Laws Schmlaws - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

NKowi · #46 12-20-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Hey..it was the left crying the Clintons and their Cohorts didn't violate any laws....(they did) however what Bush is doing has been done repeatedly under numerous administrations dating back to at least the Civil war...and the rights to do so are anchored in law and have been supported by the Supreme court.

Just becasue some lefties are afraid the DNC will get caught taking money like france and germany were is the solitary reason they reason they are so affraid of it.

Why else would they side with the Enemy who are terrorists during a war.

Now that you mention it, I do recall my roommate at UofO doing his thesis on Lincoln's electronic eaves-dropping of Jeff Davis' offices.

boneheaddoctor · #47 12-20-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

Now that you mention it, I do recall my roommate at UofO doing his thesis on Lincoln's electronic eaves-dropping of Jeff Davis' offices.

Try doing a little basic research....the DNC is NOT a source of information that even remotely resembles facts.

NKowi · #48 12-20-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Try doing a little basic research....the DNC is NOT a source of information that even remotely resembles facts.

Research. How novel. You, sir, are the proverbial pot if there's ever been one.

boneheaddoctor · #49 12-20-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

Research. How novel. You, sir, are the proverbial pot if there's ever been one.

Hey YOU are one of the ones arguing Bush can't do what nearly every other president has done sincve the Civil war.....that has Legal basis and has been repeatedly upheld by the supreme court....

or is your Bias showing again?

NKowi · #50 12-20-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Hey YOU are one of the ones arguing Bush can't do what nearly every other president has done sincve the Civil war.....that has Legal basis and has been repeatedly upheld by the supreme court....

or is your Bias showing again?

Hell, bone, I've said nothing of the sort. That said, you're half right. I would say Bush can't do it, no matter who or who has, hasn't or may have, done it in the past for one very simple reason; IT'S ILLEGAL - you know, against the law. You do understand that, don't you?

Botnst · #51 12-20-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlie7

First of all, we don't know that the Exec violated any law. If they didn't, I think most of us will agree that they abused it badly. Surely there's a paper trail, so we should find that out.

Second, we don't know whether or not Congressional oversight included briefings. That is what the Whitehouse alleged. Surely there's a paper trail, so we should find that out eventually, too.

If it was illegal or unethical AND the Congress was briefed, THEN we have a failure in ethics from the one branch and a failure in duty from the other.

1. Uh, yeah we do, they did not go before the FISA Court. So, uh yes that was illegal.

2. Refer to #1, AGAIN, this time I'll go slow...briefing does not satisfy the statute...nor is there any oversight....

Uh, you apparently are having a difficult understand what it is that Congress does for a living.

When they have Constitutional and statutory oversight, it means they have the constitutional and legal authority to look into how the taxpayers money is being spent in accordance to enacted law and Constitutional precedent. It i stheir obligation and duty and they are jealous of it. That is EXACTLY the point of presidential (and departmental) briefings. It is also EXACTLY the reason for Congressional hearings.

Now I assume after three or four times of having read that same thing, you are now clear on the Congressional responsibility?

Take your time and apply it to the presidential briefings concerning this current imbrogloi.

Bot

Botnst · #52 12-20-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

Don't be surprised if we learn that the administration, in a very Nixonesque move, indeed wire-tapped the Kerry camp and/or other political opponents.

If - repeat if - there's anything to the story as it is currently being reported, one would have to be quite naive to think that eaves dropping on political friends and adversaries alike is not a plausible next step.

Quick everybody, grab your rolls of foil and make hats to protect yourself frrom mind rays!

Bot

boneheaddoctor · #53 12-20-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

Hell, bone, I've said nothing of the sort. That said, you're half right. I would say Bush can't do it, no matter who or who has, hasn't or may have, done it in the past for one very simple reason; IT'S ILLEGAL - you know, against the law. You do understand that, don't you?

PROVE IT THEN....

what law where...and EXPLAIN WHY nearly EVERY president has done it...and why the Supreme court has upheld it...

Or is this what Howard Dean tells you to think?

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

END

better go after your Hero Billy boy... and Jimmy Carter

NKowi · #54 12-20-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

PROVE IT THEN....

what law where...and EXPLAIN WHY nearly EVERY president has done it...and why the Supreme court has upheld it...

Or is this what Howard Dean tells you to think?

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

END

better go after your Hero Billy boy... and Jimmy Carter

What on Earth are you talking about? Prove what? Your argument is nothing more than the one teenagers long have been using on their parents; so and so is doing is, has done it, whatever. The biggest difference is that you should, by now, be a thinking adult, and have moved beyond such drivel.

Botnst · #55 12-20-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

What on Earth are you talking about? Prove what? Your argument is nothing more than the one teenagers long have been using on their parents; so and so is doing is, has done it, whatever. The biggest difference is that you should, by now, be a thinking adult, and have moved beyond such drivel.

Lawyers have a fancy name for that: Precedent.

Bot

boneheaddoctor · #56 12-20-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NKowi

What on Earth are you talking about? Prove what? Your argument is nothing more than the one teenagers long have been using on their parents; so and so is doing is, has done it, whatever. The biggest difference is that you should, by now, be a thinking adult, and have moved beyond such drivel.

pull your head out of the sand...........and open your eyes....

YOU made the assertion it was illegal....so prove it? What law was violated? Can you present any proof whatsoever the president does not have that autority in time of war?

Southernstar · #57 12-20-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

END

Funny how the left wingers are suffering selective amnesia. Particularly the "Know it all" types like Charlie7 etc.........

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Read and weep BDB!!

NKowi · #58 12-20-2005, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Quick everybody, grab your rolls of foil and make hats to protect yourself frrom mind rays!

Bot

Gosh Bot, it's not like you, but you must have somehow missed where I said "If - repeat if - there's anything to the story as it is currently being reported".

I also said "Don't be surprised". Frankly, I'd be surprised if a thinking man like you would be surprised by such a revelation.

I suppose, rather than simply post the possibility I could have taken bone's tack, and simply stated that Bush had Kerry's offices wire-tapped, then demand proof that he did not.

boneheaddoctor · #59 12-20-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Read and weep BDB!!

SO PROVE IT! rather than rant patently false information put forth by the DNC.....

WHAT LAW WAS violated.....and show proof how a president does not have that autority in time of war.....when its been proven they do....and what do the Democrat have to hide? Are they in League with AlQueda?

WHere is the cry for an investigation of leaks of goverment secrets during a time of war.....the left wingers care more about AlQueda and its supporters than they do for US law and US citizens.

NKowi · #60 12-20-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Lawyers have a fancy name for that: Precedent.

Bot

In terms of legalese, yes. In terms of excusing illegal behavior...NOT!!!