In article <1147752205.635073.42870@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ray wrote:
> > In article <1147743739.611661.6440@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > ray wrote:
> > > > In article <1147739023.522186.97950@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ray wrote:
> > > > > > In article
<1147729641.743992.110440@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > > > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ray wrote:
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > > Now if push comes to shove, this case won't take five or
six
> > > > > > > > years;
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > will take perhaps one or two. But what are you going to
say if
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > S.C.
> > > > > > > > rules that wiretapping is Constitutional?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question before us, WRT wiretapping, is not whether it
is
> > > > > > > constitutional, but whether it is ILLEGAL. Under some
> > > > > > > cir***stances,
> > > > > > > wiretapping is legal because the process of obtaining a
warrant
> > > > > > > satisfies constitutionality. Under other cir***stances, such
as
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > perpetrated by the Bush administration, wiretapping is
illegal,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > those taps violated the due process which would have
satisfied
> > > > > > > constitutionality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are laws on the books which allow wiretapping to be
> > > > > > > performed
> > > > > > > while maintaining some degree of civil rights assurance. If
you
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > that the administration should be allowed to break these
laws
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > yourself, are unconstitutional. You would have to hold great
> > > > > > > disdain
> > > > > > > for the constitution to devalue it in that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last I read, there is nothing in the Constitution about
> > > > > > wiretapping,
> > > > > > surveillance or spying for that matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, you're one of THOSE. First you take a very strict literalist
> > > > > position, and then you say:
> > > >
> > > > What I say is truth.....that is unless, you can point out any of
these
> > > > words in the Constitution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Any law written or even
> > > > > > discussed in the past is passe for the current enemy we are
> > > > > > fighting.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...And you say it without any hint of irony. You're not even
aware
> > > > > how
> > > > > stupid you look. And you have to do all this ideological
> > > > > contortionism
> > > > > because of your blind loyalty to Bush. You're a monarchist.
> > > >
> > > > Monarchist, police state, geeze you have a wild imagination.
> > >
> > > But you *are.* It's very clear. You're OK with Bush acting like a
king.
> > > You complain about the language of the Constitution, and then you
say
> > > the Constitution is irrelevant.
> >
> > Just because the NSA is sifting through millions of communications per
> > hour only hoping they can find something on terrorists plots does not
a
> > autocracy make.
>
> Ah, so you're moving away from your bogus constitutional argument.
> Good.
>
> However, the problem with your current line of rhetoric is that you
> really don't know the full extent of what's being done with this
> information you're so glad to give away.
Of course I'm not, I'm glad nobody knows. But, it would be revealed if
somebody is brought up on charges because of this activity. That's when
we need to look into the matter a little more. Until that time comes,
I'm not going to cast guilt on anybody.
> > If Bush were truly doing anything that can be a clear
> > violation of the law,
>
> What do you mean, 'if?' It's happened. He actually went on TV and said
> so.
Yes, and he also said it was discussed in detail with his legal team who
assured him he was in full compliance with all laws and Constitution.
And this is where the "if" part comes in. His rivals are saying just
the opposite, that he is in violation with law and Constitution. This
is why the matter is controversial; it's not clear-cut. It's one
groups opinion over another.
> > the Democrats would have taken action by now--even
> > if it meant failure because of the Republican majority.
>
> So you're saying that Democratic inaction is proof that the President
> is innocent of all charges. What a tool!
No, what I'm saying is that they are not so certain themselves, and in
fact, are probably using this situation to make Bush out to be the bad
guy. All they have to do is make the accusation and as far as the media
is concerned, whatever the Democrats say is Gospel.
Now if it were a clear-cut case with no doubt about it, the Democrats
would have already swung into action because they win either way. If
the Democrats proceed with action and win, they give a black eye to this
President. If they lose, they would do so because of the Republican
majority and that too would be to their advantage. The only way for
them to look bad is if they proceed and it is ruled that the President
is within all legal rights. And although I'm not sure, I believe this
is the reason they remain on the sidelines instead of getting in the
game.
> > > > Now, we don't know what is being done with this information, but
what
> > > > we
> > > > do know is that nobody has been charged or arrested with this
> > > > information collected. It's impossible to say what they are doing
with
> > > > this information because it is (or supposed to be) secret.
> > >
> > > Which is precisely why it should fall under FISA and thus
> > > constitutionality, rather than the 'trust big government' doctrine
now
> > > prevalent.
> >
> > So we should place courts in charge of this war on terror?
>
> No, we should place the courts in charge of protecting our rights.
> You'd have to be an idiot to believe I even implied what you just said.
>
> BTW: Why'd you change your name from whit?
Whit?
By giving the courts full power as to who they issue warrants for, you
are placing them in charge. If the NSA is on to something and they do
know who they are listening to but can't provide enough evidence to
convince FISA and it ends up that we do have an attack that the courts
could have prevented, they are in full charge. Besides, the courts are
a branch of the Federal Government. But what you are saying is that you
trust our Judicial branch over our Executive branch to conduct the
protection of this country and our boys overseas. And I don't know that
I'm all too comfortable with that.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
|
