it's now wrong to identify an unconstitutional act?

[Mom2be]

I have a question, what do you think of FDR. Would you consider him a great president. Because I would. And if you think George Bush is bad when it comes to these so-called civil liberty abuses, you need to review your history. FDR realized we were at war and took the appropriate actions. George Bush realizes we are at war and is taking the appropriate actions. No liberal seems to answer this question about FDR. I mean FDR controlled the media for the most part, have you ever seen the war propaganda that was used during that time period. I think that's what makes FDR a great president, he realized what he had to do to win.

actually the fact that during FDR's presidency that we locked up in camps United States Citizens who's ethnicity was Japanesse against their will for no reason doesn't make me hold FDR in high esteem. Of course everyone glosses over that fact when talking about FDR. Which by the way this was shown later to be unconsitutional and retrubutions were paid out to the families that were held against their will with no charges against them.

Review your history.

~Amanda

 

[DawnCt1]

Prove it.

The Attorney General of the United States says that the President acted well within the law, and frankly, I would bet he has a better grasp on that law than either you or I do.

 

[DawnCt1]

actually the fact that during FDR's presidency that we locked up in camps United States Citizens who's ethnicity was Japanesse against their will for no reason doesn't make me hold FDR in high esteem. Of course everyone glosses over that fact when talking about FDR. Which by the way this was shown later to be unconsitutional and retrubutions were paid out to the families that were held against their will with no charges against them.

Review your history.

~Amanda

And the decision to reverse the legality of what FDR did and pay RESTITUTION was done after the war, with the advantage of hind sight. That doesn't take away from the fact that he did it.

 

[DawnCt1]

Really? All we've heard from the White House is that "Congressional Leaders" were informed...not who specifically those leaders were, or any verification that they were indeed informed.

Pelosi, Reid, and several others who all admit to being briefed on an on going basis.

 

[sodaseller]

The Attorney General of the United States says that the President acted well within the law, and frankly, I would bet he has a better grasp on that law than either you or I do.

You said earlier that it was permitted with the Constitution. Presumably, you must have had a provision in mind when making that statement. Which one.

And while the AG is certainly knowledgeable, he is not neutral (actually, he's supposed to be more neutral than he is). This same AG argued while in Texas that international treaties don't apply to states as sovereigns unless they were ratified by that state. He apparently forgot about the Supremacy Clause in Art VI. So his blessing of on the legality of an Act is not comforting

 

[M:SteveO]

That was not an appropriate action. That was a stain on his otherwise ilustrious Presidency.

And ya'll love to compare this war with WWII, which is bizaare. I really don't know how ya'll think sometimes. Really, your arguments are nonsenical. It was the wrong action for that more extreme context, and this context doesn't approach that

So using propaganda to help win the war is not appropriate. Doing what he had to do to win the war is a stain on his presidency. And we are in a war, just like we were at war in the 40s, whether you liberals think we are or not. That's the problem, you liberals ideologically think that we're not at war with these lunatics. That's your problem, and thank god, you're not in power.

 

[Mom2be]

The Attorney General of the United States says that the President acted well within the law, and frankly, I would bet he has a better grasp on that law than either you or I do.

More like he knows how to get around it. Have you read your consitution lately? Or do you always blindly follow people in authority?

~Amanda

 

[sodaseller]

So using propaganda to help win the war is not appropriate. Doing what he had to do to win the war is a stain on his presidency. And we are in a war, just like we were at war in the 40s, whether you liberals think we are or not. That's the problem, you liberals ideologically think that we're not at war with these lunatics. That's your problem, and thank god, you're not in power.

If we're in a war just like against WWII, why hasn't the President's fiscal policies reflected that? Why hasn't the mobilization orders reflected that? Why have we not equipped our forces?

This is what happens when you mindlessly repeat talking points you read on right wing sites - you don't realize how weak they actually are when measured up against the most basic scrutiny

 

[Mom2be]

And the decision to reverse the legality of what FDR did and pay RESTITUTION was done after the war, with the advantage of hind sight. That doesn't take away from the fact that he did it.

Agree! The fact is it happened and it was still illegal! So no FDR doesn't rank high on my list of great presidents which was the question asked. Thanks for playing!

 

[Mom2be]

So using propaganda to help win the war is not appropriate. Doing what he had to do to win the war is a stain on his presidency. And we are in a war, just like we were at war in the 40s, whether you liberals think we are or not. That's the problem, you liberals ideologically think that we're not at war with these lunatics. That's your problem, and thank god, you're not in power.

What state or country are we at war with?
~Amanda

 

[sodaseller]

More like he knows how to get around it. Have you read your consitution lately? Or do you always blindly follow people in authority?

~Amanda

Mr. Gonzalez' past demonstrations of exacting legal reasoning

Slate

On June 16, 1997, Gonzales first showcased his proclivity for torturing international law when he sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which he argued that, "Since the State of Texas is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we believe it is inappropriate to ask Texas to determine whether a breach … occurred in connection with the arrest and conviction" of a Mexican national. Or, put another way, he asserted that an international treaty just didn't apply to Texas.

Article VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.

 

[POB14]

It's not always as easy as it sounds to get a warrant from the FISA court. I did a research paper on this a few years ago, and it's really not as simple as going up to the court and getting a warrant 5 minutes later.

According to this quite possibly biased source, in 1994 no request for such a warrant was denied. Do any sources claim otherwise?

Again, I haven't done papers on this. I've DONE this. It's not that hard, really.

I would refer you to this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512191334.asp. I know you'll all probably not really read it, because it is from the National Review, but it does let you know of the bureaucracy involved.

I read it. It does not address the issue of making the application afterwards. If the problem was with meeting a deadline, don't you think it would show more good faith to make the application, even if it were late?

The bureaucracy of the FISA court prevented the FBI from quickly searching and using information from Zacarias Moussaoui's computer. But, what am I saying, his human rights would have been violated if the gov't was allowed to use that information without a warrant. Stupid me, I forget sometimes that protecting the country isn't that important.

Well, and if we get information about a "regular" murderer illegally, we don't get to use that information in court. If the police had searched John Wayne Gacy's basement without a warrant, all of that evidence would have been thrown out. You don't get to chunk the Constitution out the window just by yelling the word "Terrorism" as loud as you can.

The point is, there IS a procedure for this that makes it legal, it was NOT followed, and that IS a violation of law.

 

[M:SteveO]

Well, and if we get information about a "regular" murderer illegally, we don't get to use that information in court. If the police had searched John Wayne Gacy's basement without a warrant, all of that evidence would have been thrown out. You don't get to chunk the Constitution out the window just by yelling the word "Terrorism" as loud as you can.

That is true, using the information they could have gotten without a warrant is not admissible in court. But who cares whether it's admissible in court when the guy's got info on his computer that could have prevented 9/11 altogether. Seems to me you've got to weigh your options, and I'll take preventing another attack over a very limited program of warrantless wiretaps on those making international phone calls to known terrorists any day of the week.

 

[M:SteveO]

What state or country are we at war with?
~Amanda

We are not at war against a country, we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism, to put it simply. You prove my point for me when you don't think we're at war with anybody. You fail to see the true nature of the threat, and it's something that I can't convince you of, so I'm gonna stop posting and let all you liberals talk amongst yourselves about how much this country is headed towards fascism and how much Bush reminds you of Hitler.

 

[dcentity2000]

Actually, not getting court warrants within 72 hours IS breaking the law. I am outraged. I'm outraged that some Americans believe their President is above the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Rule of Law should be absolute and final; it stops nutters from abusing power. Sad that some people attempt to shield said nutters I mean, why are they so scared of the courts? Is it what they would find? Or what they'd rule as just? What?



Rich::

 

[Mom2be]

We are not at war against a country, we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism, to put it simply. You prove my point for me when you don't think we're at war with anybody. You fail to see the true nature of the threat, and it's something that I can't convince you of, so I'm gonna stop posting and let all you liberals talk amongst yourselves about how much this country is headed towards fascism and how much Bush reminds you of Hitler.

I've never said Bush reminds me of Hitler or that the country is headed to fascism but thanks for painting with that broad brush.

No I do not believe we are at "war." I believe we are being offensive instead of defensive which I support. I'm sure you are shocked. However we cannot just chuck the Constitution out the door in order to remain "safe." Why can we not continue to be offensive without breaking our own laws? And while I don't support the President on every cause I also am not disillusioned to the fact that he is just a man who can make mistakes. The problem is he may have made a mistake at the cost of ignoring a law that is the foundation of this country. That BOTHERS me. And the fact that it doesn't bother other people and that they would rather hide their heads in the sand and scream "FREEDOM!" is a rather scary thought to me.

~Amanda

 

[dcentity2000]

I'm gonna stop posting

How did you get him to stop posting?



Rich::

 

[POB14]

Seems to me you've got to weigh your options, and I'll take preventing another attack over a very limited program of warrantless wiretaps on those making international phone calls to known terrorists any day of the week.

But how do we know it's a "very limited program," unless there's independent judicial review? How do we know there weren't other kinds of warrantless searches, that we've never heard about?

M:SteveO, what if I sent the police over to your house to seize your computer? Maybe you're some type of horrible criminal. And if you're not, well, you have nothing to hide then, right? We'll just carry out this limited program of searching your computer, and I'll feel a lot safer knowing that any crime you might commit would be prevented.

Look, if these people are known terrorists, it's easy to get a warrant. If not, well, the warrants are the only thing protecting you, personally, from the kind of thing I just described.

We all want to be safe. We're not. We found that out on September 11, but we should have known it before. Presidents get shot. The people with the most personal safety I'm aware of are prisoners. You have to -- have to -- give up some degree of safety for freedom. I'm happy with the balance provided by the warrant requirement. Obviously you're not. I guess we have to disagree on that.

But my position is supported by current Constitutional law and yours is not.

 

[sodaseller]

Sen. Rockefeller has released his 2003 letter to VP Cheney objecting to the program - it's handwritten. Copy at link
Note the last paragraph to see how a Senator views working with a man of Cheney's honor (this goes beyond ideological dovision, esp as it was not necessarily going to ever be released

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Wonderfully honorable people we have governing

 

[cati]

Must not be too many people who don't like what PRESIDENT Bush does. His approval rating keeps going up.