Bush Admin: Constitutionality of Wiretapping Unchallengable In Court

[chomerics]

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.

You know I find it funny that someone who talks like a trucker is an insult to people who follow Jesus, yet Bush and his administration isn't. . .

LMAO, yea, like Jesus would ever tell people to shoot guns, vote republican and give their money to people so they can have illicit gay love affairs. Sometimes the arguments of the right are just. . .well, i was going to say laughable, but in all honesty, their utter blindness to their own ideology is quite sad. Party before country, that should be their motto.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Lying under oath.

Kinda pales in comparison to what Bush has done eh? But, then I don't expect you to agree.

[chomerics]

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 like that one Larry, and it is quite fitting. . . albeit a little to G-rated for my R-rated mind

[AsburySkinsFan]

Party before country.

Chomerics, Repbulicans have to be right otherwise we'd have to admit that the last 6 years has been one giant lie. Better to maintain the illusion than to face the bitter and brutal reality.

[chomerics]

Lying under oath.

Hmmm, lying about a BJ, or lying to the american people about the threat a country posed to us, which placed us to war. A war which has been an abysimal failure, cost the US taxpayer over $500+ Billion (ovwer a trillion once it is said and done) alienated us from the rest of the world (except for Britain, Australia. . .oh yea, and Poland, don't forget Poland) while single handedly killing over 3000 soldiers, wounding 50,000 others, creating a Civil War is a stable nation and killing over 100,000 Iraqis. . . Oh yea, while exacerbating the terrorists, failing to get Bin Laden, making Al Qaeda stronger, and removing our civil rights. . .

Yea, lying about a BJ is so much more wrong than that :doh: What a frigging joke.

[Popeman38]

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?

I am not a conservative. I am saying that the awsuit is based on fear. Why do you think they are suing? To protect the Constitution? I wish they had motives that high. They are suing to try to make a quick buck off the govt/phone company.

Ans speaking of irony, some of the very people who invoke the guarenteed right to privacy in the Constitution (nowhere is this clause specifically mentioned) are the same who feel that individuals should not have the right to own a firearm (a clause that is specifically mentioned). Irony, yes.

You are either a strict interpreter of the Constitution or not. Not sometimes. If you go back and research all of my posts, you will notice that my outlook on the Constitution has "evolved". The hypocrisy of some who argue for strict enforcement while posting in oyther threads how outdated it is, is off the chart. I have read and reread and reread the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Amendments over the last 18 months. I have studied and researched. Am I a Constitutional lawyer? No. But I have a firm grasp of how I feel the document was written, and how it has been abused over the years. Has the Bush admin overstepped the document on occasion? Absolutely. Has every President in recent years? Yes. However, the largest affront to the Constitution has taken place in courtrooms over the last 30 years. Constitutionality has become the new catch phrase of the courts. If it is not specifically mentioned in the document, the power is given to the people. PERIOD. That means that the democratic public is supposed to vote on what to add to the Constitution. Courts are not supposed to rule on what the people can do.

Those are my :2cents: . Agree or disagree, that is the way I feel after investing my time and effort to understand the document. You will not cause me to feel bad for stating my opinion. I will listen and digest your opinions on the document (I only ask that you do the same). Some on this board have helped me be critical of my views (from both sides of the aisle). I will also suggest that everyone read the laws that we ***** about so often. The update to the FISA law that all got their feathers ruffled about really didn't change much. It didn't allow the govt to tap every call into or out of the country as some claimed.

Rant over, carry on.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.)

Ok, I know I'm probably quite dense, but I'm not sure I follow this completely. I'll just go ahead and put my hat on. :dunce:

[chomerics]

Chomerics, Repbulicans have to be right otherwise we'd have to admit that the last 6 years has been one giant lie. Better to maintain the illusion than to face the bitter and brutal reality.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is a real character flaw of people. They can not admit a mistake, and lack the maturity, or intestinal fortitude to do so. Instead of saying a mea culpa, admitting they were wrong, they will continue to sing how great they are and continue to sell out country down the river to the highest bidder. . .heck they even will support selling our ports to a terrorist country if the price is right.

there are a few people where who actually put their countrybefore their ideology, and many republicans who abhor Bush because of what he has done to their party, but they are not vocal in the least, and the Portis', Mad Mikes, and AM81s of the world continue to drive the GOP even deeper into the ground.

To be honest with you, I am afraid the country will turn TOO far left, and get rid of things like NAFTA and welfare reform. I am afraid they will push through a health care plan without a way to pay for it. But to be honest with you, I would rather all of those than Iraq.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It didn't allow the govt to tap every call into or out of the country as some claimed.

Here's the problem that I have Popeman, by Bush's words even if the administration was tapping into every phone call and every email of every American citizen, there isn't a dang thing that any of us could do about it because aparently all that information is protected by state secrecy, so according to Bush they could violate every item in the Bill of Rights but as long as they did so without your knowledge then you have no ability to do anything about it. That sir, I have a serious problem with, and honestly you should too.

[AsburySkinsFan]

To be honest with you, I am afraid the country will turn TOO far left, and get rid of things like NAFTA and welfare reform. I am afraid they will push through a health care plan without a way to pay for it. But to be honest with you, I would rather all of those than Iraq.

Yep, I do believe that there will be a serious balance shift come next November, resulting in mistakes being made in the opposite direction.

[Popeman38]

Here's the problem that I have Popeman, by Bush's words even if the administration was tapping into every phone call and every email of every American citizen, there isn't a dang thing that any of us could do about it because aparently all that information is protected by state secrecy, so according to Bush they could violate every item in the Bill of Rights but as long as they did so without your knowledge then you have no ability to do anything about it. That sir, I have a serious problem with, and honestly you should too.

ASF, please refrain from telling me what I should have a problem with. Also, what is your knowledge of FISA? Have you read it? If you did, you would know that the govt itself does not do the collecting. It is public knowledge what goes on. Google the text of the 1978 law and the new amended law. Read it from top to bottom. They even attch sunset dates and timelines.

And do some simple math. Lets say there are 100 million Americans of adult age. Average adult makes 10 telephone calls every day. There are 10 telecom networks. That is 1 billion phone calls passing over 10 completely seperate networks every day. Multiply that times 1 million and you will have a rough estimate of the IP numbers. Now, you would never be able to store all that info, and you sure as hell wouldn't be able to analyze that info in a suitable timeframe. You think maybe, just maybe, they are selecting specific targets to spy on? And not just Joe Smith in Anytown, USA calling his dad to go fishing?

[chomerics]

I am not a conservative. I am saying that the awsuit is based on fear. Why do you think they are suing? To protect the Constitution? I wish they had motives that high. They are suing to try to make a quick buck off the govt/phone company.

I disagree in the motives, and anytime our constitution is threatened, I will back the people sticking up for it. Heck, i even support the ACLU sticking up for Fred Phelps, and Rush Limbaugh. As much as I abhore their speech, I would defend their right to say what they want.

Ans speaking of irony, some of the very people who invoke the guarenteed right to privacy in the Constitution (nowhere is this clause specifically mentioned) are the same who feel that individuals should not have the right to own a firearm (a clause that is specifically mentioned). Irony, yes.

Ummm, wanting to place mandatory background checks on people's ability to purchase a gun is not the same thing as saying individuals should not have the right to own a firearm. Nice try to divert the issue though.

You are either a strict interpreter of the Constitution or not. Not sometimes. If you go back and research all of my posts, you will notice that my outlook on the Constitution has "evolved". The hypocrisy of some who argue for strict enforcement while posting in oyther threads how outdated it is, is off the chart. I have read and reread and reread the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Amendments over the last 18 months. I have studied and researched. Am I a Constitutional lawyer? No. But I have a firm grasp of how I feel the document was written, and how it has been abused over the years. Has the Bush admin overstepped the document on occasion? Absolutely. Has every President in recent years? Yes. However, the largest affront to the Constitution has taken place in courtrooms over the last 30 years. Constitutionality has become the new catch phrase of the courts. If it is not specifically mentioned in the document, the power is given to the people. PERIOD. That means that the democratic public is supposed to vote on what to add to the Constitution. Courts are not supposed to rule on what the people can do.

Eh, you really should read the federalist papers Pope, you will get a great insight into what the founding fathers wanted in forms of a government, and you will also read some incredible debates on both sides of the issues. There were a lot of great minds who wrote them, Hamilton, Jays, Madison, Jefferson et all. It is an incredible resource, and I would venture to say it is a much better resource than the constitution itself.

what we have now is the placement of one branch of power over the other three, which is unprecedented over the history of our government. We have a leader who has stated that there is no law he needs to obied by. That is not what our government was intended for, and it was what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. By placing his men in all key positions, he allowed himself to be above the law, and came up with a convenient excuse to avoid it. It is a travesty to our laws, and they should all be brought up on treason charges. The Administration has basically made a psudo-dictatorship our of our government, it is in a fascist mold where industry controls the govt's actions. If it were not for the landslide democrat victories, there would be absolutely NO checks on this branch and they could continue to erode our rights ala big brother.

Those are my :2cents: . Agree or disagree, that is the way I feel after investing my time and effort to understand the document. You will not cause me to feel bad for stating my opinion. I will listen and digest your opinions on the document (I only ask that you do the same). Some on this board have helped me be critical of my views (from both sides of the aisle). I will also suggest that everyone read the laws that we ***** about so often. The update to the FISA law that all got their feathers ruffled about really didn't change much. It didn't allow the govt to tap every call into or out of the country as some claimed.

Rant over, carry on.

The problem is that FISA is being ignored anyway Popeman, so what good is the law if a person says it doesn't pertain to him because of executive privilege?

[chomerics]

ASF, please refrain from telling me what I should have a problem with. Also, what is your knowledge of FISA? Have you read it? If you did, you would know that the govt itself does not do the collecting. It is public knowledge what goes on. Google the text of the 1978 law and the new amended law. Read it from top to bottom. They even attch sunset dates and timelines.

And do some simple math. Lets say there are 100 million Americans of adult age. Average adult makes 10 telephone calls every day. There are 10 telecom networks. That is 1 billion phone calls passing over 10 completely seperate networks every day. Multiply that times 1 million and you will have a rough estimate of the IP numbers. Now, you would never be able to store all that info, and you sure as hell wouldn't be able to analyze that info in a suitable timeframe. You think maybe, just maybe, they are selecting specific targets to spy on? And not just Joe Smith in Anytown, USA calling his dad to go fishing?

You don't get it Pope. The laws are not being followed, and there is nothing we can do about it as citizens. Just because the law is on the books does not mean it is followed. There are already documented cases where a warrant was not sought, even though they have 48 hours AFTER spying to get the warrant.

It isn't the fact that they can't listen to all the phone calls, it is the fact that there was not and still is no oversight to what they are doing. If they do not get a warrant, even post-facto, how does ANYONE know who they are spying on? Do you take them at their word? If you do, then you really need to have your head examined, because they are anything close to truthful, and more secretive than the KGB was.

[81artmonk]

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. . .

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

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

:snore: Yeah, ok. same arguement tactic as Larry I see. I'm insane and I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell ya what, I'd rather have a president fudging the rules to protect this country than one getting orally satisfied doing nothing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, please refrain from telling me what I should have a problem with...

...You think maybe, just maybe, they are selecting specific targets to spy on? And not just Joe Smith in Anytown, USA calling his dad to go fishing?

First, sorry for thinking that you might actually have a problem with a President flaunting the fact that he can do anything he wants as long as he covers his actions with the label "State Secret".

And who are these "specific targets" how can you and I or anyone be certain that they are only spying on the real terrorists, instead of collecting material on opposition voices of citizens in this country? What accountability is there for the administration?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Tell ya what, I'd rather have a president fudging the rules to protect this country.

And there it is. 81artmonk would have the President disregard the Constitution.

[81artmonk]

Hmmm, lying about a BJ, or lying to the american people about the threat a country posed to us, which placed us to war. A war which has been an abysimal failure, cost the US taxpayer over $500+ Billion (ovwer a trillion once it is said and done) alienated us from the rest of the world (except for Britain, Australia. . .oh yea, and Poland, don't forget Poland) while single handedly killing over 3000 soldiers, wounding 50,000 others, creating a Civil War is a stable nation and killing over 100,000 Iraqis. . . Oh yea, while exacerbating the terrorists, failing to get Bin Laden, making Al Qaeda stronger, and removing our civil rights. . .

Yea, lying about a BJ is so much more wrong than that :doh: What a frigging joke.

R U guys still hanging on to that he lied to get us to war theory?? And you call me a right wing conspiracy kook! :doh:

[Popeman38]

You don't get it Pope. The laws are not being followed, and there is nothing we can do about it as citizens. Just because the law is on the books does not mean it is followed. There are already documented cases where a warrant was not sought, even though they have 48 hours AFTER spying to get the warrant.

It is actually 72 hours. And you are also basing this on what you read and see on the news. I have also stated that I know the Bush admin has overstepped the law. Doesn't mean that they are actively doing it, or that those are the majority of the cases.

It isn't the fact that they can't listen to all the phone calls, it is the fact that there was not and still is no oversight to what they are doing. If they do not get a warrant, even post-facto, how does ANYONE know who they are spying on? Do you take them at their word? If you do, then you really need to have your head examined, because they are anything close to truthful, and more secretive than the KGB was.

We have had many debates Chom. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. I respect your opinion and defer to your first hand knowledge on some topics. But this topic, you are talking about something you do not know about. There is oversight. Just because the oversight is not done in the public eye does not mean it doesn't happen. And to compare us to the communist Russia is obtuse.

[AsburySkinsFan]

R U guys still hanging on to that he lied to get us to war theory?? And you call me a right wing conspiracy kook! :doh:

"Buying the War" by Bill Moyers, watch it and be amazed, of course it can't be true because Bill Moyers is a liberal pinko commie.

[81artmonk]

And there it is. 81artmonk would have the President disregard the Constitution.

Let's put it this way. Let's say this admin didn't do anything it has in the past 6 years and we were attacked numeous times by terrorists. What would everyone be saying?? "oh I'm so glad he didn't disregard the constitution"? No, they would be crucifying him saying, why didn't he do more to protect this country. But because he is such a hated president, this is what we get.

Look, I don't deny that he has done alot of things that appear to be unseemly. Handled things poorly, what every you want to call it, but I honestly don't think he has or tried to be dishonest. Call me a kook, insane or stupid. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[AsburySkinsFan]

It is actually 72 hours.

that's 24 more reasons for them to get a warrant.

And I have also stated that I know the Bush admin has overstepped the law. Doesn't mean that they are actively doing it, or that those are the majority of the cases.

And......you're ok with this? Remember Bush swore to protect the Constitution not overstep it, not even in the minority of cases.

There is oversight. Just because the oversight is not done in the public eye does not mean it doesn't happen. And to compare us to the communist Russia is obtuse.

Where is the over-sight? secret courts, secret trials, secret prisons, yeah, the Soviet Union comparison was way off base.

[Popeman38]

First, sorry for thinking that you might actually have a problem with a President flaunting the fact that he can do anything he wants as long as he covers his actions with the label "State Secret".

And who are these "specific targets" how can you and I or anyone be certain that they are only spying on the real terrorists, instead of collecting material on opposition voices of citizens in this country? What accountability is there for the administration?

You can't broacast who you are spying on. That is like handing the playbook to the Dallas Cowboys and wondering how they recognize every play and proceed to beat your brains in 73-0. There are people that know. They hold jobs that you and I do not know about. The hold clearances that we can't. FOIA does not entitle John Q Public to sit in on meetings between DNI and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[Popeman38]

that's 24 more reasons for them to get a warrant.

And......you're ok with this? Remember Bush swore to protect the Constitution not overstep it, not even in the minority of cases.

Where is the over-sight? secret courts, secret trials, secret prisons, yeah, the Soviet Union comparison was way off base.

Do you really want us to tell the world who we spied on at the end of each business day? Things have to be secret. If the general public knows, our enemies know. And if you can't comprehend that, then life is going to seem very unfair to you.

[PeterMP]

And do some simple math. Lets say there are 100 million Americans of adult age. Average adult makes 10 telephone calls every day. There are 10 telecom networks. That is 1 billion phone calls passing over 10 completely seperate networks every day. Multiply that times 1 million and you will have a rough estimate of the IP numbers. Now, you would never be able to store all that info, and you sure as hell wouldn't be able to analyze that info in a suitable timeframe. You think maybe, just maybe, they are selecting specific targets to spy on? And not just Joe Smith in Anytown, USA calling his dad to go fishing?

You mean everybody's phone bill doesn't contain a record of everybody they called? You couldn't do it w/ one computer, I'll agree, but they could clearly collect ALL of the data that on who EVERYBODY else calls, which alone appearantly would be illegal w/o a warrant (no listening into the call; just knowing who you called).

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/12/MNG0AIQRQ71.DTL

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/15/news/companies/verizon/index.htm

In addition, AOL does record every search that its users perform. They actually recently dumped the data onto the internet (intentionally) after removing things like names, user names, and IP addresses. Of course, using that information people were able to directly identify the person that had performed the searches.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Let's put it this way. Let's say this admin didn't do anything it has in the past 6 years and we were attacked numeous times by terrorists. What would everyone be saying?? "oh I'm so glad he didn't disregard the constitution"? No, they would be crucifying him saying, why didn't he do more to protect this country. But because he is such a hated president, this is what we get.

You propose this as if there is no ground in between the course of action that Bush has taken, and doing nothing, as if there was no other way to "protect" America from Bin Laden and radical fundamentalist Muslims, as if its do nothing or violate the Constitution.

Look, I don't deny that he has done alot of things that appear to be unseemly. Handled things poorly, what ever you want to call it, but I honestly don't think he has or tried to be dishonest.

What's interesting is that you think that we should give Bush a pass because he didn't mean to violate the Constitution; I'm sorry but ignorance is not excuse for breaking the law especially for the person who holds the highest elected office in our country.