Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Vice President] Cheney says top congressional Democrats complicit in spying
Salon ^ | December 22, 2008 | Glenn Greenwald

Posted on 12/22/2008 8:59:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last
To: Paige

First off I never said you were wrong about anything in regard to the Patriot Act, I simply asked you to be specific as to what your concerns were in regards to its Constitutionality. So far it has held up in Court as being Constitutional with the exception of one Court that had very leftwing justices. As I said already before I have no problem with the Patriot Act being examined and debated by the People, the Court, etc….

Thanks for a more thorough response and for the link you provided. I am going to stop for right now in debating the Patriot Act until I have more time to read and respond (I am at work). It is a somewhat separate issue from the surveillance issue of this thread anyway.

Thanks again and Merry Christmas!


51 posted on 12/23/2008 6:30:09 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

I am working also. On the part of the two being separate issues - this is my point. They aren’t separate issues because the legislation is setup in order to give power to Prosecutors as well as law enforcement “should” “they” see the need to use the laws.

But thank you, I will now write a quick article or essay on why the Patriot Act and Surveillance is dangerous in the wrong hands.

Be Blessed!


52 posted on 12/23/2008 6:33:56 AM PST by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma

He said Congress has been briefed about it, although some lawmakers have denied being informed of the program.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/index.html


53 posted on 12/23/2008 6:46:03 AM PST by jessduntno (Barack - Kenyan for "High Wind, Big Thunder, No Rain")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Why is Congress GIVEN the power of oversight and the Executive Branch answerable to them (Of course in theory, you have Party whores that see to that)? Not only are these checks and balances required to relegate/inspect the power of the Executive Branch (Your potential friendly tyrannical President which you have no worries about) but protect against abuse as well.

Apparently you have no problem with modern day “writs of assistance,” but I have one big problem with our government body ignoring present laws in exchange of usurping certain rights and granting bodies of government expanded powers not enumerated in the Constitution. But hey, I don't live in a belief that hell is not paved in good intentions, “tyranny and security in exchange for rights” is.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--- Not some DUmmie or KOS whiner but James Madison, someone who had a pretty good understanding of a certain document he helped craft.

54 posted on 12/23/2008 6:46:58 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Where is the word ‘oversight’ in the Constitution? Each branch has separate powers that create the checks and balances needed but the President does not have to answer to the Congress of the Court in regards to exercising power that the Constitution specifies as power granted to him. The Constitution grants the power of Commander in Chief to the President. Do you think he should have to gain permission to defend this nation from a foreign enemy? Do you think that it is a committee of commanders that the Constitution calls for?

Every President since Washington has exercised their power as Commander in Chief without regard of permission of oversight from Congress. Congress can though of course try to ‘check’ the power of the President through means of impeachment or other means if they feel that a President is abusing his power.


55 posted on 12/23/2008 7:11:59 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

It is an implied power and in your somewhat defense not enumerated but has been granted by using various laws, House Rules and the US Constitution itself such as Article I, section 8, clause 18. Also backed up by several USSC rulings saying “”the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” McGrain v. Daugherty

In the founders case, backed up by common sense (Implied) because since Congress is in charge of appropriating funds, enacting laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers etc...Congress would need to know how programs were being administered, by whom, at what cost, whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. Of course common sense is not common which is why we have a collectivist named Obama being named Commander in Chief.


56 posted on 12/23/2008 7:44:42 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Major Matt Mason; 2ndDivisionVet
not exactly the most scrupulously honest public servant around. Says who? The writer of this column?

What? You doubt the word of Glen Greenwald? For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country... ( link for wuzzadems classic "Greenwald sock puppet follies.")

57 posted on 12/23/2008 7:54:01 AM PST by Dutchgirl ("Every Socialist is a disguised dictator." Ludwig Von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You said:
• It is an implied power and in your somewhat defense not enumerated but has been granted by using various laws, House Rules and the US Constitution itself such as Article I, section 8, clause 18. Also backed up by several USSC rulings saying “”the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” McGrain v. Daugherty
In the founders case, backed up by common sense (Implied) because since Congress is in charge of appropriating funds, enacting laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers etc...Congress would need to know how programs were being administered, by whom, at what cost, whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. Of course common sense is not common which is why we have a collectivist named Obama being named Commander in Chief.

__________________

Since when do laws or House rules grant power that supersedes the Constitution? I disagree that it is implied at all that the Executive has to bow down to Congressional oversight in order to justify using the power granted to it by the Constitution.

As I have already said the Congress and the Court both have powers that can be used to check the power of the Executive. The case you bring up is only verifying what I have already said. If Congress feels that there is an abuse of power then of course they can pursue an investigation and can battle the executive (which will then bring the Court into the picture) in order to curtail the Executive and/or possibly impeach. To do as was done in the case of McGrain vs Daugherty is what I have already said was a part of the checks and balances. In no way does this mean though that the President has to answer to the Congress or that his power has to be approved by Congressional oversight (the power of the Executive is not a shared power). In cases such as these we are seeing the three co-equal branches of government in a power struggle which can lead even to a Constitutional crisis.


58 posted on 12/23/2008 8:24:20 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Really, this whole Greenwald harangue is horse plop.

In the first place - as has also always been true in the past - these 'war powers' are sunseted after a specific period of time; the Congress, and only the Congress, can extend these war-time practices.

What this dirty-diapered lib [Greenwald] needs is for al Qaeda to set off a fire cracker under his butt. Whatever you don't like about Bush, his administration has kept us safe from further attacks; if that were not true this jerk would be screaming for impeachment.

Such wire-tapping and other intel intercepts have been practiced by presidents certainly throughout the 20th century. LBJ did extensive wire-tapping of war protesters in the late 60's - and on. Robert Kennedy spied on MLK. Heck... Abraham Lincoln deported a congressman who disagreed with his policies [those apparently were the good ol' days.]

Besides, this idea of 'spying on American citizens' has the same smell as the above-mentioned horse effluvia! If these libs could just get themselves to admit an inconvenient truth, they would have to admit that almost all the telecom traffic in the world passes through American routers, servers and satellites. What they are effectively proposing is to make us blind. In the land of the blind the one-eye is king!

Clinton's Echelon and Carnivore practices were passed over by the great humanitarian Leftists... and what about Waco?

Always the Left is selective about what to criticize and what to keep silent about.

59 posted on 12/23/2008 8:35:52 AM PST by Bob Ireland (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"I disagree that it is implied at all that the Executive has to bow down to Congressional oversight in order to justify using the power granted to it by the Constitution."

Apparently your disagreement is historically impotent since Congress has been using THEIR oversight powers for a loooonnnnggggg time. Take it up with Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison etc... who all partook in common sense powers PROVIDED by the certain Constitutional Clauses such as "necessary and proper" (Read into what Hamilton said).

It is good to know that you think various agencies, laws, and acts of war which are funded and passed by Congress are immune to their prowling eyes. Also ALL the actions of Executive officials running wild and denying Constitutional rights to individuals so much so every lawyer would be in glee with all this work you will be providing to them. A would be tyrant would love your vision of government.
60 posted on 12/23/2008 8:41:16 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
By the way stop being so convoluted with your argument. In order to find fraud, waste and abuse (Which you claim can happen) first they must actually be in constant watch for any laws, mismanagement of funds, or corruption (OVERSIGHT) found in the other two Branches then investigate their charges, duh!

Guess what, The E Branch has the Justice Dept. and USSC has Judicial review. Holy Moly a well designed “inefficient” government that checks each branch so that men can truly be free. And a bonus provision attached with that as well, division of powers with the States, only bone head voters blind to corruption could screw this gift up.

61 posted on 12/23/2008 8:54:45 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You said:
“Apparently your disagreement is historically impotent since Congress has been using THEIR oversight powers for a loooonnnnggggg time. Take it up with Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison etc... who all partook in common sense powers PROVIDED by the certain Constitutional Clauses such as “necessary and proper” (Read into what Hamilton said).

It is good to know that you think various agencies, laws, and acts of war which are funded and passed by Congress are immune to their prowling eyes. Also ALL the actions of Executive officials running wild and denying Constitutional rights to individuals so much so every lawyer would be in glee with all this work you will be providing to them. A would be tyrant would love your vision of government. “

____________

So know you want to make statements without any real point except to just pronounce yourself the winner of this debate.

You have not given any historical example that claims that the Constitutional power given to the executive is only valid if Congress approves of it through some imaginary power of oversight that you attribute to them.

It is your vision of the Constitution that is dangerous and that would lead to tyranny. You would render the Congress as a Supreme entity that the Executive would have to bow down to and to fear. You obviously do not believe in the seperation of powers that our Founders created. You would render the Commander in Chief impotent and would open the door for another attack on our soil.

Your vision is very dangerous to our country and to our Constitution.


62 posted on 12/23/2008 8:59:29 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You said:
By the way stop being so convoluted with your argument. In order to find fraud, waste and abuse (Which you claim can happen) first they must actually be in constant watch for any laws, mismanagement of funds, or corruption (OVERSIGHT) found in the other two Branches then investigate their charges, duh!
Guess what, The E Branch has the Justice Dept. and USSC has Judicial review. Holy Moly a well designed “inefficient” government that checks each branch so that men can truly be free. And a bonus provision attached with that as well, division of powers with the States, only bone head voters blind to corruption could screw this gift up.

____________

So you think that the Executive is allowed then to rummage through the drawers and files of everyone in Congress in the name of oversight or does it just work one way for you? Why do think that the Justice Department cannot do this? (or did you not know that?)


63 posted on 12/23/2008 9:05:13 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/04/court-rules-fbi-raid-violated-jeffersons-rights/

So then explain this.


64 posted on 12/23/2008 9:14:53 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"You have not given any historical example that claims that the Constitutional power given to the executive is only valid if Congress approves of it through some imaginary power of oversight that you attribute to them." It's already been ESTABLISHED that Congressional oversight is an implied power. I already explained the common sense implication that allowed Congress this AUTHORITY from the get go. If you don't want to participate in common sense notions and established clauses I can't help you further. All three Branches should fear each other and the people, not just Congress being the bogeyman. If you want to see a Congressional bogeymen look at United States v. Chapman and Jurney v. McCracken.

Your contention that I favor an Imperial Congress is wrong and immature. The Oversight must be proper and not out of political revenge or power. The role of oversight is an important function within checks and balances in order to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Executive investigation against members of Congress goes likewise or do you think Congress should only police itself?
65 posted on 12/23/2008 9:45:21 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You said:
“ Your contention that I favor an Imperial Congress is wrong and immature. The Oversight must be proper and not out of political revenge or power. The role of oversight is an important function within checks and balances in order to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. Executive investigation against members of Congress goes likewise or do you think Congress should only police itself? “

_________

Well I think some of your contention that I favor an Imperial Executive and tyrants, etc… is wrong and immature so you got it right back at ya. But in all seriousness I do think that your vision is one of a Imperial Congress.

As I have said where is oversight mentioned in the Constitution?

And who is it that decides what is ‘proper’ oversight? If there is a Congress who just hates the President and/or just wants to play politics and render him impotent then what would stop them from running all over the Executive branch with the power you would give them? He would have to get their approval before exercising his power and of course they could easily make up argument after argument against anything that he would set forth to do.

I believe in the separation and balance of power that is outlined in the Constitution whereas certain power is enumerated to each branch. These are not shared powers but are specific powers to each branch as outlined in the Constitution. Congress has its own power that it can use to check and balance the power of the Executive.


66 posted on 12/23/2008 10:02:16 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
The FBI never successfully investigated a sitting Congresscritter before, that is news to me.



Some forced to resign rather than have fellow congresscritters kick them out all due to an Executive Branch investigation. Like I said news to me.

The FBI did managed to keep the cash and not all documents were returned. What is your point, that Jefferson's homework could be taken. Do you actually think that is what oversight is all about? Demand to know what is in the desk/safe etc...No, it's is a constant, efficient, and beneficial check in making sure laws/funding are being followed. You make it sound like a break in operation to go through someones private stash.
67 posted on 12/23/2008 10:06:17 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You said:

It’s already been ESTABLISHED that Congressional oversight is an implied power. I already explained the common sense implication that allowed Congress this AUTHORITY from the get go. If you don’t want to participate in common sense notions and established clauses I can’t help you further. All three Branches should fear each other and the people, not just Congress being the bogeyman. If you want to see a Congressional bogeymen look at United States v. Chapman and Jurney v. McCracken.

____________

You should put some sort of separation between my words and yours because I missed this part of your post thinking it was part of what you were quoting from mine.

No it has NOT been established that there is a implied power of oversight in the Constitution. Only in your mind has it been. As I said before the laws and House Rules do not supersede the Constitution and the Supreme Court case you cited backs up my position on this and not yours.


68 posted on 12/23/2008 10:07:30 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"As I have said where is oversight mentioned in the Constitution?"

I already gave you the Article, section, and the clause, the founders clause, as well as a USSC decsision affirming the implied power. You do know what an implied power is?

Let me help you: A political power not expressly named in a constitution but that is inferred because it is necessary to the performance of an enumerated power. Yes, common sense is truly dead.
69 posted on 12/23/2008 10:10:54 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You said:

The FBI never successfully investigated a sitting Congresscritter before, that is news to me.

The FBI did managed to keep the cash and not all documents were returned. What is your point, that Jefferson’s homework could be taken. Do you actually think that is what oversight is all about? Demand to know what is in the desk/safe etc...No, it’s is a constant, efficient, and beneficial check in making sure laws/funding are being followed. You make it sound like a break in operation to go through someones private stash.

__________________

Yet you seem to miss that in the case of Jefferson the Court ruled that the Executive could not just have access to the Congressional records or office (for the purpose of oversight) due to the Constitution and to the separation of powers between the branches. The cash was found in his home. His Congressional office search was ruled un-Constitutional.

Yet you had claimed earlier that the Executive had full power of oversight in regards to the Congress (did you not?) I guess you are wrong.


70 posted on 12/23/2008 10:13:24 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Your ignorance has summoned the copy and paste regurgitation.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-936.pdf

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/comm_gp_cong_oversight.htm

http://www.espionageinfo.com/In-Int/Intelligence-United-States-Congressional-Oversight-of.html

There is plenty more if you so desire.


71 posted on 12/23/2008 10:17:35 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Can Pelosi break into Bush's office? If you think that is my implication of congressional oversight than you are truly ignorant of what it actually pertains to.
72 posted on 12/23/2008 10:19:39 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

“I already gave you the Article, section, and the clause, the founders clause, as well as a USSC decsision affirming the implied power. You do know what an implied power is?

Let me help you: A political power not expressly named in a constitution but that is inferred because it is necessary to the performance of an enumerated power. Yes, common sense is truly dead. “

Maybe you should look up the word oversight in the dictionary because there is no power granted to Congress implicitly or implied that makes them the Supreme supervisors of either of the other two branches or that any other branch needs their approval for the execution of its own Constitutional power.

Congress has the right to pursue information and/or conduct investigations but it is not a Constitutional power of theirs to be supervisors of the Constitutionand all actions of the other two branches as you seem to think.


73 posted on 12/23/2008 10:21:16 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

We are talking about the Constitution here and not house rules and/or laws.

It is your ignorance that continually spews the notion that either Congressional laws or house rules in someway supersede the Constitution.


74 posted on 12/23/2008 10:24:27 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
“full power of oversight in regards to the Congress”

Bwhahahaaaa, as in investigation purposes towards corruption such as bribes and such. They have certain IMPLIED privileges like Executive critters. Plus oversight in this case is totally different since a Congresscritter is not in charge of actually executing laws/$$$$ passed on behalf of “the people”. It's about the grease not the perverted action.

Do you now need to know the difference between what the Executive Branch does compared to Legislative? I don't think I can hold your hand and point out common sense functions that a forth grader should know and understand. Apparently I need to be more detailed. I don't think my fingers can take it.

75 posted on 12/23/2008 10:27:21 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Hey, "The authority of Congress to do oversight is derived from its implied powers in the U.S. Constitution, various laws, and House rules."

House rules is listed third, you forgot the first two implications of where oversight powers come from. You never did mention Article 1 s.8 cl. 18. I guess that flew right by you.
76 posted on 12/23/2008 10:30:44 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Didnt fly right pass me but I do not agree with your interpretation of it meaning that Congress somehow are the supervisors of themselves and the other two branches.

Your posts are getting more and more insultive and I no longer have time to continue this right now.

Thanks for the discussion (hopefully another time we can continue it) and have a Merry Christmas!


77 posted on 12/23/2008 10:35:44 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

It doesn’t matter if “it” flies past you, what is established has been since the first Congress through implied powers. What Congress passes and the President signs gets (Or suppose to) checked.

What, is the Executive Branch suppose to take all the money/abuse all the laws and demand Congress look the other way? If you say no, welcome to the world oversight through implied powers (In order that enumerated powers can OPERATE efficiently). If you say yes, welcome to a corrupt government.


78 posted on 12/23/2008 11:35:48 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

So by your notion of “implied” powers of Congress to oversee and supervise the President and Executive branch then the records, communications, and all files of the Executive branch should be made available to the Congress on a weekly or daily basis so that they can approve of whether or not there is any abuse of power in their opinion? You are claiming that the Congress has a “Implied” Constitutional power that has been granted to them right?


79 posted on 12/23/2008 11:47:30 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
“...Congress somehow are the supervisors of themselves and the other two branches.”

I take corruption seriously. The fact that all these Branches have different functions and different kinds of oversight does not register to you.

The Executive Branch takes the money, diverts it through various departments, in charge of executing the laws, and other such powers like negotiating treaties.

The Legislative Branch is in charge of, to save my fingers Ar.1, section 8, impeachment/conviction, etc...

Oversight on Congresscritters by an investigation dept. of Executive Branch consist of corruption, bribes, and other laws if one or a group working together break. Hence we are not looking at various departments etc. they are looking for individuals, all these guys do is create stuff, to often times, spend on things they favor.

Oversight on the Exec. Branch consist of departments being managed correctly by not themselves but by Congress (As well as other Exec. Dept.), laws the Leg. pass are be followed correctly, and that abuses are not occurring. To deny this responsibility is asking for bad government with no responsibility what so ever. You actually approve of this? Good grief. Are you a relative of a Truman Administration employee that got busted by an oversight committee for abusing funds?

What is your take on the mid 1990’s IRS abuses found by a congressional oversight committee which led to reform protecting the tax payer? I guess all that stuff was unconstitutional in your eyes (Bad Congress, sticking your nose in the Executive's business).

80 posted on 12/23/2008 12:11:39 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Implied powers do not cover those private communications


81 posted on 12/23/2008 12:15:38 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

It does not register to you that all three branches already have the means through the powers enumerated to them through the Constitution to check and balance each other. You seem to think though that the Executive cannot execute its power as Commander in Chief without having Congress act as supervisor. The interpretation that you have given of the power granted to Congress would mean that the Executive should turn over all of its communications and records to Congress on a daily basis for supervision. Your view of the Constitution is ridiculous and dangerous.


82 posted on 12/23/2008 12:21:37 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Ha ha! You must really crack yourself up.


83 posted on 12/23/2008 12:22:32 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; jessduntno

>>Were they complicit in the Bush Administration’s violation of the law?

You gotta ask, why do you think that despite the 2006 takeover of Congress, Pelosi/Reid, never pursued any hearings or drama as demanded by Moveon and the like?

Bush had the Dems over a barrel, they couldn’t go after him without exposing their twofaced, hypocritical “outrage” at the Bush programs, because they had been briefed and briefed and briefed.

Strategery and Poker. Glass Houses.

The Dems were hoisted on their own petard. If they went after Bush, they naive, gullible voter base would’ve been totally disillusioned.


84 posted on 12/23/2008 12:22:44 PM PST by swarthyguy (*Bush Promised us Osama, instead we're getting Obama*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy

Not to mention the fact that they also would of found out that they hold the wrong view on the Constitution in regards to this issue. Even the FISA Court had ALREADY ruled that the Commander in Chief has this power.


85 posted on 12/23/2008 12:25:27 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

It’s Legal

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp


86 posted on 12/23/2008 12:27:59 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

That’s almost not even the issue, since I doubt Obama is going to give up any executive powers, especially any pertaining to security and defense.

And, agreeing with your statement, only adds to the blatantly political aspects of the Democrats stance.

Strictly expediency for political gain.

But, they preserved that illusion through the election.


87 posted on 12/23/2008 12:28:12 PM PST by swarthyguy (*Bush Promised us Osama, instead we're getting Obama*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno; 2ndDivisionVet
There’s plenty of reasons to doubt Mr. Cheney here.

I will have to disagree with you here, there is no reason what so ever to doubt Vice President(not Mr.)Cheney here, or any other time.

88 posted on 12/23/2008 12:30:07 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Coincidentally. I have been looking again at “The Winds of War.” which depicts FDR acting in plain violation of existing law.

LOL not just that but this author had no historical knowledge whatsoever. Lincoln (one of my favorites) probably violated the constitution more often than all the presidents since.

89 posted on 12/23/2008 12:32:31 PM PST by usurper (Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I am not the author of this article, thank The Lord!


90 posted on 12/23/2008 12:46:30 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Barack Obama: In Error and arrogant -- he's errogant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: usurper

Among other things, Lincoln kept the Maryland legislayure from meeting to keep it from voting for secession. He must have been thinking: Dang, why did those guys not keep the capital in Philadelphia or New York!


91 posted on 12/23/2008 12:49:26 PM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: usurper

Among other things, Lincoln kept the Maryland legislayure from meeting to keep it from voting for secession. He must have been thinking: Dang, why did those guys not keep the capital in Philadelphia or New York!


92 posted on 12/23/2008 12:49:26 PM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: calex59

“I will have to disagree with you here, there is no reason what so ever to doubt Vice President(not Mr.)Cheney here, or any other time.”

No doubts here; I posted two links to support his claim, one from 2005 and one from 2006, that he did, in fact, call in the Dem leaders.


93 posted on 12/23/2008 1:03:13 PM PST by jessduntno (Barack - Kenyan for "High Wind, Big Thunder, No Rain")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
My point is this:

We are in a war with terrorists, domestic & foreign. GWB mostly knows who the terrorists are, but the Left in this country are very confused about who the terrorist are.

The liberals make the case that it is the USA. GWB, Israel, & conservatives (rich, white, homophobe racists) who are the terrorists. So, if say, Senator Shelby or Rush or YOU is talking to someone of the same conservative persuasion in a foreign country, Obama & co. have the legal right to record this conversation & use it against you. We are, you are a terrorist in their eyes, so the surveillance laws will likely now be directed at us conservatives.

And since when do our leaders follow the letter & spirit of our laws? Ask Joe the Plumber about that! On the contrary, our leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle & in all 3 branches routinely use their positions to further their own personal, political & partisan greed, with little regard for the constitution or the people.

I don't want the gov’t to have MORE power over our lives - I want them to have less.

Frankly, I would rather have a few bombs go off here in the USA, than to give our gov’t unlimited power to spy on Americans. I'd rather a US police state be blown to Hell. The USA has survived a civil war & several wars w/o the Patriot Act & its "enhancements".

And yes, monitoring conversations between an American citizen & a foreigner is spying on US citizens. Monitoring conversations between foreigners, either here in the USA or abroad is completely OK with me. But if a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required I believe.

Finally, as we are at war, let's take that war to the sources - Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Syria, Saudi Arabia, & more - rather that play defense on the streets of America, & give unchecked power to our politicians. Many people believe this war on terror will take upwards of 100 years to win, or lose. And already a warrant is not required. Scary!

94 posted on 12/24/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paige

“W may have been working to protect us, but with Gang Obama and the Demoncrats in control of Congress this power is “DANGEROUS”.”

I wonder how many Pub proponents of the Patriot act will regret the day they approved this criminal nonsense. Or will they just be glad that the ruling class has more power?

I believe the weakness & eventual collapse of our current republican form of gov’t will be directly related to the ruling class & their unlimited ability to pass innumerable laws favoring themselves at the expense of the rest of us.


95 posted on 12/24/2008 6:57:00 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

You said:
“My point is this:
We are in a war with terrorists, domestic & foreign. GWB mostly knows who the terrorists are, but the Left in this country are very confused about who the terrorist are.
The liberals make the case that it is the USA. GWB, Israel, & conservatives (rich, white, homophobe racists) who are the terrorists. So, if say, Senator Shelby or Rush or YOU is talking to someone of the same conservative persuasion in a foreign country, Obama & co. have the legal right to record this conversation & use it against you. We are, you are a terrorist in their eyes, so the surveillance laws will likely now be directed at us conservatives.”

______________

You claim above that surveillance without a warrant will be used against American citizens yet there has been no conservative who has argued for that in this case. There also has been NO examples of Americans being targeted for surveillance without a warrant. The Bush administration has never argued for this power to be used against American citizens but instead has made it clear that this was not the case. Again there have been NO cases of Americans being the target of warrantless surveillance. It is just pure spin on your part to make it seem like that is what the argument is about.
If a President wants to target Americans who oppose him politically then he will probally do it anyway but it will not be the result of the arguments that are made to continue to allow the President to intercept possible enemy communications crossing our border.
________________

You said:
And since when do our leaders follow the letter & spirit of our laws? Ask Joe the Plumber about that! On the contrary, our leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle & in all 3 branches routinely use their positions to further their own personal, political & partisan greed, with little regard for the constitution or the people.
I don’t want the gov’t to have MORE power over our lives - I want them to have less.
____________________________

If you do not trust anyone in all three branches of government then how is going to the other two branches for permission to surveil make our freedoms any safer in your view anyway.

Besides you are relying on spin again that somehow this has to do with targeting American citizens when it does not. So it does not give the gov’t MORE power over our lives as you claim.
_________________________

You said:
Frankly, I would rather have a few bombs go off here in the USA
________________________

Oh really? Well the next bomb to go off may kill 300,000 or possibly 3 million. You claim to care about freedom but I do not believe you really do.

When these bombs go off that do not seem to bother you it will bother many other people though for sure. Under your acceptable scenerio of bombs going off I am sure that we will end up losing much much MORE of our freedom.
_________________________

You said:
And yes, monitoring conversations between an American citizen & a foreigner is spying on US citizens.
________________________________

Sorry but no it is not. You (US citizen) do not have a right to privacy with the foreign enemies of this nation. If you (US citizen) become a target then a warrant will be needed but if you are on the phone with some cave in Pakistan then our Commander in Chief has the duty to intercept this communication.
________________________

You said:
Monitoring conversations between foreigners, either here in the USA or abroad is completely OK with me. But if a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required I believe.
________________________

No it is not. If a conversation is to be used against an American citizen then yes it is but if the target is the enemy then no it is not.


96 posted on 12/27/2008 9:47:44 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

You said:
“Monitoring conversations between foreigners, either here in the USA or abroad is completely OK with me. But if a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required I believe.”

Let me give you a “what if” question to answer.

Let’s say that foreign entities (terrorists) are being monitored in Pakistan.

They are talking together about giving the signal to their American cell that all is in position and for them to go ahead and set off a massive dirty bomb and release chemical warfare in a major city. They are planning to kill 100s of thousands of Americans. Let’s say that we are hearing all of this go on and have established the seiousness and capabilities of the terrorists involved even.

You have already said that you are ok with this type of monitoring because so far in my “what if” scenerio it is all foreigners outside of the United States even that are being monitred (no US citizen involved... yet).

Next a call is coming in to these terrorists and guess what? The other end of the line is to an American citizen.

What do you do?

Do you suspend the surviellance (not listen to the enemy) and rush to the Court for permission?

Or what do you think is appropiate in this instance?


97 posted on 12/27/2008 11:52:42 PM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

Read today’s news yet?

“WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&hp


98 posted on 01/15/2009 9:12:16 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

As I have said before - there is no Constitutional right to privacy in communicating with our enemies overseas. Only if an American citizen is the target of the intercept is there a need for ‘due process’. The Commander-in-Chief does not require permission in order to intercept enemy communications.


99 posted on 01/15/2009 9:13:15 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson