Bush Admin: Constitutionality of Wiretapping Unchallengable In Court

[twa]

I changed the title for accuracy's sake (though the original wasn't too far off).

And ASF, I hate secret trials, but hell, it'd be better than NO trials at all to challenge the constitutionality.

No sweat , I really just wanted to know who the quote was from, it's not like I'm the thread police :laugh:

Bush does have to brief some of congress and issue the authorization under his signature...If SCOTUS even got involved it would likely be just to kick it back to the Executive and Legislature.

They remain wary of trampling on separation of powers.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Don't need your life protected by any government? Weren't you the guy wanting the government to lower your gas prices?

Big difference between not being happy about artificial price manipulation of a necessity and relying upon a government to fight wars to "protect" my life. I believe that gov'ts can be used of God but they must not be consfused with God themselves and in the end my life is in the hands of my God not Bush's, not Clinton's not Obama's, and not Guiliani's or Romney's.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And ASF, I hate secret trials, but hell, it'd be better than NO trials at all to challenge the constitutionality.

The secret trials I was refering to are the one's that try the people who were being secretly spied upon, I'm sorry but in order for the Executive to remain unchallenged then everything they do with the information they find must be held in secrecy including the prosecution of those criminals that they find.

[ACW]

The secret trials I was refering to are the one's that try the people who were being secretly spied upon, I'm sorry but in order for the Executive to remain unchallenged then everything they do with the information they find must be held in secrecy including the prosecution of those criminals that they find.

Agree here. Funny how they want to spy on everyone yet have everything they do secret :doh:

[twa]

The secret trials I was refering to are the one's that try the people who were being secretly spied upon, I'm sorry but in order for the Executive to remain unchallenged then everything they do with the information they find must be held in secrecy including the prosecution of those criminals that they find.

Why would they have secret trials?

I thought he was a dictator?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why would they have secret trials?

I thought he was a dictator?

He would still have to avoid being impeached and or ending up in prison and if it was found that he did violate someone's Constitutional rights....well they can't have that now can they?

[twa]

He would still have to avoid being impeached and or ending up in prison and if it was found that he did violate someone's Constitutional rights....well they can't have that now can they?

Well isn't it simpler for them to just disappear?

He is a totalitarian after all.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well isn't it simpler for them to just disappear?

He is a totalitarian after all.

You act like that too is an unprecedented idea; Gitmo, secret CIA prisons in Europe and around the world. This administration makes all sorts of people disappear. The problem comes when they are American citizens, people here tend to ask questions and call reporters and file lawsuits. But, Bush feels that he is above any accountability and slaps "Executive Priviledge" on everything as if its a "get out of jail" free card.

I'm sorry but I still can't believe that you are defending Bush's warrantless wiretapping even in the face of evidence that shows that its unConstitutional. And I just can't believe that you're willing to give up your personal liberties, and the personal liberties of others in order to maintain the illusion of security, for that is all that we have and illusion of security.

[twa]

We could argue over the constitutionality ,but w/o the specific details it would be pointless.

I would be interested in how a program he tried to conduct in total secrecy somehow provides a illusion of security?

If that was all he wanted simply declaring we listen to everything would be sufficient.

[Ax]

LOL!!! I wasn't always in the ministry. Remember I was once in the Army. BTW, are all ministers supposed to sit back and act like up-tight prudes? My guess is you'd then complain about that.:laugh:

No complaints here. Just not buying your bull****. You strike me as just another half assed self proclaimed man of God that's no closer to Christ than I, a non believer, am. Instead of speed reading your Bible, you might try following the teachings in it a little closer. I doubt you'll find much of the crap you spread coming from the mouth of Jesus.

This is the road to totalitarianism. Speaking of hypotheticals, have you seen the movie I-Robot with Will Smith?

Figured you wouldn't answer.

[Larry]

Figured you wouldn't answer.

He said, while not answering ASF's question.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No complaints here. Just not buying your bull****. You strike me as just another half assed self proclaimed man of God that's no closer to Christ than I, a non believer, am. Instead of speed reading your Bible, you might try following the teachings in it a little closer. I doubt you'll find much of the crap you spread coming from the mouth of Jesus.

LOL, oh now don't be bitter, its really not becoming of you. BTW, personal insults are not the best course of action. I personally don't believe I've insulted you personally in this debate or any other so I'm really not sure why you've taken this opportunity to lay out baseless insults at me.

Figured you wouldn't answer.

What you want me to answer a hypothetical situation where my kids are in imminent danger in the hopes that I will say "oh yes violate all my rights in order to protect my family!!!"? Is that what you're looking for? You want a fear based response, but what you don't understand is that my fear based response would be just as wrong for me as anyone else. Its funny that so many are all for going to war to protect freedom and our way of life, but when it comes time to actually put those freedoms to the test to see if the life that we've chosen to live is actually worth living, well ya'll just want to toss it out the window.

Would it be easier to violate the rights of people in order to protect people? Sure it would, would it be easier to ignore due process in order to convict criminals? Sure it would. Would it be easier to protect life if we lived in a police state where everyone is monitored and under suspicion? Absolutely! But is that the life we want? Of course it isn't, at least I hope not because otherwise that Constitution that we hold so dear as the guiding document for our way of life in this country is completely worthless.

BTW I'll ask again, have you seen the movie I-Robot with Will Smith?

[81artmonk]

I am constantly amazed at how, in many of the cases involving this administration, there hasn't been any evidence of wrongdoing and yet people still want to continue the witchhunt. I guess it works, it got Scooter Libby.

I guess the philosophy is, if we keep digging, eventually we will find something, anything that we can use against these guys.

Honestly, if the wrongdoing were so blatant and obvious, why haven't they found anything yet??

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am constantly amazed at how, in many of the cases involving this administration, there hasn't been any evidence of wrongdoing and yet people still want to continue the witchhunt.

81artmonk, are you kidding me? The position of the White House that is stated in this article is that such evidence that you want us to offer up in order to complain is apparently a state secret. So basically, you are demanding that we have to have access to State secrets in order to complain about the course of action that the White House has already admitted persuing (and is currently being legislated), otherwise we should just shut up. I'm sorry but that just ends up being a circular reasoning;

1. The evidence you seek is a state secret

2. You need state secrets in order to prove wrong doing.

3. You can't have access to that evidence because its a state secret.

How very convenient for the adminstration to allow them to cover up their violations.

I guess the philosophy is, if we keep digging, eventually we will find something, anything that we can use against these guys.

Honestly, if the wrongdoing were so blatant and obvious, why haven't they found anything yet??

Because they're apparently STATE SECRETS, and they tend to keep that stuff locked up, unless of course they've given you access to the basement at the NSA or CIA, maybe you've seen the files at the FBI, but I can bet that the vast majority of people never have.

BTW, and what if that digging does uncover a violation of due process and illegal search and seizure would you be ok with that?

[Ax]

He said, while not answering ASF's question.

Well we could answer each others questions with another question all year. I know that's what you like to do. But it's a better conversation when a question is actually answered first. Follow up questions are then expected. Not until.

You might want to try it sometime.

[Ax]

LOL, oh now don't be bitter, its really not becoming of you. BTW, personal insults are not the best course of action. I personally don't believe I've insulted you personally in this debate or any other so I'm really not sure why you've taken this opportunity to lay out baseless insults at me.

Not bitter. If my personal observations of you happen to insult you, maybe they hit their mark. BTW, I see your talking like a trucker, while being a minister, as an insult to those who actually try to follow the path of Jesus. I suspect that, unless you said so, which you often do, nobody would ever guess you were a minister by your (internet) actions.

What you want me to answer a hypothetical situation where my kids are in imminent danger in the hopes that I will say "oh yes violate all my rights in order to protect my family!!!"? Is that what you're looking for?

Just wanted to see if you might admit that there are instances where you would be glad that someone's "rights" were violated.

You want a fear based response, but what you don't understand is that my fear based response would be just as wrong for me as anyone else.

No, I'd like a practical, common sense response.

Its funny that so many are all for going to war to protect freedom and our way of life, but when it comes time to actually put those freedoms to the test to see if the life that we've chosen to live is actually worth living, well ya'll just want to toss it out the window.

It's funny that people don't realize that sometimes war means hiding behind a tree (phone line) with your musket (recorder) ready to ambush your enemy. Even when the custom at the time is to march down the middle of the road, single file, and die like an honorable British soldier.

Would it be easier to violate the rights of people in order to protect people? Sure it would, would it be easier to ignore due process in order to convict criminals? Sure it would.

So we agree that different times call for different measures.

Would it be easier to protect life if we lived in a police state where everyone is monitored and under suspicion? Absolutely!

No, and that's not what's being done either.

But is that the life we want? Of course it isn't, at least I hope not because otherwise that Constitution that we hold so dear as the guiding document for our way of life in this country is completely worthless.

That document we hold so dear has been amended, how many times? Just like the Bible, it's not in it's original form, and incorrectly interpreted more often than not.

BTW I'll ask again, have you seen the movie I-Robot with Will Smith?

Now that you, kind of, answered my question, I think so. But nothing about it stands out to me. Is there a point you were trying to make with it? I could watch it again.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not bitter. If my personal observations of you happen to insult you, maybe they hit their mark. BTW, I see your talking like a trucker, while being a minister, as an insult to those who actually try to follow the path of Jesus. I suspect that, unless you said so, which you often do, nobody would ever guess you were a minister by your (internet) actions.

Talking like a trucker makes me not a minister, ok, thanks for your professional opinion on what ministers talk like. BTW, you must have never read much of Martin Luther's material from the 1500's, and if you think that me describing what a "Ranger Wipe" is means that I'm not a Christian nor a minister, then you obviously have no idea what it means to be either of those two things. You should also try reading material from a Christian professor from Duke Divinity school a man named Stanley Hauwas who isn't so up on your version of piety.

Just wanted to see if you might admit that there are instances where you would be glad that someone's "rights" were violated.

I never said that I'd be glad.

It's funny that people don't realize that sometimes war means hiding behind a tree (phone line) with your musket (recorder) ready to ambush your enemy. Even when the custom at the time is to march down the middle of the road, single file, and die like an honorable British soldier.

Funny but I don't think it says anywhere in the Constitution that the rights described therin are conditional upon peace time, look the Constitution is either valid and good all the time or its not.

So we agree that different times call for different measures.

No as I stated above, the Constitution is either good all the time or its not good any of the time, easier does not mean its right. It would be easier to wiretap "suspected" criminals (not terrorists) all the time without warrants, it would be easier for police to enter their homes without warrants and without probable cause to search for evidence, it would be much easier and convenient for police to do these things but it is not the way of the Constitution. As such I am not in favor of suspending the Constitution simply because the Constitution becomes inconvenient.

That document we hold so dear has been amended, how many times? Just like the Bible, it's not in it's original form, and incorrectly interpreted more often than not.

So amend the Constitution to eliminate the historic rights that have been foundational to our way of life because those things have made our life inconvenient? Why is it that the Constitution is worth killing to protect and yet apparently not worth dieing for to live out all the time. It seems indeed that you aren't looking to protect America, or the freedoms here, or even our way of life, but instead you simply want to protect your butt and you don't care what you have to do in order to accomplish that.

Now that you, kind of, answered my question, I think so. But nothing about it stands out to me. Is there a point you were trying to make with it? I could watch it again.

Yes you should watch it again because it is a cautionary tale about what it means to suspend rights in order to receive protection, and it fits perfectly with your version of what we should do here.

[Burgold]

so if i were to tap someone's phone on my own, its fine because their conversation is public?

It is the Bush approved right to every stalker in America.

[Larry]

Well we could answer each others questions with another question all year. I know that's what you like to do. But it's a better conversation when a question is actually answered first. Follow up questions are then expected. Not until.

You might want to try it sometime.

Said the guy who's standard (only?) tactic of "debate" is:

• Invent a fictitious world in which there are only two possible actions:
  
  1. Do what I want
     
  2. Disaster
     

  [*]Demand that everybody must chose one and only one of those two options I've made up. No other options exist.

  [*]Phrase this universe in the form of a question (which you will only accept the two options you've created as answers)

  [*]Demand that no further discussion of the subject will be tolerated unless all debaters join you in the world you've created.

  [*]Declare your generosity, open-mindedness, and rationality, because you're perfectly willing to discuss the subject. As long as the discussion takes place in the world you've created.

The reason no one will "answer your question" is because everybody is intelligent enough to know that "agree with me or I'll kill your kids" aren't the only two answers.

You might as well be demanding that people answer the question "Does pi equal 3 or 4?"

[Popeman38]

Answer this: the people who are suing AT&T because they feel their rights were violated have presented what evidence that they were spied on? The answer: None. Because they have none. They are suing on a hypothetical. They are suing to invoke fear in other Americans.

[Larry]

Answer this: the people who are suing AT&T because they feel their rights were violated have presented what evidence that they were spied on? The answer: None. Because they have none. They are suing on a hypothetical. They are suing to invoke fear in other Americans.

Or, they are suing to protect the Constitution.

This may come as a news flash to you, but if the government is violating the Constitution, then I somehow think I've got an interest in that. Regardless of whether their spying on me, you, or Sarge.

When Bush mad Jose Padilla disappear, it affected me. Not because I had the faintest idea of who Jose Padilla was. But because I used to live in a country where the secret police couldn't make people disappear. And I don't any more.

And I think that's kind of important.

Edit: And is there some kind of place that "conservatives" go, to have their irony detector removed? Are you really claiming, with a straight face, that the folks who are defending the Constitution are using fear as their tactic? Or am I just missing the sarcasm?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or, they are suing to protect the Constitution.

This may come as a news flash to you, but if the government is violating the Constitution, then I somehow think I've got an interest in that. Regardless of whether their spying on me, you, or Sarge.

When Bush mad Jose Padilla disappear, it affected me. Not because I had the faintest idea of who Jose Padilla was. But because I used to live in a country where the secret police couldn't make people disappear. And I don't any more.

And I think that's kind of important.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

The problem that I have with where the Conservatives in this thread would have us go is that they have no problem what-so-ever with the Constitutional rights of "the terrorists" being violated, yet if the time ever comes that they themselves are viewed as the "terrorists" or the "enemy" then their minds will be change in dramatic fashion. Either the Constitution is good for all at all times or it is good for none at no time.

[chomerics]

I am constantly amazed at how, in many of the cases involving this administration, there hasn't been any evidence of wrongdoing and yet people still want to continue the witchhunt. I guess it works, it got Scooter Libby.

Are you kidding me? Open up your eyes, your ears and actually READ something for a change outside of your right wing sphere. Just because you don't know what is going on because you FAIL to both READ and ACKNOWLEDGE something does not mean it is not happening, it means your head is either buried in the sand, or it is buried so far up the GOP's ass you can see daylight when they open their mouth. . .

I guess the philosophy is, if we keep digging, eventually we will find something, anything that we can use against these guys.

Actually, no that is the republicans way of stalling things, that is how you get a president impeached for getting a BJ.

Honestly, if the wrongdoing were so blatant and obvious, why haven't they found anything yet??

They have, you are just too blinded by your own ideology to acknowledge it.

[portisizzle]

Actually, no that is the republicans way of stalling things, that is how you get a president impeached for getting a BJ.

Lying under oath.

[Larry]

Are you kidding me? Open up your eyes, your ears and actually READ something for a change outside of your right wing sphere. Just because you don't know what is going on because you FAIL to both READ and ACKNOWLEDGE something does not mean it is not happening, it means your head is either buried in the sand, or it is buried so far up the GOP's ass you can see daylight when they open their mouth. . .

Either you are turning your heads from a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are unaware of the caliber of disaster represented by the presence of a pool table in your community.

(I often think of that line reading Tailgate.)