Laws Schmlaws - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

GottaDiesel · #16 12-20-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

I'm inclined to agree that Mr Bush broke the law and there should be consequences but I agree the plot has taken an interesting turn with the revelation the the opposing party had been briefed on these operations right from the beginning. To my non-legal mind that seems to make them part of the crime.

I heard a quote from one of the congressmen on the news this morning - he was trying to jump into a spider-hole by saying that he had taken the opportunity to review his notes from one of the meetings and he noticed that he had made some notes indicating he thought the bugging might not be legal. Bold action indeed - How can anybody take anything Congress does seriously? Many of the quotes I hear from Congress people seem like they were written by the staff of the Daily Show or Saturday night live. Remeber right before the Roman empire went down the tubes they actually had a horse installed as a member of the senate. I'm not sure we are too far away from this standard....

Wow! I'm surprised to see you write this!!!! You are usually VERY pro Bush and Israel!!! Looks like you have started to see the light! This is a great day!

raymr · #17 12-20-2005, 10:19 AM

Who needs democracy when you can get extra mayo and fries?

Honus · #18 12-20-2005, 10:29 AM

www.dailykos.com has this quote from Alberto Gonzales:

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

So, which is it? Congress gave him the authority he needed? Or they couldn't ask for the authority because Congress would have refused?

Gonzalez wouldn't know a good faith argument if it bit him.

charlie7 · #19 12-20-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The political part of this imbroglio that I'm enjoying is watching those coward-assed Democrats who knew about this from the beginning. Now they're looking for spiderholes to dive into.

If this is all true and if it was illegal, then the president must surely pay a price for lawbreaking, even if it was for what he believed a good cause.

And if the prez goes down so should every member of Congress who knew and did nothing. They knew the law just as surely as the president. They were accomplices aiding and abetting.

Any betters?

Bot

Well see that is the problem. Just notifying any member of Congress does nothing. They(those seeking the wire tap) MUST get the Courts approval. This is what was not done.
So trying to blame any member of Congress rebublican or democrat is misplaced.

GottaDiesel · #20 12-20-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Who needs democracy when you can get extra mayo and fries?

You said it!!! Keep 'em red states fat, dumb, and happy.

TimFreeh · #21 12-20-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Well see that is the problem. Just notifying any member of Congress does nothing. They(those seeking the wire tap) MUST get the Courts approval. This is what was not done.
So trying to blame any member of Congress rebublican or democrat is misplaced.

Absurd.

Ever heard of a Senate OVERSIGHT Committee? Look into what it is and what it's supposed to do.

And while you are at it cut back on the Kool-Aid.

charlie7 · #22 12-20-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

Absurd.

Ever heard of a Senate OVERSIGHT Committee? Look into what it is and what it's supposed to do.

And while you are at it cut back on the Kool-Aid.

YOU are the one who needs to bone up on the law. The Senate oversight committee has nothing to do with the issue at had.
Read up on the FISA a little before spouting off!

Honus · #23 12-20-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

Absurd.

Ever heard of a Senate OVERSIGHT Committee? Look into what it is and what it's supposed to do.

And while you are at it cut back on the Kool-Aid.

Glad to see you're keeping such an open mind.

Is it your position that upon learning classified information about a classified program, Congress was supposed to hold public hearings? Even if that were true, which seems unlikely, Congress's failure to exercise oversight does not exonerate the President.

TimFreeh · #24 12-20-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Glad to see you're keeping such an open mind.

Is it your position that upon learning classified information about a classified program, Congress was supposed to hold public hearings? Even if that were true, which seems unlikely, Congress's failure to exercise oversight does not exonerate the President.

I never said it did - read my first post.

I'm not a senator so I don't know exactly what one does when you find yourself on an oversight committe and you suspect something illegal is happening. If you are supposed to do nothing or write a memo to CYA and then do nothing about the issue at hand then I guess we really don't need oversight committes.

If a democrat was on an oversight committee and had even the faintest notion the Mr Bush was violating the law I'm pretty sure there would be a news conference scheduled where the charges would be presented as fact within 15 minutes of the notion taking form. Since this did not happen I'm a bit skeptical at this point.

But I'm keeping an open mind...... Just ask GottaDiesel

Honus · #25 12-20-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

I never said it did - read my first post.

Fair enough. I took your second post differently than your first.

Quote:

I'm not a senator so I don't know exactly what one does when you find yourself on an oversight committe and you suspect something illegal is happening.

Same here. The main difference between your position and mine is that you are convinced that opposing views are "absurd" and the product of "kool aid." I don't see how you can be so dismissive about anyone's views when there is so much uncertainty.

Quote:

...If a democrat was on an oversight committee and had even the faintest notion the Mr Bush was violating the law I'm pretty sure there would be a news conference scheduled where the charges would be presented as fact within 15 minutes of the notion taking form...

Really? Even if holding that news conference was a felony? Seems unlikely.

Botnst · #26 12-20-2005, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

Well see that is the problem. Just notifying any member of Congress does nothing. They(those seeking the wire tap) MUST get the Courts approval. This is what was not done.
So trying to blame any member of Congress rebublican or democrat is misplaced.

The degree to which anybody did anythigng illegal has yet to be established. According to teh Whitehouse, Members were "briefed." Being briefed is different from, "notified." have members aid they were, "notified?"

Watch those spiderholes appear and disappear as folks go scurrying about dodging wrathful voters.

bot

Botnst · #27 12-20-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

YOU are the one who needs to bone up on the law. The Senate oversight committee has nothing to do with the issue at had.
Read up on the FISA a little before spouting off!

"OVERSIGHT" get it?

Botnst · #28 12-20-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Fair enough. I took your second post differently than your first.Same here. The main difference between your position and mine is that you are convinced that opposing views are "absurd" and the product of "kool aid." I don't see how you can be so dismissive about anyone's views when there is so much uncertainty.Really? Even if holding that news conference was a felony? Seems unlikely.

It's only a felony if they reveal means or methods. Few programs are Top Secret, codeword sensitive. I have not heard that this was any such program. It will come out if it was.

But a member of Congress, like any other citizen, is not bound by law to cover a crime. That was settled at Nuremburg.

charlie7 · #29 12-20-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The degree to which anybody did anythigng illegal has yet to be established. According to teh Whitehouse, Members were "briefed." Being briefed is different from, "notified." have members aid they were, "notified?"

Watch those spiderholes appear and disappear as folks go scurrying about dodging wrathful voters.

bot

Again what you fail to recognise or refuse to is this: Notification/Briefed is not sufficient. You have to go before the FISA Court and get the wire tap approved within 72 hours.
Ok, merely notifying or briefing does nothing to satisfy the statute. Well what else is the WH going to say!!!

Honus · #30 12-20-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It's only a felony if they reveal means or methods. Few programs are Top Secret, codeword sensitive. I have not heard that this was any such program. It will come out if it was.

I thought someone told me it was a felony, although I don't recall where I heard that.

Quote:

But a member of Congress, like any other citizen, is not bound by law to cover a crime. That was settled at Nuremburg.

That sounds correct, but it sure puts a Senator in a tough spot. Say a senator hears of activity by the President that the senator believes to be a crime, but for which there might be an Alberto Gonzales type of argument to the contrary. In addition, say that revealing the activity might jeopardize national security. What's a senator to do? In a case like that, I might be inclined to punish the President but give the senator a pass.