Posted on 02/13/2006 4:55:15 AM PST by seanmerc
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies. "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said. The next day at Mrs. King's high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the "secret government wiretapping" of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S. The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
LOL, I closed my last post to you saying that, "I sit here patiently awaiting your next absurd claim", and without fail, you delivered!
Here in a nutshell (appropriate in this case), is the schizophrenic argument you're trying to advance...
1. The king was commander-in-chief.
2. The king could declare war.
3. The commander-in-chief could not.
4. Yet the king was commander-in-chief!
It is simply irrational for you to try to claim that the prerogatives of declaring war and making war were not both in the hands of the same person who had the supreme command over all armed forces and that they were separable powers in the hands of one man.
When you insert words into my post that I never said, anything can become an absurd argument. Thanks for demonstrating that that's all you have left at this point.
3. The commander-in-chief could not.
Not by virtue of his position as commander in chief. Nice try at a strained argument, though.
It is simply irrational for you to try to claim that the prerogatives of declaring war and making war were not both in the hands of the same person who had the supreme command over all armed forces
Now I'm beginning to wonder exactly how well you're able to read at all. This might begin to explain the difficulty you're having with this subject.
Lusting in his pants...er, uh heart again I see.
Yes, understanding irrational and circular logic has always been a failing of mine! I have difficulty with faulty logic like your following...
1. The king was commander-in-chief.
2. The king could declare war.
3. The commander-in-chief could not declare war.
4. Yet the king was commander-in-chief!
The only way to unravel your Mobius Loop is to appreciate that those titles and powers are inseparable, one was co-extensive with the other, and that as commander-in-chief, the king could declare war.
Hamilton understood that simple truth, but you don't!
Now, as king he could declare war. As commander in chief, he could command the country's military. Are you really confused about this?
The circular logic of inquest...
1. The king was commander-in-chief.
2. The king could declare war.
3. The commander-in-chief could not declare war.
4. Yet the commander-in-chief was the king!
Now all you have to do is find where I said that.
(by the way, you obviously have no idea what circular logic is)
Nothing you've posted to date shows as clearly as that denial of yours, that none of your arguments have been genuine or honorable debate. Here are just three examples of your quotes that show my paraphrasing of your illogical position to be 100% accurate.
So what are you saying now, inquest? Are you changing your story and finally admitting that by history and tradition, the commander-in-chief did in fact have the power to declare war?
Time to come clean and put an end to your sophistry.
The circular logic of inquest...
1. The king was commander-in-chief.
2. The king could declare war.
3. The commander-in-chief could not declare war.
4. Yet the commander-in-chief was the king!!!
5. .....?
So then tell me, does the term "citizen of Texas" include the power to authorize wiretaps?
"Would this fall into the "pot calling the kettle black" category?"
No, it falls into the category of "Do as I say, not as I do", which is the mantra of every red-blooded communist since Marx invented the breed.
The question of wiretapping and federal surveilance, for democrats, is not that it's being done, it's WHO it's being done FOR. Democrats don't mind wiretapping, so long as they are the beneficiaries. This is part and parcel of the war of personalities that has been prevalent in democratic (small 'd' intentional) politics since the sayd when George W. Bush was an 'idiot', and John Ashcroft was ushering in an era of religious Fourth Reich.
One thing to remember; when democrats squeal this way the issue is not the abuse of government power (which is their normal course of action) or national security. It is the fear that a) if a 'Palestinian Charity' can be labeled a terrorist organization then so can Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NAMBLA, La Raza, etc. and, b) what happends when the government finds out something totally unrelated to terrorism, but which is still a crime or a danger to society? For example, if the surveilance in question does not find evidence of terrorist activities, but DOES find evidence of a child porn or drug ring, does the government then have the right to prosecute these crimes that were discovered incidentally or accidentally?
The dimwits will tell you no; a warrant is a literal document not subject to broad interpretation (which clashes with their view of the Constitution, co-incidentally).
The protest is interesting in another way; the dems are not telling us what they fear, or defending civil rights, so much as what they WOULD DO if they had that power.
It's all about who has it and who can be presented as having 'purer motives'. Naturally, since every leftist has a messiah complex, they'd have you believe they can be trusted to be more responsible with this kind of authortiy.
inquest's fatal fallacy...
1. The king was commander-in-chief.
2. The king could declare war.
3. The commander-in-chief could not declare war.
4. But how could the king declare war, if he was also commander-in-chief???
Checkmate, by the way.
inquest's fatal fallacy...
1. The king was at all times was commander-in-chief.
2. The king was at all times could declare war.
3. The commander-in-chief could not declare war.
4. But how could the king declare war, if he was also commander-in-chief???
But it was fun watching you chase your tail.
inquest's fatal fallacy...
1. The king was commander-in-chief.
2. The king could declare war.
3. But inquest insists that the commander-in-chief could not declare war.
4. Then how could the king declare war, if he was also the commander-in-chief???
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.