|
|
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
FWIW, I'm going to have to side with Botnst on this one.
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, so you're channeling the man, fine. What "side" would that be?
Have you/he spent the last three years screaming flecks of spittle at your keyboard demanding that Muslims everywhere put down their hummus and loudly denounce Islamic "terrorism" and SPECIFICALLY, those that perpetrate such acts? Now we've got the Grand Ayatollahs of the neocon faithful caught red-handed terrorizing Merkin's civil liberties, something Mr "Libertarian" claims to care deeply about, yet all we get are vague generalities and "phantom" laments of "lost liberties". I want flecks of spittle. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Bot |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Sneak and Peek
How would a Patriot Act?
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
B |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
As this morning’s New York Times analysis put it in describing the rationale behind the Adminstration's violations of Foreign Intelligence Security Act, pursuant to which it has been secretly spying on the commuincations of American citizens without judicial warrants:
A single, fiercely debated legal principle lies behind nearly every major initiative in the Bush administration's war on terror, scholars say: the sweeping assertion of the powers of the presidency. From the government's detention of Americans as "enemy combatants" to the just-disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's authority. As the Times reports, Bush's claim to absolute executive power has its origins principally in one document: a Sept. 25, 2001, memorandum [by the Justice Department’s John Yoo] that said no statute passed by Congress "can place any limits on the president's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing and nature of the response." |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Wooo Hooo the terrorists are going to have a field day now with the left firmly behind their rights to privacy....
__________________
Proud owner of .... 1971 280SE W108 1979 300SD W116 1983 300D W123 1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper 1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel 1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified) --------------------- Section 609 MVAC Certified --------------------- "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Mr. Bush said forcefully from behind a lectern in the Roosevelt Room, next to the Oval Office. The White House invited cameras in, guaranteeing television coverage.
He said the Senate's action "endangers the lives of our citizens," and added that "the terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks," a reference to the approaching deadline of Dec. 31, when critical provisions of the current law will end. His statement came just a day before he is scheduled to make a rare Oval Office address to the nation, at 9 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday, celebrating the Iraqi elections and describing what his press secretary on Saturday called the "path forward." What Patriot Act? Bush just lost the trust of every thinking member of Congress. This was hoked up by Cheney. The Congress just got a lesson on why trusting Bush is dangerous, and my bet he briefed Goss, Frist amd Hastert, and that's it. What Bush doesn't get is that HE doesn't determine his constitutional responsibilities, Congress does. The courts do. I can't imagine the week will end without an injunction filed to stop this. The excuse that they couldn't use the courts is bull@#$%. They didn't want to. Because thius is about creating an imperial presidency. I think people's reactions to this will stun Bush. The Bushies will still kiss his a@#, but everyone else should be scared @#$%less. Let's ask about an enemies list as well. This throws Bush's nomination of Harriet "he's the most brilliant man I ever met" Miers for the Supreme Court into a little sharper focus, eh? The way I see it, there's no way for even Scalia and Thomas to uphold the Yoo doctrine on which Bush bases his actions in this case. Bush saw the need for a blindly loyal justice with none of that pesky "respect for the constitution gained by grappling with its particulars over the course of many years" business. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
The Democrats are now solidly behind OBL........I always said they were on his payrol just like France and Germany were on Saddams payrol...
__________________
Proud owner of .... 1971 280SE W108 1979 300SD W116 1983 300D W123 1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper 1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel 1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified) --------------------- Section 609 MVAC Certified --------------------- "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Here's what Bob Barr thinks about it:
BARR: What’s wrong with it is several-fold. One, it’s bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. BARR: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don't really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us. BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it's okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war. The fact of the matter is the law prohibits -- specifically prohibits -- what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf. BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Barr da bomb. Bot |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Well he cannot be considered a liberal.
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
B |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
It is nothing new, read about it in the New York Times.
Quote:
Alex |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hot off the press!!!!
December 16, 2005 Bush Apologizes for Phone Taps After 9/11 From the office of the President (2005-12-16) — President George Bush today apologized to the American people for signing an order in 2002 that allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to secretly listen in on international phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The New York Times today broke the story that after 9/11 the NSA tapped phonelines of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of Americans without court orders in an effort to trace communication networks discovered on computers and cellphones confiscated from terror suspects. “I want to apologize for allowing the NSA to do these wiretaps after 9/11,” the president said. “I’m sorry that I violated the privacy of some of these folks after terrorists launched attacks from our soil that killed 3,000 people, destroyed two skyscrapers and four jumbo jets, and punched a gaping hole in our military headquarters.” “My biggest regret,” the president added, “is that the NSA didn’t secretly tap these lines before 9/11. I hope my fellow Americans can forgive me.” |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|