It's shameful - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #1 12-31-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southernstar

NO that is not correct mi amigo! Clinton nor Carter broke the law like Bush did. Get your facts straight!

Ummm... Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight.

Clinton and Carter DID use this executive privilege, and it has NOT been proven that Bush (or Clinton or Carter, for that matter) broke any law when doing so.

Innocent until proven guilty..... remember?.....

Mike

Honus · #2 12-31-2005, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...Clinton and Carter DID use this executive privilege...

Wrong. What Bush is doing differs from what Clinton and Carter did.

Quote:

...and it has NOT been proven that Bush (or Clinton or Carter, for that matter) broke any law when doing so...

It's not a matter of proof. Bush admits the facts. In fact, he brags about them. It's a matter of whether his administration's actions violate the law. Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the details of FISA, but the legal arguments I have heard in support of Bush's position are silly, while the arguments that he violated the law sound quite persuasive.

Here's a link to a Q&A with a right-leaning Constitutional expert explaining why Bush is violating the law: http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf

Here's an admittedly left-wing website talking about the differences between what Clinton did and what Bush is doing: http://www.thinkprogress.org/index.php?s=clinton+fisa

Do you have any facts to support your claim that Clinton and Carter did the same thing Bush is doing?

mikemover · #3 01-01-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Wrong. What Bush is doing differs from what Clinton and Carter did.It's not a matter of proof. Bush admits the facts. In fact, he brags about them. It's a matter of whether his administration's actions violate the law. Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the details of FISA, but the legal arguments I have heard in support of Bush's position are silly, while the arguments that he violated the law sound quite persuasive.

Do you have any facts to support your claim that Clinton and Carter did the same thing Bush is doing?

It is well documented that ALL THREE of these Presidents have authorized wiretapping. Others have as well.

You are back to your old habit of putting words in my mouth. Nowhere in my writings have I "claimed to know all the details of FISA". I'm merely pointing out that you and many other finger-pointers have obviously already declared Bush guilty in your minds, when NOTHING has been investigated or proven in regards to this situation.

Of course the Bush-haters want to see him hung out to dry for this.
And of course the Bush-lovers wish the whole thing would just go away.

....As for myself, I'm all ears. And unlike YOU, I'm not slapping any "guilty" OR "innocent" labels on anyone before all of the laundry is done.

Mike

crash9 · #4 01-01-2006, 01:41 PM

Consider the significance of Public Law 107-40. In passing this law, Congress handed President Bush the power to wage war on several countries, should he so choose. Section 2 of this law states: “IN GENERAL. – That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States….” Public Law 107-40 is, in fact, a Congressional declaration of war on terror around the world. It also authorizes the president to do what is “necessary and appropriate” in terms of national defense. If Congress wants to change this situation, then Public Law 107-40 must be changed.

mikemover · #5 01-01-2006, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

Consider the significance of Public Law 107-40. In passing this law, Congress handed President Bush the power to wage war on several countries, should he so choose. Section 2 of this law states: “IN GENERAL. – That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States….” Public Law 107-40 is, in fact, a Congressional declaration of war on terror around the world. It also authorizes the president to do what is “necessary and appropriate” in terms of national defense. If Congress wants to change this situation, then Public Law 107-40 must be changed.

Yep.

Mike

H2O2 · #6 01-01-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

Consider the significance of Public Law 107-40. In passing this law, Congress handed President Bush the power to wage war on several countries, should he so choose. Section 2 of this law states: “IN GENERAL. – That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States….” Public Law 107-40 is, in fact, a Congressional declaration of war on terror around the world. It also authorizes the president to do what is “necessary and appropriate” in terms of national defense. If Congress wants to change this situation, then Public Law 107-40 must be changed.

Just what in thee hell is a a "war on terror" actually supposed to mean?!?!? Can it be any more ambiguous than that? Who, and or what is a "terrorist", and what constitutes acts of "terror"? The Iraq fiasco is most definitely an act of "terror". Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and "extraordinary rendition" are all most definitely acts of "terror". Who defines what "terror" is, and under what terms and contexts? This is beyond farce.

crash9 · #7 01-01-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O2

Just what in thee hell is a a "war on terror" actually supposed to mean?!?!? Can it be any more ambiguous than that? Who, and or what is a "terrorist", and what constitutes acts of "terror"?

The key word is "against the United States". If Venezula suspends selling crude to the US or if foreign bond holders begin dumping bonds - would that be considered a terrorist act? This creates a very open ended authority. I'm guessing terror means anything that would advance thru fear, any cause that may be contrary to where ever we've determined our best interest to be.

mikemover · #8 01-01-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2O2

Just what in thee hell is a a "war on terror" actually supposed to mean?!?!? Can it be any more ambiguous than that? Who, and or what is a "terrorist", and what constitutes acts of "terror"? The Iraq fiasco is most definitely an act of "terror". Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and "extraordinary rendition" are all most definitely acts of "terror". Who defines what "terror" is, and under what terms and contexts? This is beyond farce.

Fine. As it reads here, perhaps out-of-context, perhaps not, it looks very "open to interpretation" to me as well.

Don't like it? Then work to change the law.

But please don't whine about the President (or anyone else) having "broken the law" when it has not been proven that he has done so.

Mike

Honus · #9 01-01-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

It is well documented that ALL THREE of these Presidents have authorized wiretapping. Others have as well.

How about warrantless wiretaps of US citizens? You have evidence that other Presidents did that? Nixon probably did, but you know what happened to him.

Quote:

You are back to your old habit of putting words in my mouth. Nowhere in my writings have I "claimed to know all the details of FISA"...

I was just jerking your chain. You make it so easy by being so overconfident in your knowledge of issues and so disrespectful of others.

Quote:

...I'm merely pointing out that you and many other finger-pointers have obviously already declared Bush guilty in your minds...

I've done no such thing. I said that arguments I've heard against Bush are stronger than the arguments in support of Bush (BTW, have you offered any arguments in favor of Bush on this issue? If so, I missed them.) I have not formed any firm opinions on innocence or guilt. I would prefer to actually know what I'm talking about before I do that.

Quote:

...Of course the Bush-haters want to see him hung out to dry for this...

Is that what consider to be the important issue here? Which side scores political points? Silly me, but I thought this was about the Fourth Amendment.

Quote:

...And unlike YOU, I'm not slapping any "guilty" OR "innocent" labels on anyone before all of the laundry is done...

That's silly.

mikemover · #10 01-01-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

How about warrantless wiretaps of US citizens? You have evidence that other Presidents did that?

No I do not.

Just as you have no evidence that Bush did.

And just as I have no evidence that he did not.

Which is why I'm calling you (and others) out for verbally "hanging him before the trial".

You seem to be interpreting this as some kind of defense of Bush on my part, which it certainly is not.

I feel that if he is proven guilty of violating ANY law, then he should suffer the same consequences that any other US citizen would suffer. But please note that "IF he is proven guilty" is the important qualifier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I was just jerking your chain. You make it so easy by being so overconfident in your knowledge of issues and so disrespectful of others.

Then you were "jerking my chain" by putting words in my mouth, which clearly is not conducive to good debate. Wouldn't you agree?....

I am also hardly "overconfident" in my knowledge of this issue. Again, I have never claimed to "know everything" about..... anything.

However, I DO know... quite CONFIDENTLY... that in the United States, people are to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Try to remember that.

Lastly.... My apologies if you feel you have been disrespected somehow.... But in my experience, respect is EARNED, not given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I have not formed any firm opinions on innocence or guilt. I would prefer to actually know what I'm talking about before I do that.

Really?..... Hmmm.....

Mike