Turn on MSRNC!!! Abrams report on Bush spying

[in_cog_ni_to]

and Bush thinking he doesn't NEED permission from FISA or CONGRESS!

[KalicoKitty]

1. MSNBC.

Thanks for the post...just turned it on.

[ClassWarrior]

2. No, she's right. MSRNC.

NGU.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. lol...

:)

Happy Holidays, CW! :hi:

[ClassWarrior]

9. A blessed holiday season to you too, in-cog!

:hi:

NGU.

[KalicoKitty]

11. LOL...Blond roots are showing.

[kliljedahl]

15. I second (or third) that

only way I refer to it



Keith’s Barbeque Central

[dchill]

3. MSBS

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. That works too.

:7

[ddeclue]

6. Unenumerated powers and the "magic genie" defense

That was nothing but pure Republican B.S.

The Constitution requires Congress to declare a war for there to be a war. This has not happened since World War II.

The Executive power mentioned in Article II Section 1, only means the power to execute the laws that have been passed by Congress nothing more. The President has NO powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Every branch has powers which are specifically enumerated in the document and all powers that are not enumerated to the Government are reserved to the People, not the government as explicitly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In fact you need to call any "conservative" that makes the argument that the President has "magic" unenumerated powers on this because they are the ones who claim to be for small government and states rights. Now they are changing their tune because George has gone and confessed to a felony.

The enumerated powers of the President are listed in Article 2 section 2 as follows:
"Sect. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offices of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session."

Nowhere in Article 2 Section 2 does it grant the President the magical power to ignore the separation of powers or the 4th Amendment or the right to break or ignore the law (which would be a violation of the separation of powers as well as illegal.) In fact it is the President's duty to enforce and execute the law, hence the title Chief Executive.

If he could violate the 4th Amendment on the basis he claims, then why not any other provision of the Constitution, say the 22nd Amendment limiting him to 2 terms, or the term of office listed in Article 2. Why bother with a Constitution at all?

These enumerated Executive powers are relatively weak compared to those granted to Congress which authored the Constitution. The Legislative body granted itself far more extensive powers and if you have read the Federalist papers (particularly #69,#70) you would know that they were very much afraid of the President becoming a King and made comparisons in Federalist #69, and #70 as to how the President was intended to be much weaker than a King.

This defense he's putting up is the "magic genie" defense. You know you buy the lamp at the bazaar and take it home. You rub the lamp and a genie pops out and grants you three wishes. Well George Bush is trying to use the third wish to ask for a thousand more wishes.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Babastard]

10. How about this...

President X wants to tap a phone. He/She takes it to the FISA Court. The FISA Court turns him/her down...No authorization to tap is given/

President X does it anyway, citing his/her "inherent powers" as his/her authorization.

Using info gathered with this phone tap, a devastating attack which would have killed thousands is stopped.

Should President X be impeached?

Bear in mind that the SCOTUS has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence--here and abroad--as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes. (Using such information for criminal investigations is different, since a citizen's life and liberty are potentially at stake.)

[mod mom]

14. No president is above the law. period.

[Babastard]

20. This is from the Authorization for use of Force

passed right after 9/11:

"SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."


I think this is definite gray area and not much will come of this. I see no rush on the part of our Congress critters at this point either.

[Just Me]

31. That does NOT authorize him to spy on American citizens.

It is a felony to spy on Americans. It is unconstitutional. Warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional.

In spite of your lame assertion that a POTUS should be free to spy on Americans because there MAY be a one in a zillion chance he prevents a terrorist act, what this POTUS did is antithetical to the Constitution of the United States and a violation of federal law. The Constitution was intended precisely to prevent this form of tyranny: to block the formation of the development of a police state.

Suppose we all decided to violate laws and one another's privacy and due process rights JUST IN CASE one of us MIGHT POSSIBY decide to do something bad. x(

[Babastard]

37. Please cite the relevant SCOTUS decisions

to support that argument. You will find none. In fact, you will find with a bit of research that the SCOTUS gives a president wide berth to conduct national security operations, especially in time of war.

This is a dry hole and will go nowhere.

[Just Me]

41. HIS OATH REQUIRES HIM TO PROTECT THE US CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution is my authority. FISA is my authority. HE VIOLATED BOTH!!! He's acting like a damned dictator rather than a president who advances democracy, protects the rights and liberties of his own people, and has a sincere interest in national security. Hell, the jackass defrauded his own people into an unlawful, aggressive war for profit; revealed the identity of a CIA op tracking WMDs; generated former USSR-style, government-sponsored propaganda; concealed from Congress and the American people he authorized spying on them; ensured all his cronies made a fucking killing off the war while cutting vets benefits; fucked the elderly so the industry could make bigger taxpayer-funded profits; plunged this nation into a huge freakin' debt.

He's an enemy to OUR freedom, to OUR liberties!

Why the fuck would you have ANY DESIRE TO GIVE THIS MAN ANY MORE POWER TO ABUSE?

[Babastard]

44. The president has the authority

I am not arguing for ANY SPECIFIC PRESIDENT only THE president at ANY SPECIFIC TIME.

I would rather have THE president making national security decisions instead of a secret panel of unelected judges.

This is not about ANY SPECIFIC PRESIDENT.

[Just Me]

50. I am talking about TODAY!!! This president does NOT have authority,...

,...to unilaterally and secretly spy against American citizens. NO PRESIDENT WHOMEVER S/HE MAY BE HAS THAT AUTHORITY, TODAY!!!

Why the hell would you want that kind of power in the hands of one man, EVER?!?!?! That would be the most reckless risk to democracy any person could possibly take? You willing to risk having this nation turned into another NAZI Germany 'cause unleashed power like that certainly opens the door to that possibility?

[Babastard]

66. In time of war

important national security decisions should not be left in the hands of 435 Congress critters or a bunch of unelected judges.

Take a look at what FDR did during WW II. And he was right to do it.

[Just Me]

78. Especially during a "time of war", one individual's power must be limited.

Why do you think laws were enacted post-WWII? Precisely to PREVENT abuses.

Important national security decisions ABSOLUTELY MUST be overseen by those who are elected to represent the interests of their constituents and be weighed by the judicial branch. Otherwise, you risk totalitarianism, dictatorship, fascism,...everything other than something resembling a democratic republic. Why the hell do you think the founders constructed the Constitution the way they did?

AGAIN, I ask why you are willing to grant even greater power to an administration that already has a clear track record of abusing its power?

Why? Why would you want to risk granting greater power to ANY PRESIDENT, EVER?

[Babastard]

91. Again, my argument is not

for or against this or any other specific POTUS. It is about a cold, sterile analysis of the powers of the POTUS in time of war and in matters of national security.

[Just Me]

103. This is about a POTUS, TODAY, irrespective of identity,....

,...yet (and, it is quite appropriate), taking into consideration actions which tend to show the reasoning underlying why NO POTUS should EVER be granted unleashed power, especially during a time of war, is verily appropriate.

In times of war and in matters of national security, no one wo/man holds absolute power, EVER, because of the tendency to abuse it. Our Constitution protects us from such abuse. Most of that document is written specifically to protect us from that abuse.

This president has violated the Constitution, our laws, this nation, our people and the world. Matters not who he is,...he has committed crimes against his own country and people.

He should be hand-cuffed, charged and tried.

[Babastard]

131. I do not see it yet, but my mind is open

Again, there are no SCOTUS decisions that agree with what you say. On the contrary, the SCOTUS recognizes broad powers in the POTUS in the area of national security.

[ddeclue]

132. Not outside of the Scope of Article 2 Section 2.

Doug D.

[Just Me]

191. You still have failed to provide cites.

There is NO SCOTUS opinion which authorizes a current president to violate our federal laws or our rights and liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Give me a citation.

Give me a SCOTUS ruling that a currently presiding CIC can violate (rather than uphold and protect) our Constitution, under any circumstances.

[ddeclue]

193. He MUST BE GEORGE BUSH.

All he does is assert things he CAN NOT PROVE.

[BelgianMadCow]

195. remember the "I have the authority, trussst me"

from monday's press conf?

The hair stood on the back of my neck.

I agree with you.

[ddeclue]

201. I wouldn't trust him to make me a ham sandwich

[Just Me]

217. Frankly, the BushCO/neoconsters scare the shit out of me!!!

Not the "terrorists". The BushCO/neoconster regime is doing a helluva lot more damage to me, my son, my family, my state, my nation and my influence upon the world than a handful of fucking criminal "terrorists"!!!

Those bastards are stealing everything we worked so damned hard for,...and making KILLER PROFITS off their abuses!!!

I am sick of them and their corruption and their abuses and their exploitation and their barbarianism!!!

They should, each and every one, be confined behind bars and have ALL their stolen treasures placed in a fund for the vets and their families whom they exploited in a trust fund.

Once they are removed, we can all work on healing ourselves from their viciousness, together.

[ddeclue]

220. ABSADAMLUTELY RIGHT!

[BelgianMadCow]

79. Plus, we could do with only one branch.

Count your savings!

The best that can happen to a country is a friendly dictator, one could argue.

But if you think Bush is that, you are deluded imho.

Do you?

[Just Me]

88. *LOL* For real! Ew those congresscritters and activist judges,....

,...just spoil every fascist dictator's fun, damnit!

:rofl:

[Babastard]

97. No, I do not

Only in extremely rare instances do we need even a VERY friendly dictator and not for very long either.

[ddeclue]

99. So now you think we need a dictator?

There are NO instances where we need a dictator. Period.

[Babastard]

110. Okay

But I believe in a strong POTUS, no matter who it is.

[ddeclue]

113. I believe in checks and balances and a three part government.

Strong POTUS = dictator.

The Founding Fathers did not want a strong POTUS. They wanted a strong Congress and a weak POTUS.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

Not true

We dumped the Articles of Confederation in part because of the lack of a strong centralized power.

[ddeclue]

124. Have you ever read the Constitution?

I have and I've also read the Federalist papers.

They wanted a strong CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, not a strong executive.

The Founders wanted a strong Congress and a weak executive.

[Just Me]

126. WHOAH DUDE!!! Your perspective of history is really, really fucked up!!!

Where the hell did you study? University of Saudi Arabia?

:wow:

[BelgianMadCow]

134. Your post ALMOST reminds me of a term I read on DU

for people who want to turn back a lot of the constitution. Some of the recent appointees are thought to belong to this group.

help me out here, I'm from overseas.

I fear I may need to explain all this to my fellow countrymen when the US goes all fascist in a short while.

But the biggest thing to fear, is fear itself.

[Just Me]

183. Naw! The poster is simply failing to appreciate our development,....

,...our evolution in history. S/he is one of those lost individuals who apparently clings to authoritarianism and stagnation, for some unfortunate reason, rather than the potentiality posed by that democracy upon which our country was based.

Those types are few and quickly being contained by the strength of our fundamental beliefs in a balance of power and human potential, which is the basis of democracy. I confess that our people have been slower to observe than I anticipated, which makes me anxious. However, I've never seen so many sacrifice so much on behalf of their love of this nation.

Have faith, my friend. I do.

[ddeclue]

115. I believe in checks and balances and a three part government.

Strong POTUS = dictator.

The Founding Fathers did not want a strong POTUS. They wanted a strong Congress and a weak POTUS.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

133. A POTUS, not a King

The founding father sgave the POTUS strong powers and the SCOTUS has ruled on those powers time and time again.

[ddeclue]

138. Your version of POTUS=KING.

[Babastard]

154. Oh it does not.

[ddeclue]

157. Yeah it really does.

[Babastard]

177. No it REALLY doesn't

[ddeclue]

180. Yes it does - A king

is someone who can ignore the law.

A king says I AM the law.

That's what you want and what George Bush has said.

[Just Me]

196. Actually, you advocate giving unchecked power to one individual.

That is advocating dictatorship of some sort.

You don't see that?

Geez.

I don't think I can help you.

[ddeclue]

200. Hmm,,unchecked power to one individual..there's a word for that..

KING!

[Cha]

155. Well, it's not this

monster monkey.

[lonestarnot]

232. heh heh heh :shoulder shrug:

[Walt Starr]

82. Remind me again when the Congress declared war?

Oh yes, last time was December 11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.

SHEESH, the reichwing got you to dricnk the Koolaid, didn't it.

[mod mom]

100. Thank you for relaying that "trite" fact (sarcasm)

[Babastard]

117. Mr Starr

I have read some of your stuff on here and have enjoyed reading it. You seem pretty straight and down to earth. I agreed with you on the "Saint" Tookie matter.

Of course you are right the COTUS has not declared war since 1941.

What force and effect do the various "use of force" resolutions have in your opinion, if any?

[ddeclue]

122. The Constitution grants Congress the power to grant letters of marque

and reprisal.

The "use of force" resolutions - IF they are Constitutional - would fall under a reprisal against Al Qaeda.

Doug D.

[Walt Starr]

136. Even if this was a declared war, he still does not have the power you

have claimed he has. Amendment IV trumps any implicit power under Article II. The only way to be able to conduct any search or seizure, and the SCOTUS has ruled electronic surveillance constitutes a search and/or seizure, would be to amend the constitution.

[Babastard]

158. Not under a "national security"

or "agent of a foreign power" scenario it hasn't.

The SCOTUS does not have the Constitutional authority to make national security and war power decisions. That power rests with the POTUS and the COTUS.

[ddeclue]

160. Searching and seizing is a POLICE function not a WAR function.

[Walt Starr]

162. Sorry, that doesn't hold water when it comes to the rights of the people

as enumerated within the bill of rights.

Amendment IV trumps any power you claim for your pal in the White House.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

192. You are wrong and have nothing in law or the Constitution to back up

your claim.

We on the other hand DO have something.

There is a difference between ASSERTION and PROOF.

All you have offered is ASSERTION - NOT PROOF.

Stop wasting everybody's time being an idiot and repeating the same idiocy over and over again!

Doug D.

[Walt Starr]

194. THERE'S WHERE YOU'RE WRONG

We ARE TALKING ABOUT A CIVIL LEGAL MATTER, not a military matter.

And from your arguments in favor of the bastard, I am thoroughly convinced you voted for him twice and support him now. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise. All you have presented are talking points from the rightwing, not a bit of the law.

[ddeclue]

204. I think he IS George Bush.

Georgie,

Quit playin' with the 'puter and go ask Dick if you should be doin' anythin' like fixing the Iraq elections since they didn't go the right way.

[Walt Starr]

209. Nah

I think it was Hayden who wrote the argument with more holes than a swiss cheese today.

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

219. They had all they needed to know about 9/11 to stop it.

The Presidential Daily Brief given in August of 2001 proves it. The President could have gone public with it and that would have stopped it and would have resulted in these clowns being captured. I know because several of them took flight training in South Florida where I did and I even know an instructor who was interviewed after the fact by the FBI. Had there been a public announcement, the public would have put together all the clues about this and these guys would have been caught.

YOU are the one who needs to grow up and stop wasting our time with your unsubstantiated assertions.

[Walt Starr]

226. When was war declared?

Last time I checked, the last declaration of war was on December 11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.

You have no legal leg to stand on. You are spewing rightwing talking points and trying to pass it off as law. We are not in a war because there has been no declaration of war as explicitly defined under Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, and that is a requirement to conduct a warantless search of an American citizen under USC. Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1811. The president has no power to conduct any search without a warrant enumerated within Article II, Section 2 of the constitution. You have tried a useless talking point as an argument and have been proven wrong time and again.

Furthermore, he could have easily performed the surveillance and obtained the warrant from the FISA court up to two weeks later. There is nothing stpping him from doing that and he would have been complying with the requirements of the fourth amendment under existing law and precendent, he chose not to. there can be only one answer, he does not want anybody to know who he is spying on, which can only infer he is spying on political enemies unless he presents his case before the FISA court. Your arguments support a dictatorial regime being installed in this nation, and you seem to relish in that possibility.

Then you make an ad hominem, proving you have no argument.

Again, your post has supported my opinion that you are a Bush supporter by every word you have typed here.

Enjoy your stay at DU. I suspect it shall be short lived.

[BelgianMadCow]

228. They could have also used their READING power

you know, August PDB.

OKay okay, I'm indulging myself. No more I say!

:)

[Batgirl]

241. This crew had so many signals and signs

that 911 was going to happen, which they ignored. They FAILED to act. Due to incompetence/indifference/whatever. They had everything but a registered letter and a two-by-four upside the head. And they've lied and stonewalled about it ever since. Yet you ponder wistfully how the attacks might have been prevented if only this same bunch had possessed the ability to conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant.

[ddeclue]

84. We ARE NOT AT WAR MORON!

The Congress has not declared war since World War II. You can't go around making claims like this. They simply are false.

[Babastard]

86. THAT is another argument for another thread.

And I may agree with you.

What force and effect do the several "authorization for the use of force" resolutions passed by the COTUS in the last several years have in your opinion?

[ddeclue]

93. NO IT IS NOT.

You brought it up.

You can't have it both ways.

YOU claimed this was "a time of war" as a way of trying to cow and intimidate us into nodding our heads and agreeing. Now you find out that we won't buy it so you are saying that argument is not relevant.

Give up Freeper!

You are totally overmatched here and you know it.

Bush is going to be impeached and convicted.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

101. Would you stop?

Jeez, I am making a cold, sterile argument on the powers of the POTUS.

I am not trying to intimidate you at all.

I believe in a strong POTUS theory of American Democracy, especially when it comes to matters of national security.

Has nothing to do with who a particular POTUS is at any given time.

ANY POTUS who goes beyond the conditions I have stated should be AT LEAST impeached and tried in the Senate. I would be first in line to call for that.

For example, I would not have called for the impeachment of FDR because he interred thousands of innocent Japanese-American citizens. It was a gross over-reaction but I do not believe it was malevolent.

[ddeclue]

105. NO I WON'T STOP!

I'm not going to let you get away with this cr*p on this board. If you can't handle it then leave.

[Babastard]

108. I can handle it fine

But your name calling and histrionics are unproductive.

[ddeclue]

118. Apparently you can't handle it or you wouldn't have asked me to stop.

[Babastard]

123. That was a rhetorical device only

Go ahead and name call and engage in histrionics.

[BelgianMadCow]

128. I'm disappointed in the sterility and hypotheticality of your discussion

seeing as you have chosen to only continue to discuss further in the most emotional thread.

Surely that is by accident.

Please take a deep breath and return to the cold facts at hand.

[Babastard]

159. Say again please

???

[BelgianMadCow]

188. You have chosen to leave every subthread where you

could not "win", and have spent considerable time bickering back and forth with ddeclue, in what was the most emotionally charged subthread.

Makes your claim to want an honest sterile hypothetical discussion lose credibility.

I don't care if you're a freeper, or a whatever. A good debate has two sides. But I recognize intellectual dishonesty when I see it.

Like replying to this post only now that you have reiterated some talking points on other subthreads.

pffft

[BelgianMadCow]

169. so here I am

left, after the first of such exchanges on DU, with

a) a strong desire to ROFL
b) sadness about the lost time
c) awe for the big DUers who really really know their stuff.

oh and

d) a lot of unanswered questions

:9

Really sad from someone who claimed to want to have an honest (oh wait no) sterile hypothetical discussion.

[Babastard]

179. Please, do not be sad or disappointed

I really enjoy these give and take sessions with astute political observers. Can't get enough of it in the real world.

[Just Me]

250. Interesting. Why don't you describe your "real world". I'd be very,...

,...interested in that experience.

Sincerely,...I mean that.

[BelgianMadCow]

257. Second that.

Really.

Plus I like horror movies.

[BelgianMadCow]

112. No no nooo give an example of a POTUS who would go beyond the conditions

as I asked in another post you didn't yet reply to.

[Babastard]

125. FDR--Attempted SCOTUS packing, American citizen internment

WILSON

Jailing opponents of WW I (e.g. Eugene Debs)

NIXON

Obviously

[ddeclue]

127. Wilson and Nixon were both wrong.

Wilson should have been impeached for how he suppressed dissent during World War I.

[Babastard]

135. I agree

Although I am not sure he should have been removed by the Senate.

[ddeclue]

139. Nixon or Wilson?

[Babastard]

144. Both of course, but Nixon should have been removed.

[ddeclue]

146. Wilson also but people were too afraid to speak up.

[Babastard]

161. Wilson was bad but Nixon was nuts

I'm not sure I would have removed Wilson from power. Maybe a censure or something.

[ddeclue]

167. Wilson should have been removed.

But at the time, people were too afraid to speak up.

Bush's neo-con buddies who got us into Iraq are big fans of Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt's empire building in the late 19th and early 20th century by the way.

Nixon was nuts but so is George W. Bush. They even commit the same kinds of crimes - wire tapping. That was what Watergate was all about.

[Just Me]

142. Laws were enacted (even under their direction) to END such abuses.

Both Wilson and FDR realized that they were being entirely too influenced by the military-industrial complex whose sole pursuit was power and profit off violence/war and the treasure generated by the American people. They pursued laws that ensured protection against such barbaric monsters.

Nixon,...well, fuck, he was successfully manipulated by the power/profit-mongers and ended up impeached.

Bush,...well, fuck,...just look at him: look at the men who surround him.

[Babastard]

181. Okay...

[Just Me]

223. Those laws apply, TODAY, to prevent this POTUS from abusing power.

Are you okay with that?

Or, do you prefer a dictator that abuses power and kills a democratic republic, behaves as badly or even worse than Hitler in instigating the destruction of "a people" and inciting a world war?

[ddeclue]

225. I think he wants Trujillo back from the dead.

[Wetzelbill]

264. I'm a Suharto man myself

:)

[Terran]

271. Er, yeah, the internment of Japanese-Americans

was a good call on FDR's part. :eyes:

[ddeclue]

80. They are making LEGAL decisions not NS decisions.

Judges are unelected life time appointments for a very good reason. To prevent dictators from taking over like Fuhrer Bush.

Doug D.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

81. They are making LEGAL decisions not NS decisions.

Judges are unelected life time appointments for a very good reason. To prevent dictators from taking over like Fuhrer Bush.

Doug D.

[Catrina]

255. Have you never heard of the 'balance of powers'?

The president does NOT have the authority to violatie the laws of this country anymore than anyone else. This is NOT a monarchy, or a dictatorship although if he gets away with this, we will be one step closer to what he himself said he would prefer, 'a dictatorship, so long as I'm the dictator'.

When leaders use the words 'national security' to justify illegal actions it's time for all citizens to be alerted. This of course was Hitler's justification, and many Germans fell for it, just as you have done.

Your argument that a crime might be discovered by his illegal actions, therefore he should be given a pass, is totally wrong.

If I believe that by robbing a bank I can pay for the healthcare of a family member, thereby saving their life, and that becomes a fact, should I be prosecuted for robbing the bank? This is your argument. And if it applies to the president in this country, it applies to all of us.

And he has been doing all that you say he has the right to do for four years now, hasn't he? So, what has he accomplished? Has he brought to justice, to court, even charged anyone involved in the 9/11 attack? Isn't that what all this was about?

He was spying on a Catholic group who helped the poor!! On a Quacker group! On Peta members!! They plan to sue the government!! Tell me, how did this spying protect the American people??

It is my belief, and apparently that of many, that the reason he spied without the authority to do so was because the people he intended to spy on were NOT terrorists at all, but political opponents of his. Otherwise he would have known that the FISA court had NEVER refused a warrant out of thousands of requests. But they WOULD have refused to allow anyone to spy on American citizens.

Try not to be so gullible. This administration proved during hurricane Katrina that they have NO interest in protecting the American people. Some of us already knew that of course, but many others learned it without a doubt when that disaster happened.

[ddeclue]

61. There are no unenumerated "magic" powers of the President.

All unenumerated powers are reserved to the People or the states per the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution.

There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on magical unenumerated powers therefore. What you are saying is that anytime a President can think up a new way to take our liberty that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on yet, he can do so. The Constitution says NO, that's not how it works - powers are to be enumerated only and unenumerated powers are not authorized.

If your rule was correct then there would be a never ending cat and mouse game of trying to take our rights from us.


Doug D.

[Babastard]

68. Sorry, not true

The US Constitution does not specifically authorize the POTUS to send US troops into battle. It is not an "enumerated power".

I am sure you are not arguing the he must get permission to repel an attack are you?

[ddeclue]

76. Actually the Constitution DOES MORON!

As commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, it grants him that authority.

What an idiot!

Doug D.

[Babastard]

85. Where does the US Constitution say...

that he may send US troops into battle...SPECIFICALLY?

Where is it ENUMERATED" to use YOUR term?

Only the COTUS has the power to declare war. Using YOUR "enumerated powers only" argument a POTUS cannot do anything regarding sending US troops off to repel an attack until the COTUS does so. I disagree.

[ddeclue]

89. Article 2 Section 2.

"Sect. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

As their commander he can give them orders. That means he can "order them into battle".

I defy you to find a clause of Article 2 Section II that gives him the power to void other articles of the Constitution or amendments to it (such as the 4th) or violate the law.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

129. Your quote

(As their commander he can give them orders. That means he can "order them into battle".)


Constitution does not "ENUMERATE" that, it does not "SAY" that. That is YOUR interpretation is it not?

[ddeclue]

130. A commander gives orders.

Duh. It's why they defined him as a "commander" and not a "suggester".

[Just Me]

92. Let's get on topic, shall we? He is required to protect OUR rights,...

,...and liberties under the Constitution of the United States and uphold the laws of this land, is he not?

Or, do you believe a president is really like a king or dictator and has the authority to do as he pleases, whenever he pleases?

[dennis4868]

33. this is not a gray area....

why would you say that....congress gave Bush authority to use force against the bad guys. Not to eavesdrop on americans without a warrant!

[Babastard]

38. Sorry, but that is not correct

In the area of "agents of a foreign power" and "national security", whether they are Americans in America or not, warrantless surveillance has been found to be Constitutional.

This is not about domestic, criminal situations.

[Just Me]

45. You cite that authority.

Be sure it's not prior to all the laws enacted to prevent former abuses.

[BelgianMadCow]

56. Well, even if that argument holds water,

It will be known soon enough what the president decided to circumvent the court for.

I think you will be disappointed.

[Babastard]

77. Please do not misunderstand me

I am making a cold, sterile, academic argument only and commenting on the specific powers of whoever is the POTUS at a given time.

Believe me, if a POTUS has been demonstrated as having gone beyond the arguments I am making I will be the FIRST one to call for his/her removal,...at least!

[BelgianMadCow]

94. You cannot have a sterile hypothetical discussion

on matters of war and peace. It has to relate to today.

But for the sake of argument, let's say we are.

You said "if a POTUS has been demonstrated as having gone beyond the arguments I am making"

Since I've only seen arguments from you in this thread that amount to there being NO limits on the power of a POTUS in this respect, I wonder what you would consider "going past the arguments".

Really.

By the way, that is the same question in other words as the one you impolitely didn't answer in my post (I'll look it up - on edit : 62).

[Just Me]

109. Cite the authority that allows him to violate us. Cite it. n/t

[BelgianMadCow]

119. Are you trying to get a scoop on the Torturer Pimp's

"Legal Justification Regarding Detecting not Monitoring Extremely Dangerous Anti-Furrists"??

Hey, I think it will be a good read too. But we're still months away from it I think.

[Babastard]

164. Under "national security" and

"agent of a foreign power" scenarios the POTUS has broad constituional powers.

[ddeclue]

168. No they don't..

If it isn't in Article II Section 2 he has NO SUCH POWER.

You can keep repeating it and I will keep rebutting it as long as it takes if it takes all night.

[BelgianMadCow]

176. Cite the relevant pieces of the Constitution then, not some words

without context.

You have been proven wrong in detail. You should respond in kind if you want to keep your credibility, and not be denounced a talking point spewing bot.

[ddeclue]

182. He is such a waste of time.

[BelgianMadCow]

203. I sadly agree.

See my post #173.

Kudos to yuo for keeping it up. Logic didn't stick, and your emotion didn't bring about a telling reaction.

A cool wacko I guess.

[ddeclue]

207. I found the only way to beat these Freepers to keep up until they go home

If they get the last word in, they feel they've won.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

197. You have proven nothing

Here is the relevant portion of the Constitution.
=====================================================================
Article II

Section I

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
======================================================================

The POTUS has police powers. Not the COTUS not the SCOTUS.

You really want 435 members of the COTUS to run foreign policy? How about the Justices on the SCOTUS?

You have layed a glove on me my friend. Any time you're ready.

[ddeclue]

211. His "police" powers are subject to Congress.

He is the executive who enforces the laws made by Congress. He has no police powers of his own in Article 2.

No one said anything about foreign policy. We are talking about a violation of the law committed by thee President.

We've been all over you and pickpocketed you but you are too dumb to know it.

Doug D.

[BelgianMadCow]

213. See Walt's #40 and 72. You lose

and are arguing in circles.

And you will not be able to start a namecalling round with me.

Bring something new, answer open questions (shall I cite some post #?) or be prepared for a falling thread.

[ddeclue]

215. What is a "falling thread"?

[BelgianMadCow]

222. Let me rephrase

In case you choose not to bring anything new to the table, I will no longer dignify you with an answer.

In which case, I will no longer be kicking this thread "up" in the forum topic list.


*exception* to further discuss your "performance" with fellow DUers.

Edited for further zombification.

[Just Me]

245. YOU STILL HAVE FAILED TO CITE ANY AUTHORITY FOR POTUS,...

,...TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES SAFEGUARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

I wonder why?

I still wonder why you advocate giving absolute power to the POTUS since that would be dictatorship rather than a democracy.

Are you ANTI-democracy?

Are you an American citizen? :shrug:

If so, why would you be advocating a position that is antithetical to both Americans and their democracy?

[ddeclue]

248. He's been Bushwashed...

Doug D.

[BelgianMadCow]

249. I'd say unpatriotic

[0007]

263. In a pigs ass.

[ddeclue]

65. WRONG. Not against U.S. citizens.

[Babastard]

71. Yes, against ANY agent of a foreign power

American citizen, Legal Alien or not.

[ddeclue]

75. Wrong.

[Babastard]

90. No, it is not wrong.

Warrantless searches have been authorized against "agents of a foreign power" whether or not they are American citizens.

[ddeclue]

96. No they haven't.

There is no constitutional "loop hole" that voids the rights of a United States citizen.

The government can get a warrant up to 72 hours after the fact but they MUST get a warrant. That's the law. No court has ever said otherwise.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

175. Democrat POTUS Andrew Jackson saw it differently

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

POTUS Andrew Jackson to the CJ of the SCOTUS--1832 (He was a Democrat ya know.)

[ddeclue]

184. Don't care if he was a Democrat. He was still wrong.

Wilson was a Democrat.

Johnson was a Democrat.


We are on the side of right, not just Democrats.

[Babastard]

202. Why was he wrong?

Becasue a guy wearing a black robe said he was?

Andrew Kacson was elected by the people from whom ALL power flows. Some guy in a black robe isn't shit.

[ddeclue]

212. BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.

And Jackson was not a king, nor was Wilson, Harding, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II or anyone who takes the law into their own hands.

They are all limited government officials who work for US. They derive their power FROM THE PEOPLE as granted to them in the Constitution. The PEOPLE reserve all unenumerated powers, not the government.

We have a government that is DESIGNED to be divided. It is for our own safety to protect us from tyrants.

Doug D.

[mod mom]

106. We have a constitution and we have laws that protect American citizens.

You are sliding down a slippery slope when you allow anyone to bystep laws. Fear, terror, fear, does not dispense with our constitution.

[ddeclue]

55. The law is to be construed narrowly.

Why is it that "conservatives" now what to construe the law broadly and expansively?

Force means force. Period. It doesn't mean wiretaps. If the Congress wanted it to mean wiretaps, they would have written wiretaps.

Doug D.

[jayfish]

206. That's What I Call An Abdication...

of Congressional oversight. Some (myself included) argue that such abdication is in and of itself unlawful. The Legislature is required to oversee the Executive. They are not allowed to vote it away. A lazy country ruled by lazy bureaucrats. They didn't even want to look at the though choices, let alone make them and now the chickens have come home to roost.

Jay

[Skip Intro]

262. Thats insane. They spied on PETA. Did PETA cause 9*11?

How silly does that defense sound now?

[banana republican]

17. Within 72 hours the POTUS requests retroactive permission from FISA n/t

[sandnsea]

18. How about this

The FISA court doesn't turn these down so you have no argument to start with. Second, if the phone tap was that serious, they'd just do it and then notify the FISA court; with the information that an attack had been stopped. Still within the law.

Bush didn't ask and didn't tell. He is not answerable to anybody anymore. And if that doesn't get your attention, then I guess freedom and the Constitution never meant much to you to begin with.

[Babastard]

23. Any President has inherent powers

most especially in time of war or war-like circumstances.

An unknown, secret group of judges is accountable to no one and war making powers certainly do not reside in them.

Any President does not have to subsume his War Powers authority to any part of the judicial branch.

Understand I am arguing in academic, political theory only.

[sandnsea]

29. There's a war on drugs and a war on poverty

Does a President have unlimited powers when fighting those so-called wars too? Did Clinton have unlimited powers when he committed troops in Kosovo? Honestly. What are these right wingers thinking about. Bush does not have authority to spy on people. He should have been thrown out on his ass when we discovered he'd diverted funds to Iraq without Congressional oversight. I do not understand how a bunch of people who would sacrifice all security in order to keep their guns to fight government tyranny, don't say a peep when a government completely trashes the Constitution they say they need their guns to protect.

[Babastard]

39. "National Security" and "Agents of Foreign Powers" only

Not simple domestic criminal activities.

[robbedvoter]

52. Ya mean the Catholic anti-poverty groups were not spyworthy? Cuz, he did!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58538
FBI Acknowledges Spying on American Citizens and Domestic Organizations
The New York Times yesterday revealed that the Bush Administration has been abusing its authority to spy on domestic organizations. According to the New York Times, among the groups being monitored by FBI agents were a Catholic Workers group that promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes, a meeting of Quakers, and PETA. A top FBI official reportedly justified spying on these groups by saying that environmental and animal rights groups, not Al Qaida, "posed the biggest terrorist threats in the United States." (New York Times, 12/20/05)

[Babastard]

59. "National security", "War Powers" and "agents of foreign powers" only

That is the argument.

[Just Me]

69. He's failed to act within those boundaries. As a matter of fact,...

,...he and his administration have exploited those boundaries in order to abuse their power.

Again, I ask, after everything these assholes have done, why on earth would you be here arguing to give them greater power than they have already abused to date?

[Babastard]

165. I am talking about a generic POTUS only.

[BelgianMadCow]

242. give your Generic POTUS some clothes

For he is as nude an Emperor as your arguments are empty.

[sandnsea]

Domestic spying is the issue

Domestic. In this country. Against who? We don't know. But we do know they're spying on Quakers and Catholics. We do know a college student got a visit from the FBI for doing a report on communism. We do know NYC sent out undercover cops to infiltrate RNC protestors. And we do know Ohio is about to implement the craziest ID check ever, the likes of which nobody ever thought we'd see in this country. Gads. What will it take for people to say enough is enough.

[sandnsea]

58. But it was domestic

That's the point. And you still need to get FISA warrants for NSA spying anyway. Did Clinton have authority to spy just because of Kosovo? You didn't answer that.

[Scout1071]

53. I may be wrong, but I don't believe we have ever "Declared War" on Iraq.

Congress authorized force, but we have NEVER declared war. At least not to my knowledge.

Therefore, if no declaration of war, then he doesn't have any "extra" Presidential power.

I may be off....any lawyers or otherwise knowledgeable please weigh in!

[sandnsea]

64. I agree

But they're using the Afghanistan authority, which wasn't a declared war either.

[ddeclue]

70. No - the war is unconstitutional too.

Just like Vietnam.

[cry baby]

266. The War on Christmas!!!

[sandnsea]

272. All treetops are wired

Must intercept all utterances of happy holidays to detect those who would destroy our red and green way of life!!

[cry baby]

274. "Please just speak into the angel...a llittle closer, please..."

:evilgrin:

[Just Me]

34. Not the power to violate the Constitution and behave like a dictator.

Even during a time of war, the president has an ABSOLUTE DUTY to protect the Constitution,...NOT VIOLATE IT!!!

[ddeclue]

67. WRONG - Presidents ONLY have ENUMERATED powers.

The "inherent" powers claim is just that - a claim. It is not Constitutionally legitimate.

If it isn't in Article 2 Section II, then the President doesn't have the power to do it.

That's the way it is.

Doug D.

[Just Me]

121. Yup. Otherwise, they're not presidents,...they are DICTATORS!!! n/t

[OilemFirchen]

74. "War-like circumstances"

Snark!

[kikiek]

19. Sounds like if your scared enough you're willing to give away all of

your rights. Go live somewhere else then where you don't have them. How funny is Bush's "They hate our freedom" claim now. So lets just take them all away and they won't hate us huh? The whole scenario you cited is fearbased. The only thing to fear is this president. You don't want a president you want a dictator. Well you got him. As Benjamin Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safey deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Babastard]

24. I understand your point although

I am giving up nothing.

Answer me this:

If a President sees a military threat to this nation, does he/she have to get a judges ruling on it before he/she takes action in your opinion?

[BelgianMadCow]

26. What part of "72 hours before a warrant has to be applied for"

and 4 out of 19000 only rejected don't you get?

[gkhouston]

35. and let's not forget that if the first request for the warrant is

rejected, the government can appeal to a special appeals court. If that gets turned down, the government can even go to the Supreme Court.

So the government can start wiretapping immediately and gets three bites at the apple to explain why the wiretap is necessary. This is not a onerous burden.

[Babastard]

36. "72 hours" is not relevant to anything

The argument is, and I agree with it, is this:

The FISA does not overrule any President's War Powers or National Security responsibilities as authorized by the US Constitution and the relevant "Authorization for the use of Force" resolutions passed by the Congress.

There is no SCOTUS decision that says it does. On the contrary, the SCOTUS has given wide latitude to Presidents in foreign intelligence and national security matters.

This is not about domestic criminal operations or defendants.

[BelgianMadCow]

43. It is. It was also an answer to your question

You asked :

"Answer me this:

If a President sees a military threat to this nation, does he/she have to get a judges ruling on it before he/she takes action in your opinion?"

My answer was, no he doesn't need approval before taking action. He can act immediately (like Bush did on 9/11, remember, reading Pet Goat and all) and get approval retroactively.

Answer me this :

1) given this considerable latitude (72 hours) and almost no rejections from this court,

WHAT are valid reasons for a president to still bypass the court?

2) Are you advocating that presidential authority trumps the Judiciary Branch no matter what during war time?
Let's say oooooooooookaaay for now.
Have you noticed the bipartisan uproar over this same issue? Do you also think congressional oversight is trumped by presidential authority?

[Babastard]

48. The SCOTUS does not have War Powers

The COTUS authorized the POTUS with the relevant "authorization for use of force" resolutions.

The SCOTUS is very, VERY leary of entering into these kind of matters and recognizes broad authority in the Executive branch on national security and war power matters.

[BelgianMadCow]

62. Sorry you'll have to answer my questions first

I was polite and answered yours.

Only after that can you try to sidetrack, okay :-)

We were not discussing SCOTUS here.

[Just Me]

63. The SCOTUS has the authority to ensure a balance of power,...

,...particularly if a president is behaving like a damned dictator and violating the rights of the people under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and our laws.

I GUARANTEE that if this gets to the SCOTUS it would DEFINITIVELY RULE this president has not only exceeded and abused his power, he violated federal law!!!

I want him indicted and convicted, first. Let him appeal it from there, ole' Georgie junior fascist-ass! }(

[Batgirl]

47. The "war president" used his special powers

to spy on retired Quakers in Florida.

Are you under the impression this domestic surveillance was carried out with the the doomsday clock ticking down and no time to wait for a warrant before those Quakers could have carried out a plot to kill millions of Americans?

Why do you people insist on coming up with the most far fetched fantasy scenarios in order to justify things like torture and illegal domstic spying?

[ddeclue]

111. The President's "War Powers" are clearly enumerated.

He is to be the commander in chief of the military. That's IT.

He has no other "magic powers". Go read Federalist 69 and 70.

And we AREN'T AT WAR -so even if you were right and he had these magic "war powers' he could not exercise them in the absence of a declaration of war.

You lose, game over.

[Babastard]

147. Not true

The "use of force" resolutions passed by the COTUS give him very broad powers.

[ddeclue]

149. No they don't.

They are a statute and can not exceed the powers granted to him under Article 2 of the Constitution. He has no such magic powers that you claim either through this statute or through Article 2. He is bound by the conditions of the Constitution including the 4th Amendment and bound to obey statute under the FISA law because that law in no way impinges on his Article 2 enumerated powers.

[kikiek]

32. He doesn't have to already. And with these rats in the White House I would

say yes but that isn't what they have to follow anyway. You let fear rule and you can kiss democracy goodbye. As the RW is so fond of saying "Freedom isn't free." How sincere is this president about their desire to protect us when they leak the identity of a CIA agent and expose her and the entire corporation they set up just to monitor governments or groups seeking weapons of mass destruction? They have lied about everything from EPA reports to Medicare, paid journalists to plant stories, had news organizations not print stories, lied to congress, and all under the name of national security. Bullshit. You can't get anymore Machiavellian than this. To maintain control you need a never ending war (terror works well here doesn't it), outside threat (Al Quada fits great), religion (oh those homosexuals and marriage to shore up our everlasting abortion issue) and the fearful base will let you do anything! I don't even want to know how far he will go. I wouldn't doubt he will try to find a loophole that keeps him in power until his "war" is over. As Bush himself said "A dictatorship wouldn't be so bad as long as I'm the dictator."

[ddeclue]

102. Imminent danger is the rule.

Imminent means immediate military force would be applied against the United States.

Outside of that he must seek a declaration of war from Congress.

People's phone conversations do not constitute an immediate military threat. The constitute free speech.

The President MUST get a warrant to listen in that's the law. By your standards what keeps the President from declaring his political opponents as a "military threat" so he can listen in?

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Babastard]

170. Not correct

Your quote: "People's phone conversations do not constitute an immediate military threat. The constitute free speech"

Phone conversations may lead to the imminent death of thousands. Any POTUS has the power to prevent that.

[ddeclue]

173. That isn't IMMINENT then.

"may lead to" is possible only, not imminent.

Words mean things - Rush Limbaugh.

[ddeclue]

73. So much for Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"

or "Live Free or Die"!

Apparently the new Republican motto is "Better alive than free!"

Chickensh*ts!

This is America, how dare they.

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees!

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[kikiek]

107. Me too! What happened to "Freedom isn't free"? It means there are risks.

You don't take away the rights that our fellow countrymen/women have shed their blood for.

[librechik]

21. How about this:

The FISA court has only turned down ONE request out of 19,000 requests. How is that a burden that requires him to break the law.

And how about this: the phone is tapped anyway and we go kill a bunch of people because of what we hear. Then later it turns out the info we got was planted in order to fool us and we killed a bunch of our allies instead of bad guys. Shouls we impeach?

Hypothetical cases are stupid. Can we stick with facts?

Every American, including the president, should follow the law and not make excuses about how "hard" it is. Shrub has a lot of trouble showing up to do his duty, don't you think? Viet Nam was only the beginning of his lack of loyalty to the constitution and the dream of America.

[Babastard]

25. I respectfully disagree

Any President..Clinton, FDR, Bush have inherent war powers that come with the office. Presidents are not required to get a judges okay in order to use them. Judges have no war power authority.

This is going nowhere.

I will not give up my rights to a secret, "star chamber", group of judges who are completely beyond accountability

[BelgianMadCow]

27. I'm curious - what right are you speaking of?

in "I will not give up my rights to a secret, "star chamber", group of judges who are completely beyond accountability"

Are you GWB himself?

LOL

[Babastard]

42. In other words

I would rather have a political leader, empowered by the political process, make these kind of decisions rather than an unknown, unelected, secret, unaccountable star chamber of judges.

I trust a president of either political party, not some panel of judges, with national security issues.

[BelgianMadCow]

49. Thanks for the clarification. But it raises a new question :

What kind of decisions are you referring to?

The court/Judiciary in this case is the check and balance on the president/Executive. This was made so by the Laws passed in Congress. See, the three branches are needed.

The president and his admin get to decide what they ask the FISA court for. The court gets to apporove or disapprove it. They approved 18996 of 19000. Doesn't sound to me the "unelected, secret, unaccountable star chamber of judges" is calling the shots. It does to you?

[ddeclue]

140. So much for three co-equal branches of government and checks and balances.

This leads down a short road to a tyranny of the majority.

[mod mom]

114. Too many big words spelled correctly.

[librechik]

28. they don't include breaking the law--even during "war time"

which it strictly speaking isn't.

if a president breaks the law "for the good of the country" then his reward should be the secret pride in the knowledge that he sacrificed his own freedom for his country, and his punishment should be whatever jail term the courts say he deserves for committing a crime. If he believes it was the right thing to do strongly enough, then he should be proud to take his medicine and call himself a true rule-of law American.

Otherwise, he's a craven lying coward, like the sneaky imperious Shrub.

[sandnsea]

30. You already gave them up to the secretive neocon cabal

Wake the fuck up.

[ddeclue]

143. AMEN!

[Walt Starr]

40. Bullshit, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Sections 1802, 1804, 1805,

1806, 1807, and 1808 on the United States Code disagree with you. Read it and weep:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

In fact, Section 1811 states specifically that war must be declared by Congress and even that is limited:


§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

[Babastard]

57. Nice try BUT

The law you cite cannot override the already existing powers residing in the POTUS devlved from the US Constitution and relevant "authorization for the use of force" resolutions passed by the COTUS.

There are NO decisions from the SCOTUS on this matter.

Answer me these:

Can the judiciary stop the POTUS from deploying US troops to attack an enemy of the US?

Does a POTUS have to get judicial permission to send US troops into battle?

[Walt Starr]

72. Ahhh, but an Amendment to the constitution trumps everything prior to it

ergo, powers you claim are derived under Article II are null and void under Amendment IV.

We're talking about illegal searches, NOT TROOPS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. His powers as CIC of the MILITARY do not even enter into the question.

Plus the SCOTUS HAS RULED ON THIS when Nixon was president during the Vietnam war, so all of your arguments are bullshit under precedence and the law.

You have no leg to stand on and neither does your fuckhead of a president.

[BelgianMadCow]

83. I wanted to retort

but imagined you could handle yourself.


I was right.

[Walt Starr]

87. He's got no leg to stand on legally

The SCOTUS has ruled on it, the law is clear, and the fourth amendment trumps anything which came before it anyway!

[BelgianMadCow]

104. Thanks for clearing that one up - one has to wonder what the goal is here

Trying to prep us for martial law and shadow government by the Executive Branch?

See how it flies?

At DU???

Well it sure is a good fun discussion.

[Walt Starr]

116. Here's a thread where I blow the DOJ argument out of the water

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5672021

[ddeclue]

153. Actually to tie that together with the 9th and 10th Amendments is better

Because they reserve all unenumerated powers to the people and the states. If it isn't enumerated in the Constitution (in the case of the Executive Article II, Section 2) then there IS NO SUCH POWER.

Q.E.D.

[Walt Starr]

189. The problem with that argument is precedent

suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, for example.

[ddeclue]

198. It was ruled unConstitutional Ex-parte Milligan.

And that was an ACTUAL extraordinary circumstance and it was STILL unconstitional.

Consider it was the largest most costly war in our history and it killed the most people 685,000 and literally tore our country apart and was fought on U.S. soil.

Nothing even comes close and all the scare mongering being done by the right only works because Americans are so ignorant about their history. The casualties on 9/11 wouldn't even make the top 25 battles of the Civil War. 7,000 died in Cold Harbor in one battle, 50,000 at Gettsberg in 3 days.

So we are supposed to give up our liberties because they tell us to be scared.

NOT ME.

Doug D.

[Walt Starr]

208. Oh I agree with you there completely!

I just would not go down that road as an argument on a message board due to the precedent is all. It tends to get too technical and is very difficult to express in a limited format like this.

[BelgianMadCow]

246. Yup. You've lost me

:-)

[ddeclue]

151. I'm going to hit 1000 posts just dealing with this one Freeper!

Doug D.

[Walt Starr]

186. WOW, your post made me check

and I'm only 85 posts away from 30,000.

[ddeclue]

190. And the first 29900 were wasted on this clown.

:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:
:argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr: :argh: :nuke: :grr:

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

243. Ahhh, the ad hominem

Apparently, you wish your stay to be of short duration.

Come up with a declaration of war to even begin supporting an unsupportable position for your pal in the White House?

[BelgianMadCow]

254. Congrats Walt

you did it

[Batgirl]

253. Your true colors are really showing

Go on, let it all out. You know you'll feel a lot better.

[ddeclue]

150. YEAH BABY!!

[Babastard]

166. Not under national security and agents of a foreign power scenarios

You are incorect, simply.

[ddeclue]

171. No YOU are incorrect.

I defy you to show us where he has the magic unenumerated powers in the Constitution.

We are a nation of laws, not men. If it isn't written down, you can't just pull it out of your ass.


Doug D.

[Babastard]

199. The POTUS is the executive

He has police powers. Broad ones when it comes to national security. The SCOTUS says so.

[ddeclue]

224. WRONG.

Again this is JUST YOUR ASSERTION. Wasting more electrons.

The President has no powers not stated in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution and I defy you to offer ANY PROOF to the contrary.

Doug D.

[Walt Starr]

252. You don't understand constitutional law, do you?

You really don't understand it at all. The fourth amendment has been upheld, during the Vietnam, and against any implied power you claim in the so-called "Keith Case" or UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ET AL decided on June 19, 1972 in an 8-0 decision by the SCOTUS.

The constitution is against your argument.

The law is against your argument.

and the Supreme Court precedent is against your argument.

[ddeclue]

256. But he made an ASSERTION, IT MUST BE TRUE...

Oh wait...I'm sorry... I'm arguing like George Bush again...

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[ddeclue]

148. THERE ARE NO SUCH MAGICAL POWERS IN ARTICLE 2

READ THE DAMNED CONSTITUTION.

[robbedvoter]

60. I guess Gore Vidal had the likes of you in mind when he said it

As Gore Vidal said in a recent interview, asked if Americans would "stand for" a military dictatorship, "They'll stand for anything. And they will stand for nothing."

[ddeclue]

137. No THEY DON'T.

And you aren't giving up your rights to judges - nice try at propagandizing.

The judges are there to PROTECT your rights against would be tyrants like George Bush who secretly violate the Constitution.

You don't know anything about the Constitution do you?

We have a DIVIDED government with three CO-EQUAL branches that check and balance each other.

The President has assumed the powers of all three branches - to make war, to make legal decisions through the Justice department, to ignore laws passed by Congress.

He has become a tyrant and needs to be impeached.

[Babastard]

172. Who are these judges accountable to?

And what gives them the power to make national security decisions?

[ddeclue]

174. They AREN'T MAKING NATIONAL SECURITY DECISIONS.

Politicians are ACCOUNTABLE NOT JUDGES.

Judges ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYTHING BUT THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE AND THE LAW.

Politicians pick the judges so if you don't like the judges then you've picked the wrong politicians.

Doug D.

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

229. No they would not.

The President IS NOT THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. Too damn bad. He has to work with the other 2 branches. He's not a king.

If he can't convince the Courts then NO SCOTUS isn't making the decision, it's preventing him from DOING SOMETHING WRONG. That's a CHECK on power.

Why don't you move to China where they LIKE your point of view on government...

Doug D.

[Straight Shooter]

46. How about this ...

X wants to spy on political enemies. X knows FISA will reject the request. X goes ahead and spies on political enemies, anyway.

Thus, X assures that every single request issued to FISA under X's request is now subject to suspicion of motive. Furthermore, all the eavesdropping evidence obtained by X without benefit of warrant is illegal and any evidence obtained therefrom is considered fruit of a poisoned tree and inadmissible in court under the laws of the United States of America, and terrorists escape justice.

Don't forget the 72-hour rule of retroactive permission.

Yeah, how about that?

[ddeclue]

156. And you left out...

NO PAPER TRAIL so we will never be able to know just who he was spying on and why.

= DICTATORSHIP.

[Straight Shooter]

218. Ah, but there is a database trail.

Remember, it's been conducted through the NSA, a little more intricate than merely erasing 16 minutes of tape (or whatever it was) with Nixon.

We can reasonably surmise who was being wiretapped, and it sure wasn't terrorists. The crucial test for Democratic leaders is to find out whose rights have been so egregiously violated.

[ddeclue]

230. No doubt they are busy incinerating hard drives right now...

Doug D.

[Straight Shooter]

244. Yeah. Where's Fawn Hall when you really need her? n/t

[ddeclue]

51. Yes absolutely - the President should be impeached.

For your information the FISA court is nothing more than a rubber stamp. It has approved over 13,000 warrants and only rejected 4 in over 25 years.

You can keep making up excuses and "what if" scenarios but the truth is that they will never happen.

It is shameful that the whole republican philosophy has become "I would rather be alive than free". What kind of real American believes THAT crap. Whatever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death?"

Personally I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I'm not scared of the terrorists. Nineteen guys with boxcutters aren't the real threat. I can land the damned plane myself if that happens.

I'm frightened of my government run amok with a tin horn dictator named Bush trying to destroy the Constitution.

The only reason Bush had to avoid the FISA court was to avoid the paper trail. He doesn't want us to know he was using wiretaps to spy on his domestic political opponents and anti-war protesters.

[cry baby]

120. How about this ...

Pres. X is running in a tight presidential election and polls are showing that he is losing. Pres. X decides to order the NSA to tap his opponent's phones to see what he can do to get ahead. Since no one will ever know because everything is so secret, Pres. X knows he won't get caught.

If there is a possibility of the above happening because Pres. X decides that he can play fast and loose with the rule of law, then do you think that would be impeachable?

Now put Hillary Clinton as Pres. X in your mind...what do you think now!

[Skittles]

236. why do you say President X ?

it's BUSH we are talking about, not X and CERTAINLY not PRESIDENT

[ddeclue]

239. Because he can't deal in facts - only hypotheticals.

and assertions.

[mikehiggins]

261. How many FISA requests have been turned down since the law was

passed? This is a red herring of an argument that would seem more at home at Freeperland than here.

And who's talking about "foriegn" intelligence? The problem lies in illicit spying on American citizens in brazen defiance of the law.

Bush has publically admitted, even boasted, of acting unilaterally and ignoring the law. For that alone he should be impeached, if not imprisoned.

The one thing making impeachment impractical is the line of succession. Supposedly, if he goes, Cheney becomes President. If he goes, Ted Stevens. What a revolting development this is.

[me b zola]

7. By the time I got to the t.v.

Abrams was saying that Alberto Gonzalez was wanted for sexual assault :D

Okay, maybe it wasn't the same Al Gonzalez, but how can we be sure :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

13. Round them all up

Just to be on the safe side, for the children, off you go Torture Boy...

[xchrom]

8. got it.

ya know if i thought this was a real war -- i'ld be more inclined to give bush a break -- but after 00 who the fuck knows with him.

plus the fact they can't seem to help themselves when it comes to spying on quakers for fuck's sake.

they LIE all the damn time -- who can believe them?

lastly -- isn't part of the inherent weakness in u.s. security an over reliance on electronic surveilance?

[librechik]

12. Abrams brought out all the folks who say the president has the right

no, the obligation to break the law whenever he says it's necessary.

Are these people just whores or do they actually believe they can trust a president, let alone THIS president, to "responsibly" break the law. Like Shrub used to drink responsibly. Every night and every day until the Lord made him stop (Poppy)

[gkhouston]

22. I wouldn't trust Patrick Fitzgerald with that kind of power

and he is clearly straighter than straight when it comes to upholding the Constitution. It's foolhardy to trust anyone that much because you don't know if their subordinates are as clean, much less what the next officeholder will be like, and it's damned hard to get those freedoms back once they've been usurped.

[blm]

145. Elliott Abrams works for Bush now and was indicted during IranContra

when he worked for Poppy.

That's Dan's cousin. Any wonder why he slants his stories for BushInc?

[mod mom]

152. Really...didn't know that, but it makes sense.

[Oceansaway]

16. hahaha...

MSNBC....go figure....and whos ass is Abrams head up?

More 'shit sandwiches' is the reason....

[shance]

54. America needs MORE transparency and LESS secrecy.

It's the secrecy that creates the corruption and abuse.

[ddeclue]

163. Secrecy is anathema to democracy.

You can't have accountable government or an informed consent of the governed if there is secrecy. The NY Times withholding this wiretap story is the prime example. Had they released it, John Kerry would be President now.

[Babastard]

216. You mean like a secret, star chamber-like panel of judges?

[ddeclue]

233. No, like a secret cabal in the White House answerable to no one.

And if it were up to me, there would be no SECRET court at all. They would have to go to a regular judge in a regular court. Democracy can not be conducted in secret. What is the point in protecting democracy by destroying it anyways?

[Babastard]

141. "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

POTUS ANDREW JACKSON to the CJ of the SCOTUS--1832

[ddeclue]

178. and ANDREW JACKSON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED TOO!

None of your examples back up your argument. They only back up OUR argument.

We have a divided coequal 3 branch government that is designed to keep any one man or faction from having too much powers. It has worked well for 220+ years so you and George Bush need to stop screwing with it.

Doug D.

[Babastard]

185. Maybe, but I like the style of it

He was a rare character. Full of piss and vinegar. A real American.

[ddeclue]

187. No a REAL American respects and honors the Constitution.

It is the unique innovation of a written Constitution that is the United States' gift to the world.

What you admire is the personality trait I call "being an asshole"


Doug D.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ddeclue]

237. More propagandistic CRAP

YES THANK GOD JUDGES ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY.

If you don't like the judges you should not have voted for the politicians that appointed them.

Read the Federalist Papers why don't you and stop wasting our time with YOUR stupidity.

[jbnow]

251. In time of war

you say POTUS can ignore laws and do what he feels matters to national security.

Is that the War on Terror? When does that end?

[ddeclue]

258. SHOW ME A DECLARATION OF WAR...

It isn't a time of war.

That's why we are supposed to HAVE declared wars.

So we know:

1) Who the enemy is.
2) Why we are fighting the war.
3) What constitutes victory and therefore when it will end.

[Oilwellian]

273. Who says it's just Bush with this power?

You are sadly misinformed if you think it's just Bush making the decision to spy on Americans:

According to information obtained by NEWSWEEK, since January 2004 NSA received—and fulfilled—between 3,000 and 3, 500 requests from other agencies to supply the names of U.S. citizens and officials (and citizens of other countries that help NSA eavesdrop around the world, including Britain, Canada and Australia) that initially were deleted from raw intercept reports. Sources say the number of names disclosed by NSA to other agencies during this period is more than 10,000. About one third of such disclosures were made to officials at the policymaking level; most of the rest were disclosed to other intel agencies and, perhaps surprisingly, only a small proportion to law-enforcement agencies. Civil libertarians expressed dismay at the numbers. An official familiar with NSA procedures insisted the agency maintains careful logs of all requests for U.S. names and doles out such info only after agency officials are satisfied "that the requester needs the information necessary to understand the foreign intelligence or assess its importance."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7614681/site/newsweek/print... /

But apparently, the agency officials aren't always satisfied the requester needs the information necessary to understand the foreign intelligence.

Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and action officer, has sent the following two letters to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Mr. Tice intends to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA) and with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These acts involved the Director of the National Security Agency, the Deputies Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special Access Programs (SAP). SAP programs and operations are more commonly referred to as “black world” programs and operations. Mr. Tice was a technical intelligence specialist dealing almost exclusively with SAP programs and operations at both NSA and DIA.

Mr. Tice stated: “As a Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) officer it is continually drilled into us that the very first law chiseled in the SIGINT equivalent of the Ten Commandments (USSID-18) is that Thou shall not spy on American persons without a court order from FISA. This law is continually drilled into each NSA intelligence officer throughout his or her career. The very people that lead the National Security Agency have violated this holy edict of SIGINT." A pivotal question in this case is whether Americans were being spied on via a vacuum cleaner approach wherein vast amounts of information are sucked in. FISA warrants require a name of the target and would not cover such a mass approach. He also added: “In addition to knowing this fundamental commandment of not violating the civil rights of Americans, intelligence officers are required to take an oath to protect the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.”

http://www.nswbc.org/press.htm
(the article came to another DU'er via email...it's not posted on the website yet)

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DancingBear]

234. You didn't used to post a lot of "what's for dinner" threads in The Lounge

did you?

Just wonderin'...

[DancingBear]

227. I'm quite tired, so I can't contribute as i'd like to,

but I must say that our "friend" and his arguments are quite funny in their simplicity.

I find it amazing the number of ways one can say "oh yeah, can too!" when the subject is/are The Amazing Civil Liberties And Constitutional Violations (Not) of George W. Bush.

Opps, I mean any President - speaking hypothetically, of course.

Right, friend???

[Babastard]

231. It's okay when someone disagrees with you bunkie

It doesn't mean you're a bad person!

[DancingBear]

238. Why thank you poopsie

I'm underwhelmed.

[lonestarnot]

240. Depends upon what you are basing your disagreement upon...

[walldude]

259. Lotta crap on this thread.. let me debate your original premise

President X wants to tap a phone. He/She takes it to the FISA Court. The FISA Court turns him/her down...No authorization to tap is given/

President X does it anyway, citing his/her "inherent powers" as his/her authorization.

Using info gathered with this phone tap, a devastating attack which would have killed thousands is stopped.

Should President X be impeached?

The right wing and the freepers seem to love this argument. They think it's a lock. Think again. The problem with this premise is that the FISA court would issue the damn warrant. The only time they don't issue a freakin warrant is when there is no reason to. If there is even the slightest hint that the warrant would do some good it would be issued. And they can be issued 24 hours a day 7 days a week within a couple hours notice. There is no reason to allow the government to listen to any phone conversation they want whenever they want.
Basically I see this entire debate as being a bunch of pussy republicans who are so scared of terrorists that they are willing to live in a semi-fascist state to feel safe.

[ddeclue]

260. AND it can be issued retroactively.

They can tap first and get the warrant later. There IS no "necessity" defense therefore because they can immediately tap and wait 72 hours to ask a judge.


Doug D.

[tlsmith1963]

247. This is What it's Really About

The Republicans are still steamed over Watergate, even though it was *30* years ago & Nixon got what he deserved. You heard it in Cheney's recent comments. He thinks that Watergate eroded the powers of the President. Well, Cheney, if your *friend* Nixon hadn't been such a power-hungry jerk, it wouldn't have happened! People like Cheney really have no right to complain, & it's pathetic to stay so bitter for so long anyway, especially when the country has to suffer because they can't get over the past.

Tammy

[Wetzelbill]

265. this is one crazed thread

that's all I have to say. :)

[BelgianMadCow]

267. A pity the opposition

was not up to the task and only got to Level 1 competition for DU.

Fun though!

[Wetzelbill]

270. yeah it is fun

I retired from my warring days. I mainly crack jokes nowadays, haha.

You looked like you were enjoying yourself though. For sure.

[countingbluecars]

268. Yeah,

and it was great watching skilled DUers take this freeper and his talking points down.
Babye Babastard.

[Wetzelbill]

269. geez that was a short life

:)

[FlaGranny]

275. Good Lord - what a thread.

The li'l girly is afraid of boogy men, so we all need to give up our rights so the poor baby can feel safe. The fear message is really getting through to the bushbots. And what's all this judge hatred about? Wonder what they propose to do without judges. Maybe matters of law could be settled with a duel - trouble is, even a duel requires a person to insure it's fair.