Meanwhile there's a war on - Page 5

**leejo** · 01-13-2006, 10:12 AM

You've picked a quote from way back in this thread and I've already amplified on some of the concerns you raise. Techincally speaking, the President is above the law insofar as he is executing the office of the presidency. Similarly, Congress can impeach for whatever it pleases.

If George W. Bush, private citizen, is sued by another citizen and lies under oath during those procedings, he is not acting as the President and is subject to the law. When the President issues executive orders, he is executing the power that the Constitution vests in him and his decisions are not subject to review by Congress or the judiciary.

Put another way, if the President does it, it's legal. It may be impeachable, result in crippling political damage, etc., but it's legal.

Steeler · 01-13-2006, 10:38 AM

Those 200 million other Amercians that supposedly support your position aren't posting on this forum, so you can stop relying on their testimony.

I don't know how I can drill this home any clearer. We do not know who they are spying on. We do not know how they are doing it. All we know is that they have bypassed the system by which we try to enforce the civil liberties of our citizens. If that doesn't sound alarm bells in you, you are a sheep.

If you're that comfortable with a nigh-infallible, unaccountable President, good luck to you.

/end

**leejo** · 01-13-2006, 11:00 AM

I'm not relying on anyone and you are mischaracterizing my words. I'm saying that we have elections to decide who gets Presidential power, the only power that has discretion to reveal top secret programs. The President IS accountable to the electorate. Congress can check the President's power by shutting down funding for programs, refusing to approve appointments, or impeaching the President. The Judiciary can check the president's power by rejecting the executive's prosecutorial efforts or its litigations.

You've made your points loud and clear. I just think you're wrong, and that you need to worry more about *actual* problems and less about hypothetical problems. I, and the Framers, have a different system and methods in mind for protecting civil liberties than you do: Show me where in the Constitution the President's national security powers are reviewed by another branch.

**leejo** · 01-13-2006, 11:10 AM

By the way, all of you clamoring for the President's removing on these grounds, I have three words for you: President Dick Cheney.

Back to the subject of the thread, I just read this interesting article: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1499905

Quote:

In one New Year's Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.

In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.

The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: "Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached)." At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.

The president is in the right here, and try as you might, you aren't going to make him in the wrong on this one. It is troublesome and ought to stop as soon as possible, but for now these programs are necessary.

Diceman · 01-13-2006, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Show me where in the Constitution the President's national security powers are reviewed by another branch.

I can't cite the passage or article, but Congress saw fit to review Nixon's wiretaps and other shenanigans, even though he claimed he was doing it for national security reasons. Bush is claiming national security reasons. What makes Bush so reliable when Nixon showed us all what a corrupt, unchecked politician can do?

**leejo** · 01-13-2006, 11:19 AM

Congress can see fit to review anything it sees fit to review. They can subpoena documents and witnesses, and the Executive branch can refuse to comply. If the price of playing poker gets high enough, Congress can impeach.

Nixon tried to play that game and lost. But the allegations were very different from what has been alleged here. If the MATERIAL FACTS of this NSA program change to reveal that the President has used his powers in a corrupt manner, then you will see me supporting a move to impeach. But just because Nixon was secretive does not mean that it is improper for other Presidents to be secretive. Nations require secrecy on some levels.

I'm not claiming that Bush is more or less reliable than Nixon. I have my personal opinions about both, but they aren't relevant. I am saying I think that some of you have an incorrect understanding of the extent of Presidential power and the actual means that the Constitution creates for limiting that power.

rs_al · 01-13-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Here's a nice engine starter for you: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012808.php

Here's how CBS, for example, covered the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...8DU8I500.shtml

Why is this an important event -and why do we expect bigger coverage from the news?

"... the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11."

Because of their GOAL?

My goal is to be a millionaire and supreme ruler of Earth. Yet the media does not cover everything I do in the way they would cover a supreme ruler of Earth. ANTI-AL BIAS!

The terribly important terrorist plot has about 3 paragraphs of "coverage", followed by a whole crapload of editorial. The CBS article has considerably more coverage of the issue than the blog, without the BS.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Original article sourced by the blog:
"...are suspected of being linked to a planned new series of attacks in the United States."
(emphasis mine)

Same "fact", as seen through the magic lens of editorializing:
"...a major terrorist plot against the U.S."

The mainstream media pulls through with facts, details, and sources, and does so without all the confusing assumptions and conjecture. Thanks for reminding me why I don't read blogs.

**leejo** · 01-13-2006, 12:00 PM

The arrests and these goals you mock were covered in most major news outlets around the world. It's not like the US media are in agreement with everyone else here. That's the assertion the blog makes.

If true, then it does beg the question why the world's media would pay attention to 3 men arrested in Italy for, among other things, plotting to commit acts of terror on US soil, while the US media chose to virtually ignore the story.

I think you are trivializing things, to say the least, by comparing your plans to become a millionaire to the material facts in a criminal case in which people are accused of planning to kill citizens by the hundreds and thousands. I don't care about your plans and don't need to read a story about it in the news. I care deeply about these other threats and think that if something happens that the press knows, they should report it. Surely it's at least as interesting and relevant as a story about how US warplanes bombed a terrorist camp/wedding party in western Iraq?

rs_al · 01-13-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If true, then it does beg the question why the world's media would pay attention to 3 men arrested in Italy for, among other things, plotting to commit acts of terror on US soil, while the US media chose to virtually ignore the story.

A source. One source. One world media outlet carrying this story. And not hearsay. Know what hearsay is? It's this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...es&btnG=Search

Where is the worldwide media blitz? The "examples" offered in the blog post may be totally fictional. They all go back to NewsMax.com, a tabloid that has has a history of invented information. The news agencies both exist, but neither is carrying the story. International news agencies that ARE carrying the story, agree with CBS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4444456.stm
Even Italy isn't covering any US connection: http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.ph...43084772&par=0
In fact, no one covering the story sees any kind of US connection (or worldwide media blitz) except NewsMax.

Diceman · 01-13-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Congress can see fit to review anything it sees fit to review. They can subpoena documents and witnesses, and the Executive branch can refuse to comply. If the price of playing poker gets high enough, Congress can impeach.

In theory, what you're saying is true. Congress does have the technical power to do more or less what it pleases. While the President doesn't have it in writing that he can ignore the demands of Congress, it is an issue without (to my knowledge) guiding precedent on what would happen if he did. This leads to the possibility that he could ignore Congress' demands. But, in practice, these technical possibilities are never considered in isolation. The parties must consider the consequences of their actions to ensure that they are politically feasible. Ultimately, they are all politicians and they require, at some level, the support of the electorate (as you mentioned), and the special interests on top of that. We all saw how fast Bush was tethered when he nominated a candidate which was too moderate for some of his powerful supporters.

But it does underscore that the other branches of Government get to review the Presidents decisions. Even his national security ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

But just because Nixon was secretive does not mean that it is improper for other Presidents to be secretive. Nations require secrecy on some levels.

I agree on the secrecy bit, and probably most do. However, nations require transparency as well, and a good deal more of it. The key is in finding the balance.

Regarding this particular case, I note a couple of things: There were easy steps to take to pursue these wiretaps legally, just so long as the wiretaps actually are what the administration says they are. These steps were not taken. Instead, the existence of the program needed to be leaked to the public before anyone found out about it (yeah, I know some senior members of Congress were breifed, but they weren't allowed to say anything to anyone about it either. It's part of having Top Secret clearance, I guess. Not even their own staff could be told.). Once the program was out in the open, the administration only came clean insofar as it fessed up that it was actually doing what it had been accused of. No more details have been provided to date. I find it hard to believe that the administration can't find any details to release that would assuage public anxiety about intrusive government monitoring. Not even one, outside of the comfortable assurances of "we're doing this to protect your freedoms" and "this is the only way to stop the evildoers".

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I am saying I think that some of you have an incorrect understanding of the extent of Presidential power and the actual means that the Constitution creates for limiting that power.

Perhaps you could outline what you feel some folks' position to be. I've mentioned before that it seemed as though you were arguing against someone else in response to some of my posts. Maybe if you could outline what you hold some "our" assumptions to be, we can all start to see where the incongruities are.

Wulfyn · 01-15-2006, 09:38 PM

'ang on - wasn't the constitution written to protect the rights of the rebellious and terrorist colonials that decided to war with their patron country?

**CingularDuality** · 01-16-2006, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

'ang on - wasn't the constitution written to protect the rights of the rebellious and terrorist colonials that decided to war with their patron country?

No.

**Apophis** · 01-16-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Those 200 million other Amercians that supposedly support your position aren't posting on this forum, so you can stop relying on their testimony.

I don't know how I can drill this home any clearer. We do not know who they are spying on. We do not know how they are doing it. All we know is that they have bypassed the system by which we try to enforce the civil liberties of our citizens. If that doesn't sound alarm bells in you, you are a sheep.

I have some level of faith in the SYSTEM as a whole. I'm not worried about who they are spying on. If they have the desire to listen to Luna call me up and ask me to pick up milk on the way home, so be it.

The media has spun this way out of control and made a lot of implications that simply don't exist. If you don't understand how this happens, read the thread about sending someone to jail simply because they annoy you. You need to go out and look up the laws themselves, read and understand them, and make up your own mind. Don't let CBS news, Air America Radio, FOX News or the New York Times make up your mind for you.

I don't have alarm bells going off in my head and I am SERIOUSLY offended at being labeled a "sheep" simply because I think a lot of anti-Bush folks are blowing this out of proportion for political purposes. I have little concern for it's implications on my actual freedoms and liberties as a US citizen.

**leejo** · 01-16-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

If they have the desire to listen to Luna call me up and ask me to pick up milk on the way home, so be it.

I want to see the NSA transcript of the call where Cing calls Apo to ask what he's wearing.

**Pokerface** · 01-16-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I have some level of faith in the SYSTEM as a whole. I'm not worried about who they are spying on. If they have the desire to listen to Luna call me up and ask me to pick up milk on the way home, so be it.

The media has spun this way out of control and made a lot of implications that simply don't exist. If you don't understand how this happens, read the thread about sending someone to jail simply because they annoy you. You need to go out and look up the laws themselves, read and understand them, and make up your own mind. Don't let CBS news, Air America Radio, FOX News or the New York Times make up your mind for you.

I don't have alarm bells going off in my head and I am SERIOUSLY offended at being labeled a "sheep" simply because I think a lot of anti-Bush folks are blowing this out of proportion for political purposes. I have little concern for it's implications on my actual freedoms and liberties as a US citizen.

What I have always found so incredible about issues like this is the fact that the people who normally are against big government and government interfering in the lives of everyday Americans are often the same ones who say things like the above.

That's an amazing incongruity to me; granting the government the ability to listen in on your conversations with your family, or your mistress, or your stock broker... does it GET any bigger or more interfering than that?

01-13-2006, 10:12 AM	#61 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on You've picked a quote from way back in this thread and I've already amplified on some of the concerns you raise. Techincally speaking, the President is above the law insofar as he is executing the office of the presidency. Similarly, Congress can impeach for whatever it pleases. If George W. Bush, private citizen, is sued by another citizen and lies under oath during those procedings, he is not acting as the President and is subject to the law. When the President issues executive orders, he is executing the power that the Constitution vests in him and his decisions are not subject to review by Congress or the judiciary. Put another way, if the President does it, it's legal. It may be impeachable, result in crippling political damage, etc., but it's legal.

01-13-2006, 10:38 AM	#62 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,925	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on Those 200 million other Amercians that supposedly support your position aren't posting on this forum, so you can stop relying on their testimony. I don't know how I can drill this home any clearer. We do not know who they are spying on. We do not know how they are doing it. All we know is that they have bypassed the system by which we try to enforce the civil liberties of our citizens. If that doesn't sound alarm bells in you, you are a sheep. If you're that comfortable with a nigh-infallible, unaccountable President, good luck to you. /end __________________

01-13-2006, 11:00 AM	#63 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on I'm not relying on anyone and you are mischaracterizing my words. I'm saying that we have elections to decide who gets Presidential power, the only power that has discretion to reveal top secret programs. The President IS accountable to the electorate. Congress can check the President's power by shutting down funding for programs, refusing to approve appointments, or impeaching the President. The Judiciary can check the president's power by rejecting the executive's prosecutorial efforts or its litigations. You've made your points loud and clear. I just think you're wrong, and that you need to worry more about actual problems and less about hypothetical problems. I, and the Framers, have a different system and methods in mind for protecting civil liberties than you do: Show me where in the Constitution the President's national security powers are reviewed by another branch.

01-13-2006, 11:19 AM	#66 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on Congress can see fit to review anything it sees fit to review. They can subpoena documents and witnesses, and the Executive branch can refuse to comply. If the price of playing poker gets high enough, Congress can impeach. Nixon tried to play that game and lost. But the allegations were very different from what has been alleged here. If the MATERIAL FACTS of this NSA program change to reveal that the President has used his powers in a corrupt manner, then you will see me supporting a move to impeach. But just because Nixon was secretive does not mean that it is improper for other Presidents to be secretive. Nations require secrecy on some levels. I'm not claiming that Bush is more or less reliable than Nixon. I have my personal opinions about both, but they aren't relevant. I am saying I think that some of you have an incorrect understanding of the extent of Presidential power and the actual means that the Constitution creates for limiting that power.

01-13-2006, 12:00 PM	#68 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on The arrests and these goals you mock were covered in most major news outlets around the world. It's not like the US media are in agreement with everyone else here. That's the assertion the blog makes. If true, then it does beg the question why the world's media would pay attention to 3 men arrested in Italy for, among other things, plotting to commit acts of terror on US soil, while the US media chose to virtually ignore the story. I think you are trivializing things, to say the least, by comparing your plans to become a millionaire to the material facts in a criminal case in which people are accused of planning to kill citizens by the hundreds and thousands. I don't care about your plans and don't need to read a story about it in the news. I care deeply about these other threats and think that if something happens that the press knows, they should report it. Surely it's at least as interesting and relevant as a story about how US warplanes bombed a terrorist camp/wedding party in western Iraq?

01-15-2006, 09:38 PM	#71 (permalink)
Wulfyn Join Date: May 2005 Location: Norwich, UK Age: 29 Posts: 4,236	Re: Meanwhile there's a war on 'ang on - wasn't the constitution written to protect the rights of the rebellious and terrorist colonials that decided to war with their patron country? __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links