Daschle: Power We Didn't Grant

[altair4]

If this is to be believed, then it is clear that the current POTUSA has acted beyond his authority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

[Art Monk Fan]

If this is to be believed, then it is clear that the current POTUSA has acted beyond his authority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

Please read the detailed explanation posted by aRedskin in the thread below:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133934&page=2&pp=40

Please post an equally detailed refutation of this legal understanding of the inherent power of the Executive if you wish to assert that Bush has exceeded his authority. That Daschle did not explicitly discuss the NSA program with Bush is no revelation, and has no bearing on the legality of the program.

[altair4]

It is clear from that article that it is talking about surveillance relating to Foriegn Intelligence. That seems clear enough. What the POTUSA has revealed is that he has extended that to US nationals and citizens in the US. Domestic surveillance.

I do not see the grounds supporting that in the article you cite.

[portisizzle]

It is clear from that article that it is talking about surveillance relating to Foriegn Intelligence. That seems clear enough. What the POTUSA has revealed is that he has extended that to US nationals and citizens in the US. Domestic surveillance.

I do not see the grounds supporting that in the article you cite.

You would rather our President to stick his thumb up his ass and wait for another 9/11??

Then you dolts would be saying the President did not do enough.

Wow with a capital W.

STFU.

[Brown 43]

You would rather our President to stick his thumb up his ass and wait for another 9/11??

Then you dolts would be saying the President did not do enough.

Wow with a capital W.

STFU.

Port, that's how the Dems do it? :doh:

[Prosperity]

You would rather our President to stick his thumb up his ass and wait for another 9/11??

Then you dolts would be saying the President did not do enough.

Wow with a capital W.

STFU.

1 Straw man

2 insults

1 scare tactic/appeal to emotion

0 contributions to the thread

----

good to see Daschle is still alive

[portisizzle]

1 Straw man

2 insults

1 scare tactic/appeal to emotion

0 contributions to the thread

1 official Nancy Pelosi asshat wearer.

Enough said.

[Prosperity]

1 official Nancy Pelosi asshat wearer.

Enough said.

I am not going to stoop to your level, troll

[portisizzle]

I am not going to stoop to your level, troll

:applause: Merry Christmas!!

[Cdowwe]

1 official Nancy Pelosi asshat wearer.

Enough said.

:laugh:

[Prosperity]

:applause: Merry Christmas!!

thank you, merry christmas to you to, have a happy new year

[portisizzle]

thank you, merry christmas to you to, have a happy new year

So are we good now??

[Prosperity]

So are we good now??

yeah why not :laugh:

[portisizzle]

yeah why not :laugh:

[Cdowwe]

This is what the Christmas season is all about...getting along.

[BlueTalon]

It is clear from that article that it is talking about surveillance relating to Foriegn Intelligence. That seems clear enough. What the POTUSA has revealed is that he has extended that to US nationals and citizens in the US. Domestic surveillance.

I do not see the grounds supporting that in the article you cite.

The article is not talking about foreign intelligence -- we already had mechanisms in place for dealing with foreign intelligence. But let's set aside for a moment the accuracy of your observation.

When "Foreign Intelligence" interacts with "US Nationals", what are we supposed to do? Please give us your best understanding of how things are supposed to work in that case.

[altair4]

When "Foreign Intelligence" interacts with "US Nationals", what are we supposed to do? Please give us your best understanding of how things are supposed to work in that case.

This is too broad a question. If the Israeli Prime Minister comes to town and has a State Dinner with the POTUSA, etc...then I guess they sit down, eat and talk.

But I think you have some darker, but still undefined scenario in mind. Perhaps you can be more specific?

[Prosperity]

This is too broad a question. If the Israeli Prime Minister comes to town and has a State Dinner with the POTUSA, etc...then I guess they sit down, eat and talk.

But I think you have some darker, but still undefined scenario in mind. Perhaps you can be more specific?

dinner + a movie, and a night of hot political love making

I think that is what BT was referring to, but I don;t know why you would want Ariel Sharon, whatever floats your boat.

[Art Monk Fan]

It is clear from that article that it is talking about surveillance relating to Foriegn Intelligence. That seems clear enough. What the POTUSA has revealed is that he has extended that to US nationals and citizens in the US. Domestic surveillance.

I do not see the grounds supporting that in the article you cite.

The President has made it clear that the NSA program is involved in surveillance of U.S. nationals engaged in international communications. The article cited clearly covers foreign intelligence gathering (international and foreign being the key words) and explicitly mentions collaborators, i.e. U.S. nationals.

[BlueTalon]

This is too broad a question. If the Israeli Prime Minister comes to town and has a State Dinner with the POTUSA, etc...then I guess they sit down, eat and talk.

But I think you have some darker, but still undefined scenario in mind. Perhaps you can be more specific?

I suppose this is a tiny example of a larger problem liberals have. They seem to be very good at telling us what they're against, but not so good at telling us what they're for.

Think of my question in the context of this thread (nowhere was a state dinner mentioned). If a private US citizen communicates with a foreign national known to be associated with a terrorist organization, what are we supposed to do? (You can even add a time-critical element.) Please give us your best understanding of how things are supposed to work in that case.

[Prosperity]

I suppose this is a tiny example of a larger problem liberals have. They seem to be very good at telling us what they're against, but not so good at telling us what they're for.

Think of my question in the context of this thread (nowhere was a state dinner mentioned). If a private US citizen communicates with a foreign national known to be associated with a terrorist organization, what are we supposed to do? (You can even add a time-critical element.) Please give us your best understanding of how things are supposed to work in that case.

I say go ahead and tap them, get a warrant afterwords, if a warrant isn't given than the evidence can't be used in a trial.

[altair4]

It seems pretty clear in that circumstance that FISA allows the President to monitor the wire, as long as he gets a warrent from the secret court within 3 days. That does not seem overly-burdensome to me.

[DCRunner]

You would rather our President to stick his thumb up his ass and wait for another 9/11??

Then you dolts would be saying the President did not do enough.

Wow with a capital W.

STFU.

Do you think this helps?

There are too many experts in the field who are saying that the President has all the power and tools necessary to prevent terrorist activities without breaking the law or violating the rights of American citizens or even torturing alleged but not proven "enemy combatants."

There will never be 100% capability to stop terrorist activity. We seemingly had the tools necessary and the facts necessary to prevent 9/11 BEFORE 9/11 ever happened and yet we failed to stop it or even anticipate it. How could they not have anticipated that. We had plenty of advance clues this exact kind of terrorist activity could and would happen.

We weren't lacking sufficient intelligence. We were lacking the common sense to understand what it all meant. For instance, they have been hijacking planes since what the early 1960s and we still refused to force the airlines to install secure doors and locks on the ****pits. Please. All this "intelligence" we scream about needing won't do us any good if we don't have the common sense to know what to do with it.

It seems to me the anally related activity you describe is exactly what we did before 9/11. This whole argument is not about intelligence gathering - it's about power and the refusal to understand or accept the nature of our form of government.

The most important duty the president has is not to prevent another terrorist attack (as much as don't want another attack): it is to protect the Constitution and the liberties we cherish. THAT is what this country is about - first and foremost. That's what takes courage - to stand for what we believe in in the face of terrorism and anything our enemies can throw at us.

I'm not surrendering my country's values and freedom to any terrorist. You can all cave in if you want.

[Thiebear]

I say go ahead and tap them, get a warrant afterwords, if a warrant isn't given than the evidence can't be used in a trial.

There we go then.. none have been.

Liberty is now on board...

Neeeexxxt...

[BlueTalon]

There will never be 100% capability to stop terrorist activity. We seemingly had the tools necessary and the facts necessary to prevent 9/11 BEFORE 9/11 ever happened and yet we failed to stop it or even anticipate it. How could they not have anticipated that. We had plenty of advance clues this exact kind of terrorist activity could and would happen.

We weren't lacking sufficient intelligence. We were lacking the common sense to understand what it all meant.

We weren't lacking either thing. What we lacked was a mechanism for putting the disparate pieces of information together or getting that information to the people who might be able to act on it, and the ability to act by those that did have the information, thanks in large part to barriers established by the Clinton administration.

For instance, they have been hijacking planes since what the early 1960s and we still refused to force the airlines to install secure doors and locks on the ****pits. Please. All this "intelligence" we scream about needing won't do us any good if we don't have the common sense to know what to do with it.

Well, it's not like hijackings were daily occurrences. But even so, I spelled out in a different thread why the liberal approach to airline security (disarm everyone, don't fight back, give the bad guys what they want and we'll all be fine) invites hijackings, while the conservative approach (make sure there are guns on the planes and shoot the bad guys) is a far more effective deterent.