busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
an activist that has no accountabilty is dangerous cause he is uncheckedLadyFunkenstein said:
and activist that has accountabilty is a visionary, or he is out!
Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.
- Thread starter Meekail
- Start date
and activist that has accountabilty is a visionary, or he is out!
dead.jihadist
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Posts
- 499
i hate no one, and i understand plenty.unfortunately i have gotten to the point where iam beginning to DISLIKE the party that claims to be "tolerant", the dems are anything but tolerant. i sit somewhere in the middle, i do not trust Bush "blindly" it is just that i trust the dems even less. they do not represent me in anyway.zipman said:
i have yet to hear anything from them that would make me consider voting for them. all i hear is all negative all the time.
have you noticed that Howard Dean has been MIA? wonder who got to him? to me Dean is the face of the party. add in some of Lits more rabid anti-bush people and all i see is HATE.
cjh
orgone accumulator
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Posts
- 32,630
how did i miss this?
and it was before last week's bombshell.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=43981
and it was before last week's bombshell.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=43981
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Conyers is a rabid lunaticCrackerjackHrt said:
thinks the levees were bombed
a real nut job like Cynthia McKinney
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
show meThe Mutt said:
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
dead.jihadist said:
I see rabid loonies on both sides here on Lit. I see an America more divided than at any time I can remember.
I couldn't care less about Dean or, in all honesty whether or not the democratic party appeals to you. But I am sick to death of the utterly baseless accusation that any criticism of the government or its policies as being supporting the enemy as the Bush Administration, the Republican party and their very vocal supporters here on lit assert. To be honest, it reminds me of the kind of strong arm tactics that were employed by the Soviet Union with regard to party loyalty. The only difference is we don't have a KGB enforcing it yet.
dead.jihadist
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Posts
- 499
i was around in the 60s for all the anti-war stuff, and i remember the divide across the country, but i agree with you that the differences of these times have reached a new level. civil discourse no longer exists.zipman said:
i am one who believes that given the opportunity, the extremist muslims would wreak havoc upon our society and never look back. these folks are not going away anytime soon. so for now i support the policies that are currently in place, i dont always like what bush has done i just happen to believe that the situation is a bit more complicated than the armchair politicians on lit will admit.
JustSkye
Gatinha
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2003
- Posts
- 45,537
Quote:
U.S. Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=43981
Hot damn
The Mutt
Cunnilingus Ergo Sum
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Posts
- 22,265
Censure is not enough. Impeach. Then criminal charges.VermilionSkye said:Quote:
U.S. Representative John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who was a critical player in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations into presidential wrongdoing, has introduced a package of resolutions that would censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney and create a select committee to investigate the Administration's possible crimes and make recommendations regarding grounds for impeachment.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=43981
Hot damn
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
One question that a lot of people have raised is why would the Bush administration do this warrantless surveillance if they could just go to the FISA court and get a warrant since the FISA court seems to be very accomodating when the Executive branch asks for such warrants. Byron York explains why the administration didn't want to go through the FISA courts to get these warrants. Apparently, it is not the FISA courts themselves which are the hold up, but the delay comes in compiling all the paperwork in order to get that warrant.
People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Such delays continue to this day, despite the Patriot Act. Even the sainted 9/11 Commission was worried about such delays.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.
"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."
It was in the context of such bureaucratic bottlenecks that the president first authorized, and then renewed, the program to bypass the FISA court in cases of international communications of people with known al Qaeda links.
It seems that if Congress is so worried about their powers being infringed upon by the administration conducting such surveillance without warrants, that the answer is to pass a new law expessly forbidding it. So many of them seem on their high horse complaining about the President signing such orders. Apparently, Tom Daschle is now saying that he was briefed on this and that he raised objections. If he thought it was such an abrogation of power, why didn't he introduce a law to take that power away from Bush? In 2002, when it seems Bush first signed off on this, Daschle was still the Majority Leader in the Senate. Why didn't he protect all those people whose rights everyone is worried about?
I have no idea if what Bush did was Constitutional or not. It seems that well educated law professors can have differing opinions. And, probably, if the question were to come before the Supreme Court, the justices would disagree; it might be another 5:4 issue.
What does seem clear is that this is not going to be an issue that plays to the Democrats' strengths. John McIntyre has a political analysis of this and he points out that the Democrats lose when they get the whole focus on security and terrorism.
Not recognizing the political ground had shifted beneath their feet, Democrats continued to press forward with their offensive against the President. They’ve now foolishly climbed out on a limb that Rove and Bush have the real potential to chop off. One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.
First, the Democrats still do not grasp that foreign affairs and national security issues are their vulnerabilities, not their strengths. All of the drumbeat about Iraq, spying, and torture that the left thinks is so damaging to the White House are actually positives for the President and Republicans. Apparently, Democrats still have not fully grasped that the public has profound and long-standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation. As long as national security related issues are front page news, the Democrats are operating at a structural political disadvantage. Perhaps the intensity of their left wing base and the overwhelmingly liberal press corps produces a disorientation among Democratic politicians and prevents a more realistic analysis of where the country’s true pulse lies on these issues.
I just don't think that going to the people and saying that they don't want NSA listening to people who are talking to Al Qaeda operatives overseas is going to be a big political plus. Sure, they'll dress it up as protecting people's rights and try to sell people that Bush's administration has gone from wanting to find out what books they're checking out to listening in on their phone calls. I just don't think that that is a political winner of a campaign platform. Sure, people get upset when politicians keep telling them that our rights have been abridged. However, most of the people who fear the Bush administration overreaching in the war on terror already don't like Bush. I just bet that the great numbers of people in the middle are more afraid of Al Qaeda than they are of NSA listening in on their phone calls.
People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Such delays continue to this day, despite the Patriot Act. Even the sainted 9/11 Commission was worried about such delays.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.
"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."
It was in the context of such bureaucratic bottlenecks that the president first authorized, and then renewed, the program to bypass the FISA court in cases of international communications of people with known al Qaeda links.
It seems that if Congress is so worried about their powers being infringed upon by the administration conducting such surveillance without warrants, that the answer is to pass a new law expessly forbidding it. So many of them seem on their high horse complaining about the President signing such orders. Apparently, Tom Daschle is now saying that he was briefed on this and that he raised objections. If he thought it was such an abrogation of power, why didn't he introduce a law to take that power away from Bush? In 2002, when it seems Bush first signed off on this, Daschle was still the Majority Leader in the Senate. Why didn't he protect all those people whose rights everyone is worried about?
I have no idea if what Bush did was Constitutional or not. It seems that well educated law professors can have differing opinions. And, probably, if the question were to come before the Supreme Court, the justices would disagree; it might be another 5:4 issue.
What does seem clear is that this is not going to be an issue that plays to the Democrats' strengths. John McIntyre has a political analysis of this and he points out that the Democrats lose when they get the whole focus on security and terrorism.
Not recognizing the political ground had shifted beneath their feet, Democrats continued to press forward with their offensive against the President. They’ve now foolishly climbed out on a limb that Rove and Bush have the real potential to chop off. One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.
First, the Democrats still do not grasp that foreign affairs and national security issues are their vulnerabilities, not their strengths. All of the drumbeat about Iraq, spying, and torture that the left thinks is so damaging to the White House are actually positives for the President and Republicans. Apparently, Democrats still have not fully grasped that the public has profound and long-standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation. As long as national security related issues are front page news, the Democrats are operating at a structural political disadvantage. Perhaps the intensity of their left wing base and the overwhelmingly liberal press corps produces a disorientation among Democratic politicians and prevents a more realistic analysis of where the country’s true pulse lies on these issues.
I just don't think that going to the people and saying that they don't want NSA listening to people who are talking to Al Qaeda operatives overseas is going to be a big political plus. Sure, they'll dress it up as protecting people's rights and try to sell people that Bush's administration has gone from wanting to find out what books they're checking out to listening in on their phone calls. I just don't think that that is a political winner of a campaign platform. Sure, people get upset when politicians keep telling them that our rights have been abridged. However, most of the people who fear the Bush administration overreaching in the war on terror already don't like Bush. I just bet that the great numbers of people in the middle are more afraid of Al Qaeda than they are of NSA listening in on their phone calls.
What did Truman say about the only thing under the sun that's new?
By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Guess who?
LINK
By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Guess who?
LINK
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
you do know I posted this on this thread over an hour ago?Gringao said:
are you slow or just a thief?
Similar threads
