Bush Reveals Al-Qaeda Plot.

[HOBBIT]

Yeah, that isn't in the Constitution Spock.
And that isn't even an exact quote. I know what you are talking about though.

Congress didn't mean for Bush to go illegally spying on people.

[Rían]

A lot of people here quote the "separation of church and state" line all the time, and THAT isn't in the Constitution, either! It's not only the Constitution that shapes how our country is run.

[HOBBIT]

Yeah, but Sep Church and State is derived from the Constitution - Establishment Clause of First Amendment.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

SOH alert! SOH alert!
(and you don't live in Hollyweird, anyway!)

A. - what the hell does SOH mean, Rian?

and B., Regarding Where I Live, as if it made a damn bit of difference - MY FRIENDS LIVE IN HOLLYWOOD, and I CALL HOLLYWOOD MY HOME. I have done for years. I am moving back to West Hollywood within the next three months, finances permitting, and DID live there for years before moving out here to the beach a year ago,

[Rían]

"SOH" = "Sense of Humor"

And if you seriously think that I would be glad if Hollywood was blown up, then that sure explains a lot of things!

No, I am not the incarnation of all evil. At least on Mondays, that is ...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Yeah, that isn't in the Constitution Spock.
And that isn't even an exact quote. I know what you are talking about though.

IT'S what they did after 9/11, not in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Congress didn't mean for Bush to go illegally spying on people.

That's a supposition and in light of 9/11 it can't hold water, IMO.

[hectorberlioz]

So it's illegal...as I posted earlier: what now?
It's not that I don't think breaking the law is no big deal, but if it was for protection, and to be very very secret as to be kept from muslim intelligence? And it's working?

[Spock]

NO, the congress gave the permission to "do all" to protect American citizens. It's not illegal.
Bleeding hearts and their ilk exposed the secret which has prevented another attack....now that it's been in the news for two months we have to wait and see if the bad guys forget and slip up. To just stop it on the grounds "they know about it" isn't helping.

[HOBBIT]

That is not true. It most certainly is illegal. If it was legal - there would be no problem. Spock, what you said is exactly what Bush and Gonzales have said.

But Congress did not give Bush a blank check. They did not expand the power of the executive branch at all. The resolution was directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism.

This is INTERNAL illegal spying. Done WITHOUT WARRANTS. Completely going around Judicial branch.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Spock, what you said is exactly what Bush and Gonzales have said.

Yep and until or unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, the highest judicial officer in the country and the head of the executive branch have said it over and over again. I just happen to agree with them and not you.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

But Congress did not give Bush a blank check.

Actually they did.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

The resolution was directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism.

The resolution did not state that.

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

This is INTERNAL illegal spying. Done WITHOUT WARRANTS. Completely going around Judicial branch.

Nope.

[Insidious Rex]

This is called the ITS TRUE BECAUSE I SAY SO approach to debating. Guess if it works for Bush it can work for others eh?

The problem is when you hand absolute power to ANYONE (Not just talking about Bush here) you are asking for trouble. It WILL be abused sooner or later. So THATS why you cant allow that. There needs to be some checks. There needs to be some limits. There needs to be some accountability. If he hadnt just gone ahead and done whatever he damn well pleased then we wouldnt be having this debate because he could have gotten what he wanted through the FISA court which to my knowledge has never turned down a warrent anyway.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

This is called the ITS TRUE BECAUSE I SAY SO approach to debating. Guess if it works for Bush it can work for others eh?

HA ha!! That's what I was thinking. (I'm right - no, I'M right -NO, no I'M right - no, you're not; I AM! No, I am! etcetera etcetera ad infinitum...)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The problem is when you hand absolute power to ANYONE (Not just talking about Bush here) you are asking for trouble. It WILL be abused sooner or later. So THATS why you cant allow that. There needs to be some checks. There needs to be some limits. There needs to be some accountability. If he hadnt just gone ahead and done whatever he damn well pleased then we wouldnt be having this debate because he could have gotten what he wanted through the FISA court which to my knowledge has never turned down a warrent anyway.

Word.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

......e because he could have gotten what he wanted through the FISA court which to my knowledge has never turned down a warrent anyway.

NOPE, the FISA court takes 72hrs and was implemented before the technology we now have.............by then the cell phone, etc. would have been tossed.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

NOPE, the FISA court takes 72hrs and was implemented before the technology we now have.............by then the cell phone, etc. would have been tossed.

But they are ALLOWED TO DO THE TAPS FOR those 72 hours by law. They dont need the warrant till the third day and in some cases longer. So basically you can do warrentless spying for three days and by then youd have your warrent anyway. So its pointless to go around this system really. And its a really bad idea.

[Spock]

Not true but I'm giving up. Enjoy your diatribe. More like this and we'll all be the worse off.

[The Gaffer]

As an outsider looking in on this, from what I've read they would still be able to get warrants, the process is secret and it wouldn't impede the surveillance in any way.

Which leads me to conclude that the reason for bypassing judicial scrutiny must be because they might NOT get a warrant for the sorts of spying they are doing, and/or they don't want the judiciary to know what they are up to.

Sounds like you're already worse off.

[hectorberlioz]

You know, I wonder if it's just the dems slurring Bush's name as much as they can so they can get someone in the White House.
They bacl off a lot of what they originally said or did, such as agree with Bush back in '02 that Iraq had WMD. Now they deny they ever agreed.
It seems to me that this issue, though 99% more sensitive, might be a bit bloated like the Valerie Plame game.

[HOBBIT]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You know, I wonder if it's just the dems slurring Bush's name as much as they can so they can get someone in the White House.
They bacl off a lot of what they originally said or did, such as agree with Bush back in '02 that Iraq had WMD. Now they deny they ever agreed.
It seems to me that this issue, though 99% more sensitive, might be a bit bloated like the Valerie Plame game.

Well of course they are going to try to use any Bush blunder to their advantage.

So just because Democrats are using this to their advantage it makes these issues not important? They are blowing it out of proporsion?

That is crazy man.

In what way are they?

- Illegal wiretaping on American citizens - yeah we shouldn't care about that. It is being done for our own good. :roll eyes: Democrats and Republicans alike are worked up about this. And with good reason.


- Bloated Valerie Plame game?

Yeah, outting a CIA Agent is No Biggie - its only a federal crime. And it was done to get back at the agent's husband. Bloated?

They bacl off a lot of what they originally said or did, such as agree with Bush back in '02 that Iraq had WMD. Now they deny they ever agreed.

Everyone was convinced by the Bush administration that Iraq had WMDs. True or not true? This is TRUE. So mostly everyone supported the war.

WMDs were never found in Iraq - TRUE. Gettings those WMDs was what got us into the war.

So NOW Dems (and Rebpulicans too ) are not supporting the war. And saying stuff like "if i knew what I know now, I would NOT have supported the war" That is completely different from saying that they never agreed with Bush.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Well of course they are going to try to use any Bush blunder to their advantage.

So just because Democrats are using this to their advantage it makes these issues not important? They are blowing it out of proporsion?

That is crazy man.

In what way are they?

- Illegal wiretaping on American citizens - yeah we shouldn't care about that. It is being done for our own good. :roll eyes: Democrats and Republicans alike are worked up about this. And with good reason.


- Bloated Valerie Plame game?

Yeah, outting a CIA Agent is No Biggie - its only a federal crime. And it was done to get back at the agent's husband. Bloated?


Everyone was convinced by the Bush administration that Iraq had WMDs. True or not true? This is TRUE. So mostly everyone supported the war.

WMDs were never found in Iraq - TRUE. Gettings those WMDs was what got us into the war.

So NOW Dems (and Rebpulicans too ) are not supporting the war. And saying stuff like "if i knew what I know now, I would NOT have supported the war" That is completely different from saying that they never agreed with Bush.

Well, in the Plame Game: it can be argued wether she was REALLY a CIA agent (she was not professionally trained, from my understanding)...and wether her mission was as important as it was said to be.

Yeah some republicans are disagreeing with Bush: '08 is nearing and they want to look responsible (and really they have a right to, as well as the dems).

But it's really no use using the wiretapping now.

[Spock]

Right, WMD's were used on the Iraqs who disagreed with SH and then shipped out of the country before we invaded....or not.....we keep finding other stuff buried in the desert sands.