Page 19 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91415161718192021222324 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 546
  1. #361  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Administrations will argue you do it because they never want to give up any power.
    Why should they even be asked to give up enumerated powers? It would be exactly like telling the Senate their advise and consent will no longer be solicited for supreme Court nominees.
    (I typed all of this on my ppc :-)
    In the tiny little text box! I wonder if the admins can fix that, especially now with all the new WM Treo viewers of the mobile site.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  2. #362  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Why should they even be asked to give up enumerated powers? It would be exactly like telling the Senate their advise and consent will no longer be solicited for supreme Court nominees.
    This argument supports my position (on why an Administration would fight for a power that they havent used.)

    However I dont see where the constitution states that the President can electronically spy on citizens without warrants. ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    In the tiny little text box! I wonder if the admins can fix that, especially now with all the new WM Treo viewers of the mobile site.
    Of course...I am a mobile warrior.

    Remember my screen is a little bigger than yours ;-)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #363  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    However I dont see where the constitution states that the President can electronically spy on citizens without warrants. ;-)
    It gives hime sole command of the armed forces, under whose aegis this program is being run. The Constitution also doesn't say he's in charge of the Air Force.
    Of course...I am a mobile warrior.

    Remember my screen is a little bigger than yours ;-)
    I have a confession - I post most of the time using the tiny window.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4. #364  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Of course...I am a mobile warrior.

    Remember my screen is a little bigger than yours ;-)
    LOL!!!!
  5. #365  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It gives hime sole command of the armed forces, under whose aegis this program is being run. The Constitution also doesn't say he's in charge of the Air Force.
    If that were true (spying is an enumerated power) then AG Gonzales wouldnt have had to rely on the implied consent 'argument' following the 9/11 order to justify its use.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #366  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If that were true (spying is an enumerated power) then AG Gonzales wouldnt have had to rely on the implied consent 'argument' following the 9/11 order to justify its use.
    The power the executive has is a *war power*. That is why the AG says they are acting under congressional authorization. I don't see the contradiction.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  7. #367  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The power the executive has is a *war power*. That is why the AG says they are acting under congressional authorization. I don't see the contradiction.
    I thought I read (there is a video stream of the press conference) that the AG was making the argument that the Congress implied the President had the power to ignore the FISA requirement from the 9/11 order.

    The argument is that if the Pres. has the enumerated power to wiretap w/o warrants on US citizens, then there should be no reliance on the 9/11 resolution through implication.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #368  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The power the executive has is a *war power*. That is why the AG says they are acting under congressional authorization. I don't see the contradiction.
    The problem is with the assertion that "war power" includes surveillance of citizens rather than the enemy or even foreigners. The assertion is a problem without regard to whether he is actually doing it or not, whether or not he is listening to only those citizens who talk to foreigners. He simply admits to no limits. His advocates here think that is fine.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #369  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Of course we see this line...but remember who is saying it (i.e. the same person who argues the legal interests of the President.) Do you think this is a fair and unbiased opinion? Ask yourself this...what else is she going to say? Now if this was from a judge on an appellate court than I would concede...but this isnt even close to that. Gorelick is a lawyer arguing what the law should be....not what the law is.

    Of course...Gorelick doesnt want to seperate them.

    You want me to infer? I asked you to provide proof and you offer an inference after claiming I was COMPLETELY FALSE? My opinion is that it was physical searches...unless you can show proof otherwise.

    This is EXACTLY what an attorney would do.

    Again...I dont know but I asked you for the proof and you are giving me inferences. They could have gotten all sorts of intel from third parties, ties from other countries, etc. Plus in Ames, they physically searched his house. I didnt read in your linked story where they electronically surveillanced him (I could have missed it though).

    Again this is an AG making a claim...his own legal opinion.

    I will have to research this...I havent seen this story.

    Administrations will argue you do it because they never want to give up any power.

    I havent seen a link or story of an appellate court that says the the President does not have to use FISA to electronically spy on a US citizen.

    (I typed all of this on my ppc :-)
    I provided proof that your statement of every administration prior to Bush had utilized FISA for wiretaps (Vietnam spies, and probably Ames however much of that is not available for public viewing) is false. I could have used the argument most use here and say well since you stated every administation has gone through FISA to prove it, but instead I said it was false and provided info.

    The article I cited earlier states that 4 courts have upheld that the president has authority to use warrentless wiretaps (reread them) for foreign intelligance.

    I am still completely baffeled that people argue it is OK for the federal govt to search your homes, business, cars and persons without a warrent, yet are bent out of shape because the same people listen to international communications
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #370  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If that were true (spying is an enumerated power) then AG Gonzales wouldnt have had to rely on the implied consent 'argument' following the 9/11 order to justify its use.
    It seems that the implied consent has become a rallying point for those who believe the president does not have this authority, they say see he is reaching, yet I don't think he was saying that implied consent was the only authority, just one of the provisions that provide that authority.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. #371  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I provided proof.......
    No, Sir, you provided evidence. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not your evidence is convincing.


    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ........that your statement of every administration prior to Bush had utilized FISA for wiretaps (Vietnam spies, and probably Ames however much of that is not available for public viewing) is false. I could have used the argument most use here and say well since you stated every administation has gone through FISA to prove it, but instead I said it was false and provided info.

    The article I cited earlier states that 4 courts have upheld that the president has authority to use warrentless wiretaps (reread them) for foreign intelligance.

    I am still completely baffeled that people argue it is OK for the federal govt to search your homes, business, cars and persons without a warrent, yet are bent out of shape because the same people listen to international communications
    First, I do not so argue. I am prepared to admit that there may be "reasonable" searches and siezures under the 4th Amendment. Congress and the Courts, not the Executive, get to say what is reasonable. The amendment suggests that the default is in favor of the citizen and that the most dispositive determination of reasonable is a warrant.

    Note that with FISA the Congress clearly intended to constrain reasonable. They intended to do so, at least in part because the capability of the government is so great and because its use is covert.

    All that said, it still seems to me that the issue is that the incumbent asserts that he is not subject to the law or to judicial review.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #372  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    No, Sir, you provided evidence. It is up to the reader to decide whether or not your evidence is convincing.




    First, I do not so argue. I am prepared to admit that there may be "reasonable" searches and siezures under the 4th Amendment. Congress and the Courts, not the Executive, get to say what is reasonable. The amendment suggests that the default is in favor of the citizen and that the most dispositive determination of reasonable is a warrant.

    Note that with FISA the Congress clearly intended to constrain reasonable. They intended to do so, at least in part because the capability of the government is so great and because its use is covert.

    All that said, it still seems to me that the issue is that the incumbent asserts that he is not subject to the law or to judicial review.
    Well, you are correct in saying it is up to the reader to decide if the news reports, and court records are convincing. The material is there to be read and then individuals will do with it what they want.

    As far as reasonable search and seizure, the cite I provided once again stated that previous administration did not get warrents for physical search or electronic wiretaps, not the congress or the courts, but the AG and/or the President authorized them. Just like what appears to have happened currently.

    Previous administrations have been there and done that. It has gone through the courts and has been upheld.

    As previously stated, we may not like it, but it has been happening, probably more than we are aware of, with all administrations.

    FISA is in place, FISA is not an airtight system, FISA will continue to be modified as world events dictate.

    Members of congress were notified, some members wrote letters to cover their backside (in my opinon), but none stood up and said wait just a daggone minute here, let's take this to FISA and see what they say. FISA has the highest security clearance so there would be no reason for congress not ask for that if they felt it was something that needed to be addressed. If the administration was in the wrong, then we must hold every congress member that was notified to the same standard. I don't let my children say well I thought it was wrong, I even wrote a letter to mom and kept a copy, saying I had reservations about it but went along with it anyway, so don't blame me.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #373  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I provided proof that your statement of every administration prior to Bush had utilized FISA for wiretaps (Vietnam spies, and probably Ames however much of that is not available for public viewing) is false.
    Is it? I guess I am not reading the articles that you posted the same way you are. Here is the link to your story:http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

    One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
    This is an example of a physical search (not electronic so FISA would not be needed) and the article does not mention wiretapping without a FISA warrant.

    In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
    This doesn't indicate that wiretapping was done (at least not in the article. )

    I agree that the President has authority to do physical searches against individuals that the AG believes is working for a foreign authority but I am talking about electronic searches against US citizens without FISA warrants. The Ames case and possibly the Vietnam case are not talking about electronic surveillance (at least based on your article.)

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The article I cited earlier states that 4 courts have upheld that the president has authority to use warrentless wiretaps (reread them) for foreign intelligance.
    (Completely optional) but when you get a moment, can you pull the quotes from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am still completely baffeled that people argue it is OK for the federal govt to search your homes, business, cars and persons without a warrent, yet are bent out of shape because the same people listen to international communications
    Maybe the distinction is that the USSC has held that physical searches with probable cause does not require a warrant. I haven't seen any USSC decision stating that the President has the authority to ignore FISA and conduct warrantless electronic searches without a warrant on US citizens. If there was a decision out there that supported this, do you really think there would be this much debate about it (ignoring for a second the partisanship)?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #374  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Is it? I guess I am not reading the articles that you posted the same way you are. Here is the link to your story:http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

    This is an example of a physical search (not electronic so FISA would not be needed) and the article does not mention wiretapping without a FISA warrant.

    This doesn't indicate that wiretapping was done (at least not in the article. )

    I agree that the President has authority to do physical searches against individuals that the AG believes is working for a foreign authority but I am talking about electronic searches against US citizens without FISA warrants. The Ames case and possibly the Vietnam case are not talking about electronic surveillance (at least based on your article.)

    (Completely optional) but when you get a moment, can you pull the quotes from them.

    Maybe the distinction is that the USSC has held that physical searches with probable cause does not require a warrant. I haven't seen any USSC decision stating that the President has the authority to ignore FISA and conduct warrantless electronic searches without a warrant on US citizens. If there was a decision out there that supported this, do you really think there would be this much debate about it (ignoring for a second the partisanship)?
    "sighs" again, here is a quote from FISA, can we agree that FISA deals with electronic searches and then agree that since they deal with electronic searches they must be referring to electronic searches in this quote.
    "More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2610-7772r.htm

    And again
    Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

    I fully realize that this is in the opinion/commentary section, however it is written by Clinton's deputy AG, currently practicing in Chicago and his facts are still facts.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #375  
    http://news.pajamasmedia.com/science...ng_Satel.shtml

    The USDA is using satellite imagery to keep tabs on crop fraud claims - no warrants. Where's the outrage?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  16. #376  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am feeling safer already that you are willing to give up all your civil liberties

    The constitution has handled the test of time for over two centuries...there is no reason to throw away the rule of law now.
    Well, actually it hasn't. Not really. Other presidents have trampled all over the Constituion in the past. Especially during times of war. Oddly enough, these presidents are considered to be some of the greatest of all time. And if you consider what they did, you'll realize the Bush administration has been very respectful of the Constitution in comparison.

    - Franklin Roosevelt
    - detained Japanese Americans in internment camps during WW II. Forget about Guantamo Bay. These people were CITIZENS - not POW's.
    - before WWII, attempted to combat the Great Depression with New Deal Policies. Unfortunately, these policies violated the Constitution by overiding the authority of individual states via Federal law. When the Supreme Court began ruling these laws unconstitutional, FDR tried to seize more power by proposing a law to allow HIM to appoint NINE more Supreme Court justices immediately. Fortunately, even his fellow Democrats did not support him and it was defeated.

    - Woodrow Wilson
    - during WWI SUCCESSFULLY PASSED a Federal law in which any citizens could be arrested for expressing ANY criticism of the Armed Forces or the government's policy on the war. It was repealed several years later.

    - Abraham Lincoln
    - violated state Constitutional rights by passing a Federal law abolishing slavery thereby increasing the Federal government's authority.
    - passed a law during the Civil War that suspended the right to trial for ANY CITIZEN arrested by the Federal government. In fact, many Northerners were even scared that Lincoln was using the war as an excuse to expand his power. (But HE actually was!)

    - Thomas Jefferson
    - after the Supreme court ruled one of his administration's policies as being unconstitutional, he was quoted as laughing at the ruling and saying he didn't care what they said. He continued enforcing his policy.

    So when you say the Constitution has stood the test of time for two hundered years up until now, well no it hasn't always. What about one of the first lines in the statement that says all men are created equal? If that had stood the test of time for TWO centuries then there would've been no slavery, no need for civil rights movements for universal suffrage there due to policies of HOW many administrations? Let's not forget the American Indian holocaust.

    What is going on now with this administration is fluff compared to the last two centuries. So when one says that Bush is no FDR, Wilson, Lincoln or Jefferson, maybe we should considerate ourselves fortunate.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  17. #377  
    First off: Im mobile (hence I am combining posts)

    Cardio: you are combining physical searches and electronic searches. I am not sure they are the same. (I guess we can leave it at that.)

    Phurth: I think the courts have ruled that at a certain height (usually where 'airspace' begins) you don't have the expectation of privacy (so no issue from me.) People generally assume that when they use the telephone, there is an expectation of privacy (unless there is a warrant).

    Bob: my point on the constitution is that it hasn't gotten to the point that people have rioted to overthrow the government (hence the test of time statement). Of the examples you stated, Lincoln went back to the Congress after the fact to have them say that what he did was ok. FDR had his decision of Japanese citizens upheld (although it has been heavily criticized). Can't comment on Wilson, I will have to check that one out (I would say though that if he got the Congress to pass the law, it''s up to the courts to declare it constitutional or not. I blame Congress for the bad laws they pass and the President for eventually signing them.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #378  
    T2, articles have been cited, cut and pasted and shared with all that FISA has stated in a declassified document that the president does have the authority to perform warrentless searches. In my opinon those who are trying to draw an imaginary line between physical and electronic searches are reaching. If FISA was saying the president has authority to perform only physical searches why would they not make that distinction clear in the statement? If they were saying he must get their approval for electronic searches why not make it clear in their statement? FISA simply stated the president has the authority to perform warrentless searches for foreign intelligance.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  19. #379  
    It seems clear that this thread is now occupied only by those who are convinced. There is far more heat here than light. Any moderate voices have been silenced. The same arguments are being re-stated ad nauseam. I move the thread be closed.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #380  
    I will be waiting for congressional hearings before this goes any further with me.

Posting Permissions