'Domestic Spying' is political baloney from the left

[TheDude]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We had WWII won long before Hitler killed himself or Hirohito surrendered. We defeated the military arms and invaded the countries in order to win. (See my thread on Bush's brilliance of strategy)

Osama is the leader of Al Qaeda, an organization with which we are at war. It is not necessary to capture or kill bin Laden in order to win the war on terror. He cannot hurt us without money, people, and asylum. As we continue to weaken his organization, his money will dry up and countries will cease to be friendly to him, which will render him ineffective. If we captured him tomorrow, neither is there any guarantee that the war on terror would instantly be over. To think that he is the centerpiece of this is reckless and shortsighted. Winning the war is more important than wiping out a symbol. If he is killed he would just become a martyr, like Che Guevara did.

Wrong, wrong and wrong? I hope two of those wrongs are not towards Hitler killing himself and Hirohito surrendering... But you're definitely right that the war was as good as won before the suicide and surrender. But, if Hitler had been killed say in 1941 or 1942, don't you think the war would of ended sooner?

Either way though, that is irrelevant, we're comparing apples to oranges, WW2 was a conventional war, this isn't. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has an unending surplus of young men willing to listen to ass back-word rhetoric and go blow themselves up. As Mr. Wilson pointed out, his constant evading and threats serves to strenghted people to Al Qaeda's cause, the sooner he is captured/killed, the better.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Highlighting Democrats cover their stink trail is not newsworthy. Just typical.


Of course Democrats will always qualify their statements. How else can you have it both ways? Typical Democrat strategy. Just come out and say that Bush was right. AGAIN!


Bush Lied. Bush Lied. Sheesh. What did he lie about this time?.................................Can't wait. This should be good.


And please explain to me how you can be an American and not want this Country to do EVERYTHING it can to keep us safe?

"There you go again." Attempting to re-write history to fit your fictitious view of the world, and using the oh-so-typical fear-tactic of "your not an American if......" line of BS.

Show me where ONE DEMOCRAT (not including loudmouth Howard Dean) has stated that they want this wiretapping of terrorists' communications within the US stopped. If you CAN, then you can ligitimately label them a LWW pinko commie with my permission, because they would be in the extreme minority. Otherwise, STFU.

Was BuSh right in wiretapping AlQuida communications?? YES!
Is BuSh right in doing so ILLEGALLY?? NO!

Dems have been offering to mold the letter of the law to remove any abiguity about the NSA wiretap program and FISA laws. Why doesn't the BuSh administration take up this offer? I'll tell you WHY. Because: A) that would be the same as admitting that they were wiretapping ILLEGALLY (are they affraid this may lead to impeachment proceedings??? OK, we'll give GW a "get out of jail free" card to use, BFD), and B) The BuSh administration doesn't want to give up the "luxury" of being able to live above the law.

And YES, we ARE PISSED that BuSh LIED to us, AGAIN. He told us months ago that a wiretap requires a court warrant and that he would abide by those laws. Now he tells us that he didn't need a warrant to wiretap. It doesn't matter WHEN he stated his LIE, he LIED none the less.

 

[MonsterMark]

Otherwise, STFU.

Was BuSh right in wiretapping AlQuida communications?? YES!
Is BuSh right in doing so ILLEGALLY?? NO!

Dems have been offering to mold the letter of the law to remove any abiguity about the NSA wiretap program and FISA laws. Why doesn't the BuSh administration take up this offer? I'll tell you WHY. Because: A) that would be the same as admitting that they were wiretapping ILLEGALLY (are they affraid this may lead to impeachment proceedings??? OK, we'll give GW a "get out of jail free" card to use, BFD), and B) The BuSh administration doesn't want to give up the "luxury" of being able to live above the law.

OK, Mr. STFU. Is this our new civil tone? LOL. Right.


Anyway, Bush is right to wiretap and Bush is doing it legally. So you STFU and get with the program. Just the fact that you have to post "mold the letter of the law to remove any ambiguity" forces you to lose the argument.

Why is it so hard for the lefties to understand that it is not in our best interests to reveal all that we are doing to our enemies just so we can make sure that Bush isn't listening in on Aunt Mables secret pie crust ingredients.

Quite hiding behind the veil of civil liberties. Show me one case, (with all these rabid news journalists running around you'd think they could find one), one example where Bush has wiretapped a US citizen with absolutely no link whatsover to a terrorist. Show me one example. If you can't, STFU, because you know what, America wants us to keep doing what we are doing and if Bush could run again, they would re-elect him to keep doing it.

If you guys really are concerned about the law, then you have no argument. What this is all about is political posturing. Nothing else. So guys like Barry can run around screaming.... see, see, Bush lied again. Impeach him.

Just keep showing what pansies liberals really are and we'll see who wins in the voting booth. How you guys live with yourselves is beyond me.

 

[barry2952]

I've never met anyone that liked the taste of crow so much. How do you think the GOP will maintain its control with all the stink? Republicans are bailing left and Right. The Republicans I've spoken to are pissed because of massive spending and dramatic increase in the size of government. When the big cash dries up your boys will be second string.

 

[ToddG]

Was BuSh right in wiretapping AlQuida communications?? YES!
Is BuSh right in doing so ILLEGALLY?? NO!

I'm glad we can agree that Bush is right in wiretapping Al Quaeda communications. But you are wrong when you say it is illegal or is being done illegally.

There are two reasons why the wiretapping is legal. First, after the 9/11 attacks, Congress authorized the President to use all appropriate force to hunt down the Al Quaeda terrorists responsible for the attacks. Any reasonable person would read into "all appropriate force" the notion of spying on the terrorists using wiretaps. Without that ability, we would not know who to attack, much less when or where. It makes perfect sense to include this authorization when the Congress granted the President authority to go after the terrorist. Secondly, the Article II powers vested in the President by the Constitution includes the role as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Part of this CIC power is spying on the enemy, and that includes wiretaps.

Our Liberal friends say the president isn't obeying the law since he did not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That may be true, but it does NOT make the wiretapping illegal. Many would argue that the FISA law hampers his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, and is therefore nulled when it comes to actions such as enemy surveillance.

Part of the problem is that people do not understand that the President's Constitutional authority TRUMPS FISA. In other words, the Congress cannot pass a law that cuts back the Article II powers granted to the President. If restricting the President's powers is the goal when it comes to National Security matters, it must be done by Constitutional Amendment.

 

[MonsterMark]

I've never met anyone that liked the taste of crow so much. How do you think the GOP will maintain its control with all the stink? Republicans are bailing left and Right. The Republicans I've spoken to are pissed because of massive spending and dramatic increase in the size of government. When the big cash dries up your boys will be second string.

Really stepping out on a limb there eh Barry. Since usually all mid-term election wind up with the party out of power making gains in both House and Senate seats, it really wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that Dems might gain a couple of seats here and there. But wasn't it Bush's administration that actually GAINED seats in the mid-terms of 2002. How did your savior Clinton do in his mid-terms? Oh ya, I remember, he got destroyed and Republicans captured the House for the first time in 40+ years in '94. He did gain a few in '98 to his credit (I guess). Bush gained in 2002. So what does this mean? It means that in the last 36 mid-term elections, the Party sitting on the outside gained seats 33 out of 36 times. So sit there and pontificate about how Bush is a bad President and that is the reason Republicans might lose some seats in 2006. BFD! History has already shown that whoever is President usually loses seats. However, despite the most vicious press in our nation's history, I know the Greatest President Ever bucked that trend once, and hopefully he'll be the only President in history to do it twice.


BTW, ToddG...Great Post!

 

[barry2952]

Greatest President Ever? This should be good!

 

[MonsterMark]

Greatest President Ever? This should be good!

I see you took 'Worst President Ever' out of your signature. Having second thoughts are we?

 

[barry2952]

Where have you been? I took that out six months ago when the last boil-over happened.

No, I still think he's the "Worst President Ever". Just my opinion.

 

[MonsterMark]

I eventually catch on.

 

[ToddG]

BTW, ToddG...Great Post!

Thanks. Above I said

Part of the problem is that people do not understand that the President's Constitutional authority TRUMPS FISA. In other words, the Congress cannot pass a law that cuts back the Article II powers granted to the President. If restricting the President's powers is the goal when it comes to National Security matters, it must be done by Constitutional Amendment.

Look at this another way. What if the President signed an Executive Order stating that Congress shall not impose a personal income tax rate of greater than 30% on any citizen of the United States. Would Congress have to obey the Executive Order? No. The President has no authority to limit the power of Congress (in this case the Taxing power set out in Article I, Section 8, clause 1), and therefore this EO would be unconstitutional. Its the exact analogous situation with FISA -- Congress cannot limit the President's power by passing a law. It all goes back to the concept of three COEQUAL branches of government, each with certain powers.

And that ends today's civics lesson.

 

[barry2952]

Where are the checks and balances if the President has limitless power?

 

[ToddG]

Where are the checks and balances if the President has limitless power?

Fair question. This power of the President in this area does not appear to be subject to the normal checks and balances (e.g., the President nominates candidates for judges and the senate confirms or rejects, or when Congress passes a law and the President signs or vetos). I think one "check" could be that the Congress could bring an impeachment proceeding for egregious behavior. Also, the people could not re-elect the president to a second term, as well as the president being term-limited to only two terms.

My understanding is that the Founders wanted a strong executive (President) and gave him nearly unlimited power to conduct war and engage in foreign affairs because those activities needed to be undertaken with speed that the legislature or courts could not provide. The thinking was that having one person in charge of these two areas allowed the country to act immediately and with great flexibility in times of crisis.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

ToddG, thanks for the clarification / explanation. Its nice to not have to wade through a pile of back-handed insults towards "fiberals" to get the message.

 

[ToddG]

ToddG, thanks for the clarification / explanation. Its nice to not have to wade through a pile of back-handed insults towards "fiberals" to get the message.

Yes, we can have a good debate without the insults.

Here's a bit more clarification about presidential powers. First of all, it is important to remember that Founding Fathers had fled a tyrranical monarch, the King of England, who was a single individual who held ALL the governmental powers. The Founding Fathers knew that having all the power vested in one person could lead to abuse, so when they established our government the decided to go with a (small-r) republican form of government with a bicameral legislature (e.g., upper chamber [Senate] and lower chamber [House of Representatives]), a chief executive, and one Supreme Court. By splitting the power and providing a mechanism of checks and balances, this assured that one branch of the government would not grab power from the other branches. The process of lawmaking was also intentionally meant to be a slow process so that proper deliberation could take place and all points of view could be heard before any new laws were made.

In their wisdom, however, the Founding Fathers recognized that in certain instances, having certain powers vested in a single individual has definite advantages, speed of decisions being the most obvious. They decided that the President should have the powers of conducting war and engaging in foreign affairs because he can make decisions much more quickly than the lengthy deliberative processes that are required by the Congress or the courts. In times of national crisis, speed of decisionmaking is often crucial, so these powers were given to him to do that.

All the stuff that's happened since 9/11 has raised some legitimate concerns by various groups, regardless of political persuasion. For example, under his war powers, the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely, even if they are a US Citizen. Is that decision reviewable by a court? I don't know. These are questions we've never faced before, so it is good to have a debate about them. Overall, however, I believe the system is working the way it was intended. Some people may not like it, but I think it's working properly.

 

[barry2952]

Other than the election process, what is the difference between a King and a President? One does not have to be tyrannical to be a monarch.

That's the perception that many Bush detractors have. If what you say is true then we who oppose this behavior should work to change the Constitution. Is that correct?

 

[ToddG]

Other than the election process, what is the difference between a King and a President? One does not have to be tyrannical to be a monarch.

That's the perception that many Bush detractors have. If what you say is true then we who oppose this behavior should work to change the Constitution. Is that correct?

It depends what your objective is. If you are trying to change the war powers all President will have, as given in the Constitution, then yes, there must be a Constitutional amendment for that to happen. FYI, that process begins in Congress where language must be hammered out, then it goes to the states for ratification (I think 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it). Its not an easy process, and the Founders made it that way intentionally because they felt that amending the founding document was not something to do on a whim -- they wanted thorough deliberation and cool heads in doing something like that.

Compared to the amendment process, I think it is much easier to simply change the occupant of the White House. However, keep in mind, the President is the only elected official who is elected by ALL the people of the country. Therefore, that individual must have national appeal. In the last election, Bush won because he had more national appeal than Sen. Kerry, and because he took a strong stand on defense and security. I think the Democrats have a real problem because, with the exception of maybe Joe Lieberman, they have no potential candidates with strong national appeal.

 

[barry2952]

I'll say.

I think we'll elect an A-A President before we elect one that's Jewish. I think a woman will come before both of those.

While I appreciate your take on how our government is run I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presidency to be as secretive as GWB has been. Much of the complaining is coming from both Democrats and Republicans that feel that they have not been fully informed of what has happened, as well as what is going to happen.

That was supposed to be, as a proper check and balance to the Presidency. I still have a problem with the President granting himself warrantless searches on US citizens. The Right often uses the slippery-slope argument. Those that disagree with GWB are using it now.

 

[ToddG]

I'll say.

I think we'll elect an A-A President before we elect one that's Jewish. I think a woman will come before both of those.

While I appreciate your take on how our government is run I don't believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the Presidency to be as secretive as GWB has been. Much of the complaining is coming from both Democrats and Republicans that feel that they have not been fully informed of what has happened, as well as what is going to happen.

That was supposed to be, as a proper check and balance to the Presidency. I still have a problem with the President granting himself warrantless searches on US citizens. The Right often uses the slippery-slope argument. Those that disagree with GWB are using it now.

Barry, I'll admit I do not know exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind about secrecy and how far it should go. However, I would refer you to Federalist #70, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, which makes the case for a single, strong Executive (this is the so-called "Unitary Executive" concept that has been in the news lately). Here's the link:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa70.htm

In one passage that discusses the advantages of a single Executive, Hamilton wrote:

"That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished."

Secrecy was obviously a concept that Hamilton thought about and which would be used by the Executive. To the degree that it is used by this president, I don't think the founders could even have imaginged what would be going on today with terrorism and weapons of mass destructions.

Bottom line as I see it is that secrecy is required if the chief executive is going to conduct a war, so I don't have a problem with that. In other circumstances, however, a little more transparency would be nice (the Energy Task Force that deliberated early on in the President's term, for example). I think it ultimately boils down to an issue of trust. Some people trust the President to do the right thing, even if it is done in secret, and some do not.

 

[barry2952]

I guess that's what this all boils down to, trust. I don't believe that this President has earned my trust.

Thank you for being civil. It a much better learning experience and you got you point across without having to change my mind. You presented the facts in a logical manner and let me decide. What a concept!

Thank you for your time researching my question. Now tell me how Bush has earned your trust.

 

[Gruuvin8]

this may be a bit of topic by now, as I have not read through all 69 posts, but this controversy puzzles me becauze it seems the tables have turned.

traditionally it is the conservatives who would never give up privacy rights and the liberals who would give up rights for the "greater good" because mamma govt. knows best. I just don't see why liberals would fight so hard over privacy rights now except to oppose the president's winning strategies. And yes, I agree that wire tapping is a winning strategy, and I hate it!! heh heh. I don't want to yield my right to privacy; even during "wartime" because it is a slippery slope. we may never see the end of this type of war, so we may never see our right to privacy given back to us.

Remember Orwell's 1984? the people were kept under the thumb of the government because they thought they were at war and were willing to give up their rights for a short time, but the war never ended (it actually did but the govt./media dupped the public into thinking they were still at war). In reality we may always be at war, and we may lose all of our rights because of it. We could all be suspects until the problem is over, and I believe that until Islam is completely reformed or removed, this war will continue. You see, it is not just about the US occupying the middle east, it is about the US not submitting completely to Islam. sure today its this, and tomorrow it will be something else, but in the end they will not be finished until any form of religion exists except islam. Just look at thier track record with neighboring countries. The US is not sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, we are there to try to defend those helpless against the tyranny of Islam. Yes, some will say that we are there just for the oil, well guess what... WE ARE! we are there to see that one of the worlds most precious recources isnt under complete control of islam's tyranny. For lots of reasons WE SHOULD BE THERE!

But, this controversy over wire tapping is just a fight for the sake of fighting.

If we conservatives are to accept wire tapping, we should expect that no convictions can be made which involve wire tapping unless they are for convictions of treason or espionage. And all wire taps should be made public record after say two years so we can turn around and sue the govt. for extensive or inappropriate wire taps that can or will not lead to treason or espionage convictions. I would rather the govt. break the law and convict war criminals, then make it legal to spy on us. Done honestly and correctly, we need this strategy. Just get 'r done already! why politicize this?

But again, why on earth are privacy rights being defended by the left and not the right? It is usually the other way around!

 

[barry2952]

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
~George W. Bush April 2004