Bush Admin: Constitutionality of Wiretapping Unchallengable In Court

[81artmonk]

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.

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.

I didn't say give him a pass. I said what he has done or is doing has the appearance of being not all above ground. It's your opinion that he is violating the constitution.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Gee, I thought the Bible was the book you followed. Please, guide me to the book and chapter where I can read up on the "Ranger Wipe".

You're cute, and kinda funny like a puppy if you really think that this has anything to do with anything. And if you really think that describing a "Ranger Wipe" is un-Christian then you seriously mis-understand Christianity. You are simply looking for anything to use personally against me in order to dismiss me somehow, but the thing is that you're simply making yourself look like a baby. Heck, if you want to find out how to come after me and my faith ask Chomerics, but this pitty pat stuff you're bringing here simply is not up to the task my friend.

Tell that to the millions of Native Americans, and African American slaves. Was it good then? Was it "violated" by the very men who wrote it? And many Presidents thereafter?

So don't give me the overly dramatic act.

How big you gonna build that strawman before you burn it down?

Naw, I prefer reality to science fiction.

Oh, come on now Ax, don't be so danggon simple. Its a cautionary tale very much like Orson Wells' 1984, its not "just" science fiction, it tries to teach us something, but apparently its not something you care to learn.

[AsburySkinsFan]

WEll that's where you are wrong. Hussien had ties to al Qaeda, and maybe wasn't directly involved with 9/11 but was in bed with Al Qaeda.

Ok, reality check, no, no, no, no and again just in case you missed it, NO.

There was no Al Qaeda - Iraq connection, no Bin Laden - Hussein connection, none, not at all.

Oh, that is until we invaded Iraq, then Al Qaeda showed up. Honestly, 81artmonk, you really should keep up on current events.

[Bucaro]

WEll that's where you are wrong. Hussien had ties to al Qaeda, and maybe wasn't directly involved with 9/11 but was in bed with Al Qaeda.

Wow, maybe you did not get the press release from the DOD, here is a summation:

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

Maybe if you stayed current on news and what is REALLY going on you may be able to have your own thoughts

[AsburySkinsFan]

I didn't say give him a pass. I said what he has done or is doing has the appearance of being not all above ground. It's your opinion that he is violating the constitution.

"not all above ground" well that's the understatement of the century. I'm sorry, but Bush acts as if he is above any form of accountability and this recent move and statements that there isn't anything that anyone can do to challenge his domestic spying is probably about the scariest thing I've ever seen in government. I mean really, I thought there were 3 separate but equal branches of government, not just 1 with two subordinates.

[Larry]

Now, now. I do understand that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

I understand that we've got pretty good evidence that a former member of Saddam's cabinet supposedly met with a known Al-Qaeda sympathizer. Once.

And there was that one other time when we're pretty sure that an Al Qaeda member was in Iraq. For a while.

[Ax]

You're cute, and kinda funny like a puppy if you really think that this has anything to do with anything.

No, it's your overall tone I see as un-Christ like, when discussing politicians and people you don't approve of. Especially when all you really know about them is what you've read, which isn't jack. Kinda like me and you. I know you're smart enough to know this. You're just not being honest with yourself about it.

And if you really think that describing a "Ranger Wipe" is un-Christian then you seriously mis-understand Christianity.

Work it into Sunday's sermon then Slappy. Or maybe have your kid demonstrate the maneuver at school for show and tell.

You are simply looking for anything to use personally against me in order to dismiss me somehow, but the thing is that you're simply making yourself look like a baby.

1. Your fraudulent persona dismisses you, IMO.

2. All babies are cute.

How big you gonna build that strawman before you burn it down?

What, you mean the Constitution didn't apply to ALL Americans then? Nobody's rights were "violated?" What about good/right all of the time?

Oh, come on now Ax, don't be so danggon simple. Its a cautionary tale very much like Orson Wells' 1984, its not "just" science fiction, it tries to teach us something, but apparently its not something you care to learn.

What, like how to go along with a war effort when the polls show it's the majority opinion, and then when the polls change in the opposite direction, you change your opinion too?

Wasn't that "The Stepford Pacifists?"

[Thiebear]

Wait: I'm of the right but not down with just ANY ole wiretapping.

I prefer the:

We did 700 wiretaps in the 1st year: here they are (FISA/Congress)

We did 1400 wiretaps in the 2nd year: here they are (FISA/Congress)

etc. etc.

Now that were busted we review the taps and the reasons and we go back to:

A wiretap can be done in case of extreme need and within 72hrs FISA notified for further approval.

It's not that freakin hard... IF you stop doing it halfassed you stop getting halfassed results.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, it's your overall tone I see as un-Christ like, when discussing politicians and people you don't approve of.

Interesting, because maybe you didn't know that Jesus called the politicans of his day a "brood of vipers" and that they had turned the Temple into a "den of theives". Sounds like he was being pretty unChristian at least according to your definition, but then maybe there's more to this thing than your shallow definition.......hmmmm.

Especially when all you really know about them is what you've read, which isn't jack. Kinda like me and you.

I'm smart enough to understand that people's actions are based upon their beliefs, as such I can read the actions of people; i.e. politicians, and tell quite a bit about them. Maybe you've heard of the adage, "actions speak louder than words".

Work it into Sunday's sermon then Slappy. Or maybe have your kid demonstrate the maneuver at school for show and tell.

Is the Tailgate supposed to be Sunday worship or show and tell for my 5 year old, I just figured that people here were adults maybe I was wrong. I mean I know you're using childish arguments here against me but that doesn't mean that we're all children, you maybe, but not the rest of us. K?

1. Your fraudulent persona dismisses you, IMO.

Whatever Ax, if you're going to continue with this juvenile, half-witted diatribe against me then we're finished. However, if you actually want to engage in the merits of the debate at hand then lets go, otherwise stuff a sock in it.

What, you mean the Constitution didn't apply to ALL Americans then? Nobody's rights were "violated?" What about good/right all of the time?

Sure they did, and those in power were wrong in their interpretation and implementation, so if you want to say that Bush is as wrong as those who wanted to own slaves and oppress the native Americans since they both were wrong in the way they used the Constitution, then I say go for it. But, personally I don't think I'd want to compare the mistakes of our past to Bush's mistakes and violations.

What, like how to go along with a war effort when the polls show it's the majority opinion, and then when the polls change in the opposite direction, you change your opinion too?

Wasn't that "The Stepford Pacifists?"

My shift in philosophy had nothing to do with polls, otherwise why would I choose pacifism; its much more reasonable that if I were just following polls that I would retain my advocacy of warfare, but argue that we shouldn't be using it in Iraq. But, then you think you know me so I guess you're right.

[PeterMP]

Sure they did, and those in power were wrong in their interpretation and implementation

I'm sorry ASF, but if you are trying to say that there was a misinterpretation or implementation of the Constitution regarding slavery that allowed people to own slaves, you are just wrong. In general, you seem unable to separate the concepts of right/wrong vs. legal/illegal.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In general, you seem unable to separate the concepts of right/wrong vs. legal/illegal.

You may be right, but I believe that I am able to separate the two, but I don't think that the two should be separated. IMO people seem all to willing to say, "hey it may be wrong but its still legal, so why not".

[PeterMP]

You may be right, but I believe that I am able to separate the two, but I don't think that the two should be separated. IMO people seem all to willing to say, "hey it may be wrong but its still legal, so why not".

Ideally, I agree, but as long as there are people like MSF in the world w/ their ideas of "right" and "wrong", I'll be happy to stick to legal and illegal.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ideally, I agree, but as long as there are people like MSF in the world w/ their ideas of "right" and "wrong", I'll be happy to stick to legal and illegal.

Ideally, I agree with you too, but in the end I have to hold right and wrong above legal and illegal. Sure MSF and I disagree on just about everything that isn't painted Burgundy and Gold, but the reason its that way is because we share the same understanding of right and wrong being more important than legal and illegal, the difference is that we disagree on what is right and wrong. When it comes to things like this in this thread both come into play, and IMO both the legal and the right are violated which to me is the major problem with the course that the Bush administration as taken.

[Ax]

Interesting, because maybe you didn't know that Jesus called the politicans of his day a "brood of vipers" and that they had turned the Temple into a "den of theives". Sounds like he was being pretty unChristian at least according to your definition, but then maybe there's more to this thing than your shallow definition.......hmmmm.

Even though I don't buy the BS anymore. I was raised in a fire and brimstone Methodist household. All I'm saying is, from your written words, it's very hard to take you seriously as a true man of God. So I don't.

I'm smart enough to understand that people's actions are based upon their beliefs, as such I can read the actions of people; i.e. politicians, and tell quite a bit about them. Maybe you've heard of the adage, "actions speak louder than words".

Yet you're not smart enough to realize that most of what you see and read from the media is manipulated in such a way, that damn near any story can be made to support opposite ends of the same story. It then falls to whatever side people have chosen as theirs, and that's the side they deem credible. You also are not privy to information that leads to some of these decisions, and shouldn't be. You also don't seem to understand how disinformation is a useful, and necessary tool of government. This ain't Sunday school.

Is the Tailgate supposed to be Sunday worship or show and tell for my 5 year old, I just figured that people here were adults maybe I was wrong.

I thought a minister was supposed to always be a minister. Or is being someplace where you can just be "one of the guys" again why you come on here so much?

Whatever Ax, if you're going to continue with this juvenile, half-witted diatribe against me then we're finished. However, if you actually want to engage in the merits of the debate at hand then lets go, otherwise stuff a sock in it.

Call it what you want. But I'd suggest a soul search. The Bible, like the Constitution, is constantly reinterpreted to fit mens own definition of what they want it to mean. I guess that makes you no different than George Bush, huh?

Sure they did, and those in power were wrong in their interpretation and implementation

Ugh, didn't they write it?

But, personally I don't think I'd want to compare the mistakes of our past to Bush's mistakes and violations.

Of course you don't. You have to hold to your illusions about him being so bad.

My shift in philosophy had nothing to do with polls, otherwise why would I choose pacifism; its much more reasonable that if I were just following polls that I would retain my advocacy of warfare, but argue that we shouldn't be using it in Iraq. But, then you think you know me so I guess you're right.

Yes, but using selective facts, a convincing story could be written supporting the accusation that you did exactly that. And if spoon fed the story over and over, the majority of people would begin to believe it. No matter what you said.

And THAT'S my point.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Alright Ax you're right............................

you reject religion and faith and yet you still feel free to lecture me how I'm supposed to be as a pastor.

gotcha.

we're done.

[Ax]

Yet you're not smart enough to realize that most of what you see and read from the media is manipulated in such a way, that damn near any story can be made to support opposite ends of the same story. It then falls to whatever side people have chosen as theirs, and that's the side they deem credible. You also are not privy to information that leads to some of these decisions, and shouldn't be. You also don't seem to understand how disinformation is a useful, and necessary tool of government. This ain't Sunday school.

About your change of heart concerning the war being tied to popularity polls.

Yes, but using selective facts, a convincing story could be written supporting the accusation that you did exactly that. And if spoon fed the story over and over, the majority of people would begin to believe it. No matter what you said.

And THAT'S my point.

Alright Ax you're right............................

you reject religion and faith and yet you still feel free to lecture me how I'm supposed to be as a pastor.

gotcha.

we're done.

Dang! I was hoping to get your response on these two assertions.

Oh well. HTTR

[Burgold]

Well, we can only make judgements based on the evidence we have and what we see. It is as dangerous to withhold judgement sometimes as it is to act precipitously. For example, the Bush Administration looked at an incomplete puzzle of intelligence and determined that it had enough to go forward and that the risk of not going forward was too great. Had they waited for those holes to be filled would they have acted at all? On the other hand, we've recently stopped several terror plots had we waited for more evidence to be even more sure would those plots have been subverted?

It's a hard call, but in Bush's and Asbury's defense it is sometimes a dereliction of duty not to act or speak when an accumulation evidence strongly suggests something. It is also a dereliction of duty to be completely trusting in any one source: be it government, a media outlet, or corporation...

[Ax]

Well, we can only make judgements based on the evidence we have and what we see. It is as dangerous to withhold judgement sometimes as it is to act precipitously. For example, the Bush Administration looked at an incomplete puzzle of intelligence and determined that it had enough to go forward and that the risk of not going forward was too great. Had they waited for those holes to be filled would they have acted at all? On the other hand, we've recently stopped several terror plots had we waited for more evidence to be even more sure would those plots have been subverted?

It's a hard call, but in Bush's and Asbury's defense it is sometimes a dereliction of duty not to act or speak when an accumulation evidence strongly suggests something. It is also a dereliction of duty to be completely trusting in any one source: be it government, a media outlet, or corporation...

Very well said.

[chomerics]

I've got to admit. Nobody on this site consistently accuses others of the things they are so completely guilty of themselves, better than you.

BTW ~ I hope everyday that a cure for Bostonitis is discovered before it's too late.

And the peanut gallery pops their head in again to show they haven't a clue, or the brain power to debate the issue!!!

Way to go Ax, way to show everyone yet again, for the umpteenth time, you have no argument, and no debate. Your sole purpose here is to bring down the tone of the board :thumbsup:

[chomerics]

WEll that's where you are wrong. Hussien had ties to al Qaeda, and maybe wasn't directly involved with 9/11 but was in bed with Al Qaeda.

OMFG, Hussein was in bed with Al Qaeda now :doh: According to who??? Hannity? Colter? Limbaugh?

The mere fact that you actually believe this, shows how deep the brainwashing seeps into your brain. I am actually surprised you even said "maybe" he wasn't involved with 9-11, I mean you truly believe he was right :doh:

And there you have it, the perfect example of why the right wing media is a threat to our country, and just how ignorant their followers are.

[chomerics]

Wait: I'm of the right but not down with just ANY ole wiretapping.

I prefer the:

We did 700 wiretaps in the 1st year: here they are (FISA/Congress)

We did 1400 wiretaps in the 2nd year: here they are (FISA/Congress)

etc. etc.

Now that were busted we review the taps and the reasons and we go back to:

A wiretap can be done in case of extreme need and within 72hrs FISA notified for further approval.

It's not that freakin hard... IF you stop doing it halfassed you stop getting halfassed results.

For once we agree.

[chomerics]

Stop saying that I defend every action. He overstepped. Doesn't mean an entire side of intel collection should be stopped.

Christ, nobody is saying that either Pope this is the third time you have tried to tell me what my position is!!!! if you had stated this from the beginning, and actually comprehended what we were saying, instead of coming out on the defense, you would see we are in agreement.

instead you went of, told me I don't know what I am talking about in FOUR different posts, and then concluded with agreeing with me. :doh:

Is it so hard to say "I agree he should have sought warrants in the cases he did not, it was illegal, and there should be oversight"? Or is that too hard to muster up?

[Popeman38]

Christ, nobody is saying that either Pope this is the third time you have tried to tell me what my position is!!!! if you had stated this from the beginning, and actually comprehended what we were saying, instead of coming out on the defense, you would see we are in agreement.

instead you went of, told me I don't know what I am talking about in FOUR different posts, and then concluded with agreeing with me. :doh:

Is it so hard to say "I agree he should have sought warrants in the cases he did not, it was illegal, and there should be oversight"? Or is that too hard to muster up?

"I agree he should have sought warrants in the cases he did not." I stop there. I never claimed he hasn't overstepped. I simply disagree with your assertion that there is no oversight. And you will not convince me otherwise. Your own source ststed that a judge raised objections and had the program suspended until it was updated and reformed enogh to meet the requirements of the Judiciary. That, in and of itself, is oversight. And I maintain that you are speaking of a program that you do not have direct or complete knowledge of. Like I said before, I defer to your knowledge of certain things in this world. I will not defer to you on this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Very well said.

So I guess you think you would have been derelict in your duty if you didn't make personal attacks on me? WTG. :applause:

[Ax]

And the peanut gallery pops their head in again to show they haven't a clue, or the brain power to debate the issue!!!

Way to go Ax, way to show everyone yet again, for the umpteenth time, you have no argument, and no debate. Your sole purpose here is to bring down the tone of the board :thumbsup:

The peanut gallery would like to ask, do you, or anybody you know, work directly with, or for, the POTUS on a daily basis?

(Military membership alone, does not qualify)

If yes, I defer to you. If no, you don't know WTF you are talking about when it comes to this, or any other administration. Your entire arsenal is, Me Good, Republican's Bad, Bush Even Worse. Based on, "I read it in the paper." Doesn't take any brain power at all to drive that motor.

Debate? With you, there is no debate. You are better, and smarter than anyone else. Just ask you.

I do however find your shreiking, at times, strangely entertaining. If I were ever to be named King, you would serve two positions in my kingdom.

Minister of Propaganda, and Court Jester. You are excellent at being both.