Jump to content

Defiant Bush admits breaking law


Balta1701
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah...I guess your right. What the hell am I talking about? Bush may be my friend, but your employer is Bush. :usa

To tell the truth I just get peoples' opinions from overseas. I respect people who want to do their part for the country yet, I don't support the war because I dont want to have any American shot in some far away land. What I don't believe is how people, in the United Forces, could support a draft-dodging, coke-tootin, smirk-faced, awwww-shucks, dumb-ass, lame-brain, ill-prepard, ill-equipped, momma's boy, soft-in-the-tummy poser, 'D'-gettin, father's-money receivin', illegal-abortion getting,paranoid hypocrit like that. Saaay, kinda reminds me of Nixon. Get 'em

Ok, I'm all right now. What's the word on the A&E Sox World Series DVD pack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 554
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 07:54 AM)
Of course the President can do this.  That has already been established.  Waco.

 

 

Did Clinton actually order those people killed or did it just turn out that way? Last I remember they all died in the fire they set themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2006 -> 10:51 PM)
Newsweek's running a version on this story I've brought up...can the President order a killing on U.S. soil?

 

This is not new, and I'm actually OK with the possibility, under certain circumstances. Waco was brought up as one possibility, though I think that was a botched deal, and I doubt the Prez ordered any sort of firebombing.

 

Think about a police situation involving an Al Qaeda suspect. What if we had info that he/she was on the way to a target? You better believe the Prez would send the word down the line to all levels of law enforcement: kill the bastard. And so it should be.

 

Heck, even high level police officials have the authority to order a kill in extreme circumstances. Again, it would have to be in defense of imminent deadly harm, but it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not assassination. That's self-defense, and that's the only time when a government agent has the right to use deadly force in the United States. One of the big differences between us and the people we fight against is that we don't believe in killing those who oppose us. Especially within our country.

 

When we start doing that, we start becoming the enemy we claim to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 10:29 AM)
That is not assassination. That's self-defense, and that's the only time when a government agent has the right to use deadly force in the United States. One of the big differences between us and the people we fight against is that we don't believe in killing those who oppose us. Especially within our country.

 

When we start doing that, we start becoming the enemy we claim to fight.

 

I agree completely. If the suspect is not about to do something bad, then you can't just kill him. You arrest, or track, or deport, or extradite, or whatever else can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 10:36 AM)
Even if he's about to something bad, you can't just kill him. He has to literally be holding the detantor to the bomb or a gun pointed at someone and about to pull the trigger. It has to be a split second away, not minutes or hours.

 

I'm not sure I agree. If its minutes or hours, and you are not able to detain him, then you kill him. But obviously your first choice is to detain if possible. But if some guy is trying on his dynamite vest in an apartment somewhere, and just received a call saying "go do it", you probably have to shoot him right there. Once that vest is on, if the cops show up to detain him, they'll all die with him.

 

The general rule to follow is imminent deadly harm that cannot be stopped with a lower level of force. in that circumstance, regardless of timeframe, you shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Republicans here will be happy to know that despite the fact that Specter says he thinks the program was illegal and the fact that he's holding those hearings, he's already doing everything he can to make sure nothing actually happens because of them.

 

He's first of all prevented the Attorney General from having to testify under oath, the obvious reprocussion of which is that if he chooses to lie to the committee, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and he's also preventing video of previous statements by the President and AG from being shown (they have the transcripts, but video always works vastly better in a TV world as you know.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 12:10 PM)
Well, the Republicans here will be happy to know that despite the fact that Specter says he thinks the program was illegal and the fact that he's holding those hearings, he's already doing everything he can to make sure nothing actually happens because of them.

 

He's first of all prevented the Attorney General from having to testify under oath, the obvious reprocussion of which is that if he chooses to lie to the committee, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and he's also preventing video of previous statements by the President and AG from being shown (they have the transcripts, but video always works vastly better in a TV world as you know.)

 

While thoroughly depressing, this comes as a surprise to noone, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 05:10 PM)
Well, the Republicans here will be happy to know that despite the fact that Specter says he thinks the program was illegal and the fact that he's holding those hearings, he's already doing everything he can to make sure nothing actually happens because of them.

 

He's first of all prevented the Attorney General from having to testify under oath, the obvious reprocussion of which is that if he chooses to lie to the committee, there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and he's also preventing video of previous statements by the President and AG from being shown (they have the transcripts, but video always works vastly better in a TV world as you know.)

I still can't see what all the fuss is about!

 

I really wish the real facts would come out, damned or be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 11:08 AM)
I still can't see what all the fuss is about!

 

I really wish the real facts would come out, damned or be damned.

The ONLY way you're going to get that right now seems to be a special prosecutor. Gonzalez is not going to tell the truth and the white house is not going to hand over documents if the Republicans won't make them testify under oath with the threat of perjury charges and subpoena power over documents. They've proven for 3 years, and they're proving again today, that they're more interested in protecting the White House than almost anything else, because if they lose the White House, they lose the ability to slide in all of their little pet projects and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

    FEINSTEIN: Can the president suspend, in secret or otherwise, the application of Section 503 of the National Security Act, which states that no covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media? In other words, can he engage in otherwise illegal propaganda?

 

    GONZALES: Senator, this will probably be my response to all of your questions of these kind of hypotheticals. Questions as to whether or not — can Congress pass a statute that is in tension with the President’s constitutional authority? Those are very, very difficult questions, and for me to answer those questions sort of off the cuff, I think would not be responsible.

Link with video. Edited by Balta1701
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 01:22 PM)
Oh, come on.  The Democrats and "liberals" did that themselves by disclosing this program if you want to be technical.  But I'm sure they're heros for standing up against our DICKtator president, right?

Huh? The Democrats in the government conducted an orchestrated, covert plan to engage in illegal propaganda by disclosing the program? Then what the hell happened when Mr. Bush came out the next day, gave more details about the thing, and proudly said yes I'm doing it and FU! (hence, the day that this thread was started and it became something more than a report in the NYT)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 01:34 PM)
It wasn't the Democrats who leaked this story, it was an NSA whistleblower. But I'm sure he's a Democrat too.

Actually, it was quite a few of them. The NYT held onto that story for months, and heard the same thing over and over again from people who knew the details of the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his State of the Union address, President Bush claimed, “Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.”

 

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) pressed Gonzales to determine whether there is any evidence to justify this claim:

 

    FEINGOLD: Let me first ask, do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FISA, since 1978, when FISA was passed?

 

    GONZALES: Um, none come to mind, Senator. But maybe — I would be happy to look to see whether or not that’s the case.

 

    FEINGOLD: I can take it as a no unless you submit something?

 

    GONZALES: I can’t give you an answer.

 

    FEINGOLD: Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2006 -> 10:07 PM)

You all miss the point. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY doesn't mean "wiretapping" but your whole argument is based on WIRETAPPING. Other presidents have intercepted communications via other means, yet, that's not relevant. That's my issue with "your" arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 12:32 AM)
You all miss the point.  CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY doesn't mean "wiretapping" but your whole argument is based on WIRETAPPING.  Other presidents have intercepted communications via other means, yet, that's not relevant.  That's my issue with "your" arguments.

 

Yep. And like Alberto informed us just today, don't forget the broad scale on which GEORGE WASHINGTON authorized electronic surveilance.

 

And now, your moment of zen:

 

Alberto:  President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized ELECTRONIC surveillance on a far broader scale than GWB.

:bang

 

Clearly Washington was a man ahead of his time. Either that, or it's just been so hard for these guys to keep the lies and the truth straight, that they've given up and now they're just winging it.

Edited by FlaSoxxJim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 12:32 AM)
You all miss the point.  CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY doesn't mean "wiretapping" but your whole argument is based on WIRETAPPING.  Other presidents have intercepted communications via other means, yet, that's not relevant.  That's my issue with "your" arguments.

 

The difference is that in the late 1970's the federal government did determine what is the proper procedure for domestic electronic surveillance of any kind. That's what FISA is, period.

 

This issue came up to the Supreme Court in the 1970s and they said that the Federal Government needs to determine procedures to help make sure that fourth amendment rights are protected. That's what FISA is.

 

I caught a little bit of the hearings on the way to work. I was surprised to hear Kennedy ask some serious, rather non-partisan questions. I missed the bulk of his time, so didn't get to hear his grandstanding, but instead ask the Atty General why it was that they didn't take the approach similar to the Ford Administration in the 1970s when this issue first came up... which was being an honest broker with its oversight committees. Kennedy didn't seem to have his mind firmly made up on whether or not this is a crime, although he didn't seem to think it ethical or right. I was surprised to see Kennedy not play the firebrand - but then again I just caught the last few minutes of his time.

 

Then Grassley came on and I found it sickening. He was ready to blame everyone for this problem. The media, whistleblowers for leaking the situation, outraged Senators who know for not leaking the situation if they felt it so bad. It seemed that to him everyone was at fault for this but the President, the NSA or anyone in the administration. I put on my Chiodos CD instead.

 

As much as people may or may not want to believe it, this issue is deadly serious. If a crime was committed here, if the law was broken (and in my opinion it clearly was), we need to hold those responsible accountable. If not, we need to take a serious look at what is and isn't acceptable for the government to do when it comes to surveillance - especially regarding the people protected by the U.S. Constitution. It seems like a small issue, but its a larger principle that's at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 7, 2006 -> 06:18 AM)
The difference is that in the late 1970's the federal government did determine what is the proper procedure for domestic electronic surveillance of any kind. That's what FISA is, period.

 

This issue came up to the Supreme Court in the 1970s and they said that the Federal Government needs to determine procedures to help make sure that fourth amendment rights are protected. That's what FISA is.

 

I caught a little bit of the hearings on the way to work. I was surprised to hear Kennedy ask some serious, rather non-partisan questions. I missed the bulk of his time, so didn't get to hear his grandstanding, but instead ask the Atty General why it was that they didn't take the approach similar to the Ford Administration in the 1970s when this issue first came up... which was being an honest broker with its oversight committees. Kennedy didn't seem to have his mind firmly made up on whether or not this is a crime, although he didn't seem to think it ethical or right. I was surprised to see Kennedy not play the firebrand - but then again I just caught the last few minutes of his time.

 

Then Grassley came on and I found it sickening. He was ready to blame everyone for this problem. The media, whistleblowers for leaking the situation, outraged Senators who know for not leaking the situation if they felt it so bad. It seemed that to him everyone was at fault for this but the President, the NSA or anyone in the administration. I put on my Chiodos CD instead.

 

As much as people may or may not want to believe it, this issue is deadly serious. If a crime was committed here, if the law was broken (and in my opinion it clearly was), we need to hold those responsible accountable. If not, we need to take a serious look at what is and isn't acceptable for the government to do when it comes to surveillance - especially regarding the people protected by the U.S. Constitution. It seems like a small issue, but its a larger principle that's at stake.

That much I can agree with. But my point is, there are some who want to say "GUILTY AS CHARGED" so bad they can taste it, and it taints reality. Let's find out what "reality" here is, then figure it out and do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...