Do we have a President or a king? The president does not get to just spy on American citizens without a warrant because he feels like it. Want to say that the usual laws are suspended during “a time of war”? Make a formal declaration of war then.
Otherwise, he broke the law. I don’t care about all the loaded polls one way or another. Democrats and the few remaining one or two honest Republicans, must do the duty of the congress and hold the White House accountable to the citizens. If not, you’re enabling dictatorship.
Related
Moment of Irony With George W. Bush
Are You Safer Now Than You Were Five Years Ago?
Bush Who?
I wrote a sort of long and rambling post about this on my blog, but the upshot is, yes, they do want a king. They want a king to slay the dragons, but they don’t realize that the guys they want to slay the dragons created the dragons in the first place. And they think if they have a king, they’ll get to be noblemen, but in a feudal society, almost all of them will actually be serfs.
In the days of feudal society, the kings literally owned the entire country and everything (and, effectively, everybody) in it. Then Magna Carta came along and spelled out that even kings aren’t above the law, and this idea was much refined and extended in our Constitution, which says that not only is government not above the law, the power rests with the commons to replace the government. What they don’t seem to grasp is that if you give up the rights afforded to you in the Constitution, such as the right to be free from illegal searches, the government becomes absolute, and you become a serf. Historically speaking, serfs don’t get a very good deal. And it’s rather sourly amusing that the guys that make fun of liberals for wanting a “nanny state” have to be told this.
The fundamental question of 2006 will be whether or not “Joe Six - Pack” will perceive the issues raised by you and Ryland, as nothing more than ‘Constitutional niceties’, small potatoes compared to the important issue of national security.
I think we know the answer to that one, don’t we?
Shorter Frank_D: Because I think Americans are stupid, George Bush Jr. can break the law.
Better read than dead?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935
Diamond LeGrande: Because you think Americans are stupid, you think you can convince them that George W. Bush broke the law.
Cleo: How much you want to bet that there is much more to the story than that, if it is even true?
Remember this one?
Umm… Oliver, you are aware that according to that darn pesky Constitution, a President can’t declare war? It takes Congress to do that.
J.
US Code, Title 50 (FISA)
Electronic surveillance means
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
Shorter: if we aren’t looking at a US person, they just happen to be on the line, it doesn’t fall under FISA
Even shorter for OW: It’s legal
(I do realize, of course, that Frank was pulling a IKYABWAI? on me.)
Diamond LeGrande: Because you think Americans are stupid, you think you can convince them that George W. Bush broke the law.
Frank, I didn’t say they were stupid. I said that you implied they were stupid. But you, on the other hand, are a goddamn moron.
Some act as if warrantless spying is essential to stopping terrorism. It’s not. Allow me to reiterate something I’ve said a number of times: Getting a warrant is not difficult, especially with a 72 hour ex post facto window. Why the administration is playing up warrantless searches as a silver-bullet terrorism technology is unreasonable and beyond me.
And what ever happened to give up certain amounts of security in exchange for freedom and liberty? Is this concept lost in New America? Since when do we sacrifice whatever we can in order to stop us from the boogeyman?
JayTea: no shit. If the president is so convinced of his rightness, then it should be no problem to ask the congress for a formal declaration of war. At least in the case of Al Qaeda its something I’ve called for for a long time.
Frank: based on your standards, famous people shouldn’t ever be charged with murder no matter what the evidence is… because they’re popular!
So if Bush suspends this program and a terrorist attack that we would have otherwise known about just happens to hit us, you’ll promise not to blame the President, right?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
Ben Franklin has the answer to that question:
That applies to Frank D., Brandon, Jay Tea, peedro and the rest of the “Daddy Save Us!” crowd.
John S. In the event of a future terrorist attack, you will, of course, offer up your life for the sake of the Constitution, right, macho man?
Well, I already did… How about you?
Diamond LeGtande: I guess you were pulling a “Since I really have no answer, I’ll just type some jibberish” on me.
Yea John….I am sure that Franklin would consider email an “essential liberty”. You always forget the historical context. Franklin came from a time when government soldiers would take over your house to live in, taxation without representation etc.
One of the clear jobs of a federal government as defined in the Constitution is national defense. That the leftists are willing to roll over and show their soft underbelly to terrorists while attempting to appease them definately concerns me. But for myself, I wore a uniform for this country for ten years, so I wasn’t asking anyone else to save me thats for sure.
Cellulose, have you read the accounts of FISA warrants being denied or altered? More in the years after 9/11 than all the previous history of the FISA courts. You can stop with that Kos canard that they are so easy to get. If they were so easy, what exactly are they protecting? If they are so easy, why would the Bush admin even start this big argument, just send the warrant in and get the rubber stamp…
See, doesn’t pass the logic test does it.
drpedro, maybe you should answer your own question.
“If they were so easy, what exactly are [warrants] protecting?”
What *do* warrants protect? Have the concept of a warrant simply run its course? Maybe we should just do away with warrants altogether, right?
If you have probable cause, warrants are, as you say, a “rubber stamp” away from being legit. Without probable cause or a rubber stamp, there is a Constitutional issue. Whether it’s “good” or “bad” for America is not at issue here.
Frank. Being a part of the military makes you a noble, important individual who deserves recognition from the people of this country, including myself.
It does not make your arguments more valuable.
Frank: IKYABWAI = I Know You Are But What Am I?
Folks, don’t use fancy words or acronyms around Frank, it just makes him peevish when he can’t understand them.
I wasn’t arguing anything, cellulose (but see John Murtha in that regard).
While your gratitude for my service is appreciated, I have been well rewarded for my service — with a college degree (1990 - 1994), and a Masters’ degree (in progress) and a little disability compensation that helps pay the rent.
What I was saying was that since this purported Constitutional violation has been deemed more important by Corrigan than our actual safety, he seems to believe we should play along, and bare our throats, as it were, to terrorists’ attacks, rather than engage in what he sees as a violation of our personal liberties.
I was merely suggesting that I’d rather not play, and that if he, or any other liberal who thinks likewise, wishes to offer up their lives for the Constitution, they can.
I’ve already done it, thanks.
drpedro - you forgot subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the statute you cite and their applicability to the wiretapping Bush has approved. Suffice it to say that since we really don’t know the parameters of what NSA is doing pronouncements that what he has authorized is legal (or illegal for that matter) are premature. The independent analysis of the Congressional Research Service would seem to indicate however, that the White House is on shaky legal ground.
Shoot Dave, I would love to agree with you. Unfortunately the leftists here keeping posting things telling me that this was all illegal action from King George!
As I said before, I think this is the very edge of a fine line…congress will look into it and will need to weigh in on one side or the other.
Bush bases his legal position on the penultimate
constitutional scholars available, Miers and Gonzalez.
Yea, we know. And you base YOUR legal position on? Your uneducated opinion…?
I am going with the guy who has attorneys looking at it, moron.
Ryland, I understood the “IKYABWAI = I Know You Are But What Am I?” part. I meant the rest was jibberish.
Thanks for your assistance, anyway.
You’re going with a guy named moron?
Actually, yes, I’m sure he would. Why is reading someone’s e-mail without a warrant morally or ethically different from reading their physical mail without a warrant? Why is tapping someone’s telephone without a warrant morally or ethically different from listening in the next room without a warrant? You think the guys that wrote the Constitution wouldn’t object to an illegal search just because the search happened over a new medium of communication that didn’t yet exist?
You guys seem to think that these Constitutional guarantees are just an abstraction, to be done away with when it’s expedient, but what you don’t seem to realize is that these “abstractions” are exactly why the Constitution was written. The rights we have as citizens of the U.S. aren’t abstractions, they are freedoms that people didn’t have before, things that keep us from being jailed or killed or stripped of our possessions at the whim of a magistrate. The things our government is doing now are things we fought the Cold War over - remember that? The Communists were the ones who spied on their own citizens, put them in gulags without charging them with a crime, built walls around their cities to keep them from leaving, in the name of the Security of the State. And now the same people who put Ronald Reagan on a pedestal are the ones who are arguing in favor of spying on our own citizens, putting our own citizens in prison without charging them. You accuse liberals of being socialists because you don’t think the government should fix your problems, but now you trust the government to fix your problems - by spying on you. And you justify it to yourself by saying, “Well, I’m not doing anything wrong, so I don’t have anything to worry about.” Maybe not, but I hope you won’t wait until the day you get shot down in the street, because a stormtrooper asks you for your papers and you can’t produce them quickly enough.
Those FISA court judges are just whinin’ about nothing.
Why, if they took the trouble to just read the wiretapping law (like our friend here) they’d understand that everything’s just ducky.
What fisa court judges? The one or two that didn’t like it?
Whatever….the justice department seems to be behind the pres. So do the briefed members of the intelligence committees…..
Here are some interesting thoughts by James Madison that will surely infuriate the “Save Us Daddy!” crew:
Yea right John. Patrick Henry would just roll over and show the terrorist his white underbelly.
Tell me exactly how your liberty has been infringed? You can’t spout crackpot ideas about the POTUS? Nooooo….thats not one of them.
You and your ilk are more interested in appeasement, the “why can’t we all just get along” crowd….yea, that works, just ask the spaniards.
You are happy to partake of freedom, just not interested in participating in it’s care eh?
Yea, who’s the coward…..
Pidge, you remain an idiot.
I have quoted the fisa law like 4 times, you never read the thing.
And of course, the democrats have started worrying about the Miranda rights of OBL again.
Moron, we are fighting a foreign enemy, the rules of evidence don’t apply.
James Madison would probably have you seditionist arrested for some of the crap liberals have pulled lately. Madison was talking about REAL tyranny and oppression knucklhead, you know, like what was going on in Iraq. You will know that has happened here when leftists start disappearing, and liberal blogs go away.
Doesn’t seem to have happened, so relax.
The courts are against it. Bush’s hand picked lackeys are for it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I wonder which one has more weight. Let’s see the courts should interpret the law to answer questions of legality. But they haven’t been able to because Bush kept it secret. Doh. If Bush does it once, and there is a question of legality, no big deal, a court looks into it makes a ruling and allows it or stops it… all in a timely fashion, as has happened in the past. Congress can act to change the law after debate to allow it or stop it or place it under review or place safeguards on it or do whatever. When Bush hides the program so none of this can take place? Problem.
Under your theory, Bush can do nearly anything he wants as long as he calls National Security, gets it cleared by his handpicked people, and keeps it secret so no one can tell him to stop.
Bush has probably undermined every single terrorism prosecution for the last 4 years. That’s great.
Wow, you truly are an idiot peedro. Read the quotes again, and ask yourself if waht you said makes ANY sense whatsoever.
The very ones. If they had followed your excellent example and just read the definition of “electronic surveillance,” I’m sure we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Yes, now that Mr. Comey is working elsewhere.
Really? The Democrats too?
I heard differently.
Yea, unfortunately none of the american people heard differently when they were briefed eh?
That is called an “opportunist”, Clinton was great at it. Check the polls then form an opinion….real brave stuff.
Whatever you say, Frank.
Sorry I don’t share you and King George’s ‘vision’ of how to protect America. I guess I don’t trust the government not to send me into a place I have no business being in.
Unlike you, I won’t cede my civil liberties for a little safety. If the next terrorist attack kills me - so be it. Better to die with America intact the way it was meant to be than live in your vision of Amerikka.
Amazing for all your tough talk, you’re just a scared little man. You would happily bring this country to ruins just to live another day. Me, I’m with Patrick Henry - give me liberty - ALL OF IT - or give me death.
Absolutely. The next time a foreign army decides to invade our country. I know you have this cooked up notion that since terrorists don’t all have the same nationality that we should just attack anyone we feel like, but I don’t see that as protecting the Constitution. Our founding fathers had a thing or two to say about ‘foreign entaglements’, not that it would interest you.
Peedro - way to distort the facts. Franklin would take a giant shit all over Bush if he were alive today - as would the majority of our founding fathers. You chuckleheads seem to forget that these guys were trying to break away from rule by a MONARCH, so you and the rest of the gang justifying expansive executive powers is precisely what our founders did NOT what the executive to have.
You forgot:
I have other priorities! I have a boil on my ass! I don’t want to blow out my ear with a shotgun so I’ll get my Daddy’s friends to get me into the the National Guard! Minorities already filled all the slots! Anything, please, don t make me go!
John S. Like I said, if there’s another terrorist attack, it won’t kill just you — unfortunately.
I went into the US Army when we were at war. You talk like you never wore a uniform. I guess you’re big and bad now that you’re over 26, and there’s no draft.
This country is nowhere near “ruins” you snide left - wing pimple of a coward. More concerned about a fictitious loss of liberty than a very real threat from terrorism.
Me, I m with Patrick Henry
Lying sack of shit…
You’d probably pee in your pants if you got a letter from the Draft Board.
I could just see it: “You got the wrong guy!” “I’m too old!” “I have a perforated eardrum!” “I’m gay!” “I’m a psychopath!” “Anything, please, don’t make me go!”
Finally, if you’re still convinced I’m a scared little man, I will gladly eMail you my address. You can pay me a visit and try to scare me, personally.
Frank, will you please stop with this macho bullshit?
You served. We get it.
“Finally, if you re still convinced I m a scared little man, I will gladly eMail you my address. You can pay me a visit and try to scare me, personally.”
Just wow.
Cellulose: I believe it is Corrigan who has raised the issue on several occasions. I’m a little tired of left wing punks calling me a coward, because I want to see terrorists dead, rather than my family and friends.
No, Quaker, you forgot, “Thank God I live in a country that doesn’t clap me in jail for the duration.”
The above post will not make any sense until the one above it - in moderation - appears. So have patience…I’ve given you ample fuel to hurl invectives at me.
Frank-
You have serious issues with inadequacy to be trying to prove how big your e-penis is.
Wishing death on people…just like the good “Christian” patriot you are.
Whoopee doo Frank. What war did you go into? Desert Storm? The Kuwaitis thank you for protecting the American constitution. And you’re right, I never wore a uniform because there hasn’t been a reason in my lifetime to do so. When the world has a threat on the magnitude of WWII and every man is required, I assure you I am there. But this terrorist threat - while real - does not rise to that occassion. You really think we’re defeating them by being in Iraq, don’t you? Sad. For a military man, you should be smart enough to know that a guerilla force cannot be defeated by conventional military methods.
You are a coward, despite your little green niform that hangs in your closet. Our loss of libery is not ficticious. With each passing revelation, the United States turns more and more into a place I do not recognize. The President grabs more and more power in defiance of the Constitution (indefinitely holding enemy combatants without charges, wiretaps without warrants and a large portion of the PATRIOT act), and you sit by and ignore the REAL threat in the name of defeating terrorists. Those awful, awful terrorists that cumulatively have killed far less people - and have far less potential to kill people - than a large number of graver threats that exist in our world.
Not in the slightest. But if it were to be drafted to go fight in Iraq, you bet your ass I wouldn’t heed that call. Like I said, I have no wish to throw my life away on a cause that I don’t believe in. If you felt it neccessary to risk your life policing the world, good for you. I don’t see that as an obligation I have to keep when it doesn’t rise to the level of keeping America safe, which as far as I’m concerned hasn’t been the scenario in the wars we’ve fought for many decades.
You just proved you’re a scared little man. All your huffing and puffing are evidence of that. Men who are not scared go quietly about their business without feeling the need to aggrandize themselves for anonymous strangers - unlike you. You think you’re proving how tough you are with all your tough talk, but to me it proves the opposite. Ever hear the expression “Walk softly but carry a big stick.”? Apparently not.
Anyway, it’s amusing to see your inferiority complex so easily exposed with a few words and I can’t wait for your next firebrand responseso I can continue laughing at how pathetic you truly are.
And peedro, when are YOU signing up?
john I spent ten years in the service.
And you spout off like the idiot leftist you are. You believe that serving democracy is something you do only when you feel like it, typical leftist dogma. It is called “service” something the selfish leftist democrats little understand.
The reason you can pop off with such freedom is that better men and women than yourself have been doing the work of maintainng your freedom for many years, in war and peace.
Since you are so fond of quoting people….
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us. George Orwell”
Obviously YOU are not one of those men, however Frank and I have been. Sleep tight, because in spite of your efforts to damage this countries safety, good people are giving up part of their lives to give you the right to spew your nonsense
And to close, a quote that really seems to sum up the leftists in the country today….
“Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them. Franklin Roosevelt”
Since the republicans carry the lion’s share of the burden of protecting this country, we have all lost friends in it’s service, making us less likely to forget.
Sorry, I think Teddy Roosevelt said:
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Don t want to misquote the man. Conversely, if you speak loudly - like you do Frank - then you must have a very tiny stick.
Schooltime for Junior:
1) Anybody with an 8th Grade education doesn’t think Teddy Roosevelt said that; they know he said that.
2) The “converse” of that statement is “Carry a big stick and speak softly.”
3) I don’t own a stick right now, big or otherwise, although I do have a tendency to speak loudly — damaged my eardrum qualifying on the .45 automatic range. That’s something you’d know nothing about, having never found a war that suited you, poor boy. You will let us know when the right war comes along, won’t you?
4) Finally, Madison wasn’t Nostradamus, you clown. Before you quote Madison, and other Founding Fathers, you might want to check into the sacrifices they made to support the Colonial cause, none of which you could ever have mustered the courage to do.
You might also want to check into what their feelings were about pornography, public obscenity, 40% income tax, Federal welfare, farm subsidies, Federally funded unemployment, retirement, and disability, etc. — all liberal pipe dreams which must have the Founding Fathers twirling in their graves.
What you don’t know about this “great nation” (as you erroneously call it — after all, I’ve never heard you say anything good about it) could and does fill huge buildings — they’re called “Libraries.’
Visit one. Aw, hell, visit two.
Thus endeth the lesson for today.
I recognized the quotes, Quaker. Too bad you couldn’t leave well enough alone. You just had to rush to poor John S.’s defense.
Like he needs any help being an obnoxious prick.
Not all the people who don’t go to war have noble motives, no matter what their ideology might be.
Come down off that high horse before you get a nose bleed.
I do live in a country that “doesn’t clap me in jail for the duration,” Frank, but it wasn’t always that way.
During World War II, 6,000 Quaker conscientious objectors were put in prison for refusing the draft. Another 12,000 were pressed into various forms of alternative service, including working as fire jumpers and even as human subjects of medical experimentation.
If it’s not that way now, it’s not because of divine intervention. It’s because Quaker men and women quietly and forcefully stood for their right to conscience. They risked far more than those I quoted above would ever consider risking.
Just in case you don’t recognize the quotes, those were the excuses given by Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, and Tom DeLay when it was their turn to be drafted.
You see, defense of our national values can come in many forms. Not all who trumpet those values are willing to sacrifice for them. The willingness to bear arms is not the only way it gets done.
I wrote nothing of the kind.
So Quaker you are saying you respect those guys Cheney et al right? Cause they didn’t fight in that “unethical” war?
I never had to “bear arms”, but I served this country honorably, picking up my wife and 3 month old baby and forward deploying 1 week after 9/11. What sort of sacrifice did you have for this country? How about OW? Ryland? JohnS. Semanticleo? Mr. Pidge?
All I hear is a deafening silence……..
yea, now it isn’t just silence, the crickets have started up……
One thing I like about Dugger is that he served in the military, as I understand it, for quite a few years. He doesn’t have to keep reassuring
himself of his sense of patriotism, by acting as self-appointed town crier
exhaling his virtues from the diaphram. Sometimes one’s service
is unremarkable, and for others, extraordinary. What is it about the
Pharisees and Saducees who trumpeted their righteousness down every
street in Jerusalem? Were they interested in service, or was it adulation?
Each must determine the type of service he can give. None is greater than
another. But sometimes it is remarkable, and as such, is it’s own reward
You wish that were true….but we don’t live in a world where “none is greater than the other”. People who don’t actually serve in any respect really like that quote though.
You know, they figure life is just like the special olympics, everyone gets a medal….
…….aegrescit medendo..
Leo: Lord of the Non Sequitur….although it is one way of extricating oneself from a losing argument, a postion Leo here is all too familiar with
No, Cleo,they are not the same.
In terms of National Service, there are a limited number of distinct types:
1) People who actually volunteer for service, or submit to Selective Service
2) People who because of sincere principle, cannot or will not serve in the military.
3) People who agree to limited types of service (usually, noncombat) to fulfill their obligation.
4) The most loathsome type: The type who says “This war is not worthy of my participation; it is, in my opinion, unjustified or unwarranted.”
Any reasonable person can determine which of these is “greater than the other.”
Dr P: I must take issue with your 9:56 PM comment: there is a difference between the left wingers’ (anti - war) “any service will do” attitude, and getting a medal in the Special Olympics.
Everyone in the Special Olympics at least tries.
Slightly OT, here’s why I hate Hugo Chavez
Aut disce aut discede.
Cleo: Now you’re writing non sequiturs in two languages?
Docendo discimus
…non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis…
Doo be doo be doo.
Insula gilliganis
Gilligans Island?
Leo is just jealous cause you one-upped him on the latin non sequiturs….
In the words of (George C. Scott playing) Patton, “I read your book, you bastard, I read your book!”