Laws Schmlaws - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #1 12-20-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!

Back in the late 90's our beloved news media revealed how the U.S. Government was secretly ease dropping on particular Cellular phones and one in particular was Osama Bien Laden. Al Queda adjusted to the way that the U.S. Government was trying to spy. He began to repeatedly change phones. So maybe had the U.S. had been able to tap into a particular individual or individuals, such as Mohammed Ata here in the U.S there may not have been a 911. Now almost 5 years later it's okay for those defeatest to try and point the finger, no attack has happened.

Congress enacted the FISA act in ‘77, it also made it criminal for anyone in this country to use the power of the government to wiretap without a search warrant. It made it easy to get the search warrant with the FISA law, but it said you have to get the search warrant.

Napolitano: The president has violated the law in the name of national security, not wanting to violate the law, believing he’s doing the right thing, but he violated it nonetheless. He can’t pick and choose which laws to obey and not to obey any more than the rest of us can.

It wasn't the news media that revealed the methods, they just published what a senator had publicly said. The news media doesn't always know whether something is an important secret, that's not their job. And it wasn't the 1990's it was in 2001. And it wasn't a Democrat. I believe it was Orrin Hatch, though I maybe wrong. He should've been jailed then. It's not too late now.

Bot

Botnst · #2 12-20-2005, 07:27 AM

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

el presidente · #3 12-20-2005, 08:25 AM

Regardless of the legal hair splitting......Bush's approval rating has shot up eight points.

Honus · #4 12-20-2005, 08:47 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...

I'm not sure what the Democrats knew about the President's warrentless wire-taps, but what you say is consistent with their silly behavior about WMD intelligence. I, finally, gave up on John Kerry when he recently claimed to have been misled on WMD. W didn't mislead John Kerry about WMD, W mislead the country and made it politically difficult for John Kerry to oppose W's invasion of Iraq.

So, what you say about the Democrats is certainly consistent with their past behavior, but I'm not sure they are guilty on the wiretap issue. I think we have to wait and see on that one.

Botnst · #5 12-20-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'm not sure what the Democrats knew about the President's warrentless wire-taps, but what you say is consistent with their silly behavior about WMD intelligence. I, finally, gave up on John Kerry when he recently claimed to have been misled on WMD. W didn't mislead John Kerry about WMD, W mislead the country and made it politically difficult for John Kerry to oppose W's invasion of Iraq.

So, what you say about the Democrats is certainly consistent with their past behavior, but I'm not sure they are guilty on the wiretap issue. I think we have to wait and see on that one.

Of course we have to wait and see. We don't know that the claims of the NY Times are accurate. It's another one of those accusations by anonymous sources. It maybe true. I don't know. I'm willing to bet there is a lot of truth in it. Is it illegal?

The Whitehouse claims, and no senator or representative has yet denied, that the senior leadership and committee members of the intel committees from both parties were all briefed several times per year. Yesterday the best that Harry Reid could say was, yes, he'd been briefed but it was the president's responsibility to make sure it was legal.

Great job of oversight, Senator Reid. He knew his fingerprints and signature were going to be attached to the thing and he didn't question it? I'd sure like to sell that silly fool some real estate.

Bot

TimFreeh · #6 12-20-2005, 08:58 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.

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/senators 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 starting to think a horse would be an improvement on some of our representatives - at least a horse can't talk.

GottaDiesel · #7 12-20-2005, 09:02 AM

I'd say 90% of the public is so buried in NFL and Big Macs that they have very little time to understand their Bill of Rights let alone what "W" is doing.

It's only a Democracy if people want it to be. And right now, it would seem that is NOT what they want.

Look at the conditions we went under war in!

GottaDiesel · #8 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 · #9 12-20-2005, 10:19 AM

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

Honus · #10 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 · #11 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.