, nor during feast, nor famine.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

leejo

I reject that notion too. When I exercise my right to vote for the President, I am aware of the tremendous power of that office and I take care to select the person I think will exercise that power most responsibly. I also vote for members of Congress whom I trust will protect my liberties by removing Presidents who pose an actual threat to those liberties. If I feel that a President (or any government institution) is threatening my liberties I will communicate my alarm and displeasure loudly and frequently until the problem goes away or someone shuts me up.

And another 200 million people feel basically the same way. We all have power too.

leejo

Ther President makes no such oath. He swears to execute the office of the President and to uphold the Constitution. Not each and every law that he inherits from the bozo who came before him.

Sure they were concerned. Read the article.

Diceman

From Wikipedia: Does this not mean that, by swearing to uphold the constituion, the President is also swearing to uphold those laws that are in accordance with it?
I did read the article. Suffice to say that it is a novel interpretation of the American system that I haven't heard before. It also doesn't seem to jive with a fundamental understanding of limited government. Edit: maybe, maybe not. I'm no expert on limited government, but I believe it to mean that the government is self-limiting, via a system provided for by checks and balances

Another Wikipedia article on checks and balances lists all of the significant seperate powers, as well as the executive, legislative and judicial counterbalances to each. This is much more in line with my understanding of how the American system works.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Steeler

You know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but I bet the discussion would be a lot different if the current President were a Democrat.

__________________