The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
 1 addresses in this thread.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
Awesome GWB FUCKING AWESOME
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 19th, 2005 10:57 AM Author: Medicated Filthpig He says that he's not going to explain the legal justification for the NSA domestic wiretaps thusly: "An open debate about law would let the enemy know what we're going to do" |
 |
Date: December 19th, 2005 10:59 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain Well, he's really not obligated to. The fact is that he can do whatever he wants, and if he is infringing someone's rights, then someone with some standing can sue and try for an injunction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607236) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:19 AM Author: shaky location Actually, I think that the president has an independent duty to uphold the Constitution whether he is sued or not. It's not the job of the populace to make him obey the law.
Maybe that's naive; I guess I'm just an old-fashioned type. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:21 AM Author: lime step-uncle's house His duty to uphold the Constitution doesn't translate into a duty to engage in debate with the pinkos at the times and in academia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607345) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:23 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode No, but it does translate into a duty to only enforce laws that actually exist and to follow appropriate procedure in enforcing those laws which do exist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607353) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain i recommend reading the constitution, particularly the article on executive powers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607356) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: Medicated Filthpig what do the executive powers have to do with unconstitutional searches? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607364) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:31 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain 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; (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607388) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:26 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Is their a clause that says the president can violate the 4th ammendment and due process rights of citizens when the mechanisms designed to protect those rights have been specifically dictated to him by congress? Because, if so, I missed that... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607370) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:28 AM Author: Medicated Filthpig There you are "ammendment" guy. I sometimes have problems figuring out who is who when monikers change (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607381) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:30 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode mmmm. mm.m. mmmmmmm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607385) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:30 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain 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; (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607387) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:34 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Relevence to wiretapping our own citizens without getting easily obtained judicial assent?
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:36 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain This is the last time that I will list the relevant factual distinctions for the fucking idiots on this board:
1 - The transmissions are being intercepted by a US Security agency called into the actual service of the United States, not a law enforcement agency.
2 - The transmissions are being intercepted with suspicion, not randomly.
3 - they are being intercepted OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
Got it? |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:37 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode None of these facts have a material effect on the citizens protected rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607424) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:39 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607431) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:22 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain it's ambiguous whether this is constitutional or not. therefore, he is free to do it unless it is clearly unconstitutional. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607351) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:27 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Please misread Youngstown more egregiously. Thanks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607379) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain i'm not referring to any case. I'm referring to "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Read the thing sometimes. If he reasonably believes that he is acting within the limits of the constitution, then he is clear.
See also qualified immunity.
you're free to sue him to get a declaratory judgment, but in the meantime, he is free to do what he is doing. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:34 AM Author: Medicated Filthpig how can he reasonably believe he is acting within the limits of the constitution? he is acting contrary to a law establishing FISA procedure (a law incidentally enacted by congress and the president) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607405) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:39 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain Sorry, misread this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607429) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:41 AM Author: pink hissy fit pit I agree. I don't even see how you could argue otherwise. The Administration first sought to avoid the matter altogether when Bush told Lehrer that he wasn't going to discuss ongoing intel. ops. Then he changed course and tried to justify going around FISA by saying its mandate under the Patriot Act empowers it to do so. Apparently, now conservatives argue that domestic spying is an implied power of the Presidency? That's absurd. All of this equivocation is indicative of shaky legal ground, in my opinion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607441) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:42 AM Author: thirsty dog poop stain It's obviously shakey, but it isn't in clear violation of any established precedent.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:49 AM Author: pink hissy fit pit There are 200+ years of precedent, wherein the executive has been prohibited from searches without judicial oversight. Granted, there have been aberrations by presidents of both parties, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, etc., but the disapprobation they receive for their wiretapping indicates a norm that prohibits this sort of activity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607486) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:42 AM Author: marvelous sienna legend Doesn't youngstown say that when the president acts with express/implied congressional approval his authority is broad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607444) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:49 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Right and that when he acts in direct contradiction there to, that his authority is all but non-existent. Yep. That's what it says.
No if only we had a law specfically prescribing procedural safegaurds the executive branch is supposed to take before intercepting privatem communications... |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:54 AM Author: marvelous sienna legend So how is he supposed to interpret the War Powers granted to him by Congress following 9/11? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607521) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:59 AM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Not in contradiction with the constitution and/or previously enacted statues not directly overuled by any provision of said grant or the patriot act. That seems pretty obvious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607542) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:50 AM Author: pink hissy fit pit *edit* poster above explained it better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607500) |
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:01 AM Author: Stubborn Blue Point Mother Hey Bush's approval ratings, NYU students want their schtick back!
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:29 AM Author: bateful effete digit ratio If there were no civil rights before 9/11, we'd all be safe from evildoers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607382) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:54 AM Author: exciting weed whacker Those damn freedom haters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607520) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:34 AM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck Y'all can crack wise or bitch all you want...Bush just gave a way better performance in that press conference than any of us expected.
True, this is a bit like the old Sam Johnson "dog walking/woman preaching" line, but still I was surprised at how effective he was *from a purely political perspective.*
His pwning of Schumer and Reid was particularly delightful. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:53 AM Author: marvelous sienna legend You guys are idiots. Liberals have such a problem seeing the big picture. Fact: terrorists want to kill US citizens. Fact: there are terrorist cells inside the US that want to kill US citizens. Fact: these terrorists communicate with terrorists in other countries in determining how and when they will kill US citizens.
What's the big fucking deal? I don't care if the motherfuckers listen to all my phone calls. As long as I don't get a dirty bomb or chemical attack shoved up my ass, I am happy.
There is strong supreme court precedent that indicates that in times of war, the Constitution does not prevent the president from restricting civil liberties. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:56 AM Author: Medicated Filthpig Fact: judges can approve most of these within 4 minutes Fact: only one FISA search has ever been denied Fact: there is an emergency exception that allows searches without judicial approval |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:03 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend ok fine. let's just say this: we're monitoring the international communities' communications with people inside america. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607576) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:06 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode These "people inside the united states" are "citizens," is the problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607590) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:11 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend are they? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607624) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:17 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Presumably, yes. We have no reason to believe otherwise.
Even if they aren't, if they are here legally, they are due the same 4th amendment protection and due process as citizens.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:21 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Yes, they are. But this is seriously just a procedural issue with a quick fix for those who think it's unconstitutional. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607676) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:23 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Maybe.
But that fact only makes the way it was handled in the first place ill the more indefensible. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:30 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend well, i think we can all agree that this administration are not full of the sharpest knives in the drawer. i have no doubt they considered the issue and thought it constitutional. and if they're wrong? well, it's a quick fix. it's not as if this was a big secret to anybody in congress on the armed forces committee. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607759) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:36 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Just because Bush or Cheney or Karl Rove may have wanted to believe it doesn't mean that they had a reasonable good faith belief that it was constitutional...I guess that is where we disagree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607825) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:42 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend I think THEY had a reasonable good faith to believe it was constitutional and they can (and are) making the argument.
Obviously, like their decisions in the past suggest, they didn't take the least controversial path. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:45 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath Anyone with a high school education could read the statute and know that it wasn't legal. COnpare that with the leader of the free world (and Rove, who is supposed to be wicked smart) and their stable of high-priced lawyers. It touching that who wikll defend them no matter what, but they are clearly in the wrong on this one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607894) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:51 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend The whole point is that the war powers supercede the statute. Again, I'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying what they're saying.
What I am saying is that this (wiretapping foreign communications) is constitutional and needs to be done. The way they did it is arguably unconstitutional.
Again, this is just a procedural thing; they're going to wiretap regardless. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:59 PM Author: shaky location Most of the Bill of Rights is "just procedural."
That doesn't mean it isn't really fucking important. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 1:02 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend The procedural device is getting the FISA court's permission. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608022) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:08 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck Trust me, there are technological reasons why it's unfeasible go to a judge in advance or even during the case to get clearance - we'd have lost what we're trying to get in the meantime. I don't really want to go into it, but we can now do things that that bad guys (and you) don't even realize we're yet technologically capable of. And the law hasn't kept up.
Why we couldn't go after the fact is a different question, which I'm not entirely clear on yet. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:12 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath They have 72 hours to go to a judge after the fact. Basically, they were not respecting seperation of powers.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:22 PM Author: pink hissy fit pit So your argument comes down to the idea that citizens are supposed to just "Trust" the government that has failed us so many times? That's where we disagree, I suppose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607686) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:57 AM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath We never declared war.
Also, you are a pussy. If you are ok with the president breaking laws, erroding our freedoms, just so you can feel a little safer, you are a pussy. You are too scared to stand up for the bill of rights. Pussy.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 11:58 AM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck This one tires me. We did indeed declare war. The Congressional resolution is legally IDENTICAL to a declaration of war. God I hate it when people ignorant of politics make this stupid argument. It's a distinction without a difference. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607539) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:01 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath they voted to give the president authorization to enofrce a UN resolution by force. They never officially declared war on a foriegn government.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:05 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck By that logic we never officially declared war on Afghanistan either. Uh-huh.
STOP THAT ILLEGAL WAR!!! |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:09 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath We haven't declared war on Afghanistan. There are legal ways to use force without it being a declared war, and that is sometimes necessary. What the fuck is your point?
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:11 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck So you're saying we were never AT WAR IN Afghanistan? Or Iraq for that matter? And you think your argument - that the absence of a formal resolution that is no longer favored or used in Congress (hasn't been since 1941, even for Korea) means that a state of war doesn't ACTUALLY OBTAIN - is going to have any result other than getting you laughed out of the building?
I love a self-pwning in the afternoon. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:17 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath No, we were never AT WAR in Afghanistan. We were using military force and getting our sons killed, but we were not AT WAR. There is a difference.
And yes, the absence of a formal resolution means that the president shouldn't get wartime powers and here is why: Requiring a declaration of war to be from an act of congress, it acts as a check on the executive branch, requiring the congress to sign off on giving the president war time powers. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. So according to our constitution, the check on the executive brance has not been removed. The fact that our sons are dying is irrelevant to the discussion about the check on executive power.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:01 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Actually, I am not a pussy. I spent several years in the military upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What the fuck have you done? Held up a sign? Congrats, you're a real fucking hero. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607554) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:02 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck I gotta say, I hate it when people who have never done a goddamn thing in service of the public defense seek to undermine it...sure it's a free world and they can do what they want, but it still pisses me off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607565) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:04 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath I hate it when people piss on our Bill of Rights because they are scared.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:12 PM Author: pink hissy fit pit Eh, they're upholding it, from the perspective of civil libertarians and liberals. It's a matter of perspective. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607629) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:02 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig you must feel like a real jerk-off now that all those years you spent upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were in vain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607573) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:07 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend God you're right. I feel so oppressed - what was I thinking? I can't believe the President would have the audacity to listen to a terrorist's phone call to some jack ass in Pakistan. My rights are just fine, and so are yours.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:03 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath I'll tell you what I've done: I won't look the other way when our Bill of Rights and seperation of powers gets pissed on, just because I'm so scared of terorists. I don't give a fuck if you were in our military if you are fine with giving up the ideals of our country and constitution to just get a little more safety (maybe). Pussy.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:09 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Wow - you're not looking the other way? You're standing up for your rights on an anonymous message board? Holy shit, you're a true patriot. You really are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607605) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:11 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath I'm more of a patriot than somebody who will give up everything this country stands for out of fear. You pussy.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:15 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Everything? Have you given up something? Have your rights been infringed? Please explain how you are a Patriot, I got to hear this one. Did Mommy and Daddy tell you that you were a Patriot? Idealists like you just need time out from under Mommy and Daddy's wing to really understand how the real world works.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:18 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode You grew up in a trailer and have never been near a law school. Correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607656) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:19 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Incorrect on both. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607664) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:20 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Dude, your tone and generally lack of knowledge on this thread make clear you have no legal training and likely very poorly bred. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607671) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:22 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend again, incorrect. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607689) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:25 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode Probably a little excessive (my ad hominem attacks, that is).
But this whole "stand behind the president or you hate america" + "who cares exactly what the law is, we're probably doing it in your own best interest" line of reasoning is not something that anyone who seriously cared about the rule of law in this country would say. Nor is it particularly coherent. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:33 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend let's be clear, i never said stand behind the president or you hate america. all i said was that in times of war, the constitution has some flexibility. yes, i probably said it a bit more meathead-ish then i needed too - i was just making sure dumbshits like scared1L get the picture.
and by no means am i a bush supporter. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:19 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath A person who will not be scared into accepting a president who shits on the constitution is a patriot. A person you is scared into letting the executive branch go free without check on it from the other branches is a pussy. You sir, are a giant pussy.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:26 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Great, so you say you're not scared. Again, wow. Explain again to me how you are not accepting this?
I don't accept this either - that's why I joined the military. If we end the war, there's no need for the president to do things like this. So I agreed to go over to the middle east and bomb terrorists so hopefully we can get back to status quo. Again, what have you PROACTIVELY done other than post on an anonymous board? |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:30 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath How the fuck was I supposed to do something PROACTIVELY without knowing what was going on? Do you even know what that word means? EDIT: it has to at least be somewhat forseeable to take action before the fact.
I am doing whatever I can do (informing friends of what is going on, drafting letters, going to vote, ect.), even if you think that it is small and won't make a difference. You, however, are a giant, wet, floppy pussy. "Oh, I'm so scared,go ahead and rape my constitution if it can make me feel better."
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:37 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend You just explained what you did proactively to defend the Constitution. And that's good, you're not just a closet protester.
And seriously cut out the pussy bullshit. If you're not able to see both sides of this argument, you probably didn't do well on your 1L exams. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:43 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath Proactive: "Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory:"
Not to get into a word argument, but I had no idea that the administration would actually flaunt the seperation of powers by not acting according to this particular statute created by congress, and not getting judicial oversight on the wiretapping. I guess the joke is on me. So I couldn't really be proactive.
No, there is no good reason why the executive branch did this stuff when they could have gotten a quicky ok from the judicial brance. There is no other side to this argument. They broke the law for NO GOOD REASON. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:53 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend No need to get in a word argument, just scroll a little lower on dictionary.com
Meaning #2: (of a policy or person or action) controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens.
EDIT: So in other words, instead of just being unhappy about the situation, you go out and try to implement change. And you're doing that - BRAVO!
EDIT2: This is all about warpowers young man. You'll learn about that next semester. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 2:10 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath You are still wrong. I had to wait for it to happen, because I had no reason to believe that it might happen. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608719) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:07 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend You just don't get it, do you.
I said what have you done to proactively uphold your rights granted by the Constitution? I said I joined the military so we, as a country, can get back to status quo. Thus, I was attempting to change the situation (that created the necessity for war powers) before my civil liberties and rights would need to be infringed upon further. I then stated that by simply voicing your displeasure on a anonymous board, you are not proactively upholding your rights. You responded by saying you're drafting letters, talking to friends, etc. Thus, you are working, proactively, to uphold your Constitutional rights (or return them as they were) instead of sitting back and waiting for your rights to be infringed upon further.
The problem with people like you are that you can't push emotion out of the way in dealing with problems. You are clearly unable to see both sides of the argument. Good luck doing well in law school - try reading "Getting to Maybe," it might help you. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:19 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig the real world works by circumventing Constitutional rights and procedure? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607663) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:21 PM Author: 180 shimmering coffee pot abode The real world works by dropping out of high school, getting a chubby girl pregnant and joining the army. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607679) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:45 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend yes.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 2:44 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig then what exactly did you serving to uphold the Constitution do? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609031) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:22 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend i'm not sure if i understand your question. the real world is the one we live in; not some idealized ficticious peaceful place. unfortunately, we are at war. in fighting a war, a president has traditionally been afforded broad discretion in conducting war, even at the expense of civil liberties. i did not make these rules nor do i necessarily agree or disagree with them.
the military swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states, not simply the bill of rights. this means we not only protect our freedoms from enemies, foreign and domestic, but we also protect the powers of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:30 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig you seem to think you served in the military to protect the constitution. Then you go on to say in the real world (which i apparently do not understand) the constitution is circumvented and you even *support* the government doing so. These two statements are completely incongruous. As an aside, the presidents war powers are not at issue here, avoiding domestic law is. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:43 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend here's the distinction: i don't support the government circumventing the constitution. i support (or rather supported) the government's right to circumvent the constitution in times of war.
obviously, this is the issue up for debate: you state it as factually correct that the war power is not an issue here. bush says war power authorizes him to do this. opponents say either the war power doesn't exist or that the power itself doesn't authorize him to do this.
EDIT: what do i think? doesn't matter. but if it did, i would wonder why the easy route of getting roving wiretaps from the FISA wasn't pursued. but, i would probably also think that the positives (intel in war on terror) substantially outweigh the negatives (selected individuals civil liberties) and conclude that president, as a function of his war power, made a reasonable determination that his action was warranted. i wouldn't agree with his decision to do it in the way he did, but i would agree in his ability to do it. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:00 PM Author: Odious Shrine Foreskin nice moniker.
I WILL HIT YOU IN THE NUTS WITH A CAR ANNTENA. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Sooty nibblets dilemma it almost sounds like our old friend futurejacoby is back... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607736) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:02 PM Author: Godawful Milk Theater Stage Subject: POTUS can do whatever the hell he wants If you don't like it - Impeach and convict him - Go ahead - I dare you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607570) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:05 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath He's not the king. We don't have kings in this country.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:06 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck Exactly. So please, I beg you to lobby your representative to attempt impeachment.
Go ahead on. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:07 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath Why do you hate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers, and Freedom?
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:09 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck I just hate liberal moonbats.
Though admittedly, freedom's always gotten on my nerves too. We need to crack down hard on that. |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:17 PM Author: appetizing senate from what I read he gave authority to monitor the phone calls of people in the U.S. to KNOWN terrorists overseas. If you have a problem with this you are a partisan hack and crazy, especially since the law is not very clear (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607654) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:20 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck Great username. Terps fan? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607669) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:22 PM Author: appetizing senate nah, cocaine fan (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607685) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:21 PM Author: Black elastic band There's no reason why he couldn't have went through the appropriate LEGAL channels and still monitor these conversations. That's the whole fucking point. It's not like obtaining a warrant to do so (under FISA) involves walking through a bureaucratic tangle. There's no excuse for this kind of blatant and arrogant power grab. The partisan hacks are the people who are defending the president's right to trample over federal law and the constitution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607680) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:22 PM Author: appetizing senate i'm sure there was a reason, he just doesn't have to tell you right now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607692) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:23 PM Author: Black elastic band brilliant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607697) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: appetizing senate sucks to be you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607703) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig Awesome Len Bias FUCKING AWESOME (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607705) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: Godawful Milk Theater Stage Subject: Yr *civil rites* ain't worth shit when yr dead. As for the legality of his actions they are legal until Scotus says otherwise or the Congress impeaches and convicts him. All you have is an opinion which as you should know is like an asshole - everyone has one and most stink (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607715) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: pink hissy fit pit It wasn't just those that had direct contact with the terrorists. The order resulted in people seperated from terrorists by many degrees being spied on. That he went around FISA to do so makes it that much more appalling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607711) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:24 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath The law is clear. Section 1801 gives the gov. power to eavesdrop on various types of foriegn powers, defined in subsections 1-3. Terrorist groups, defined un subsection 4 are explicitly not included in that:
("i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1801 (a)(1,(2, or (3) of this title;"
What makes you think that it is not clear? because the administration says that it was legal, but still refuses to quote the relevant parts of the statute.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: Godawful Milk Theater Stage Subject: Al Qaeda IS a foreign power You just defeated yr own argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607733) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:31 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath Not as defined in subsections 1-3. They refer to foreign governments or groups expressly controlled by a forein government. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607776) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:33 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig but everythings different after 9/11!!! 9/11 changed everything! Now we should do whatever the fuck we went and blame outdated definitions rather than actually changing the law. PS its only been 4 years (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607797) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:47 PM Author: Godawful Milk Theater Stage Subject: Al Qaeda WAS a defecto foreign government AND/OR was expressley controlled by a foreign government - You still lose by yr very own definitions (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607911) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:56 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath What the fuck are you smoking? You are seriously trying to say that AL Qaeda is a government? Everything I've ever hear about Al-Qaeda is that part of the reason it is so hard to defeat it is that it is so decentralized, with the parts working independantly, in different parts of the world, that damage to one part doesn't really affect the other parts.
How about the rotary club? Is that a government? The Boy Scouts of America? They are both more structured, top to bottom than Al Qaeda, which is now apparently a government by your standards.
God damn, you just really, realy, want to defend the administration no matter what huh?
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 2:26 PM Author: Godawful Milk Theater Stage Subject: Al Qaeda ran Afland - NEXT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608856) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:59 PM Author: bistre pisswyrm corner if Al Qaeda was a "defecto" (sic) foreign government ... then what land or peoples did they govern? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608005) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 1:05 PM Author: embarrassed to the bone cuck Saddam Hussein controlled al-Qaeda! He was behind 9/11!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608043) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 1:08 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend I just talked to my friend in England. I told him I ate a burrito last night and that I needed to go drop a bomb. I hope I don't get arrested. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608068) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 1:12 PM Author: bistre pisswyrm corner im sure you can scare the feds off with your toughguy talk, futurejacoby. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608097) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 1:14 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend i'm fairly new to this board - not sure who he is.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:45 PM Author: Godawful Milk Theater Stage Subject: Afghanistan - NEXT (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609550) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:47 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig then you admit we should be abiding by the geneva convention and treating the prisoners in guantanamo as POWs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609558) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:53 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend wait, i'm confused. how don't we? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609599) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 3:59 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees. Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW status.
...
http://www.state.gov/p/sa/rls/fs/7910.htm POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including:
· access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco · a monthly advance of pay · the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts · the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments, or sports outfits
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 4:06 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend wait, so what's the argument? that they should be given POW status? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609694) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 4:08 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig a guy above thinks that al-q is a state party. All I am doing is showing how the official US policy is that al-q is not a state party. I'm not arguing that the prisoners here should be given POW status (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609711) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 4:00 PM Author: bistre pisswyrm corner [edit: nm, it's been taken care of...] (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4609642) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:27 PM Author: appetizing senate so I can expect an impeachment soon? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607738) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:32 PM Author: arrogant concupiscible public bath If the weenie repubs in the congress grow some balls and decide to start defending our constitution, then yes. If not, then no.
Edit: it's possible this has legs. See how pissed off Lindsey Grahm was, for instance. Many true conservatives seem mad as hell.
|
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:34 PM Author: pink hissy fit pit Lack of impeachment doesn't prove that extralegal/constitutional action was not taken. Noone should expect impeachment with a Republican Congress. Personally, I don't think it constitutes an impeachable offense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607807) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:36 PM Author: bistre pisswyrm corner i think every poster on this thread knows that an impeachment is not going to happen whether the law was broken or not. it's a red herring. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607824) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:39 PM Author: Medicated Filthpig no way! impeachment by January 10 at the latest. mark this thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607845) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 12:45 PM Author: pink hissy fit pit That's not to say that the hearings Specter plans to hold won't be interesting, especially if other action comes to light as a result of their investigation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4607889) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2005 1:20 PM Author: marvelous sienna legend Do we really want Bush impeached? Did you guys notice who's next in line? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#4608178) |
|
₿ Bitcoin bc1q7ys2atxkdhjq087v5pf4d4q5skhsskmu7dx7m6 Ξ Ethereum 0x38ba18Ba2470B59B58095C64aF121651492C73f7 Solana
Z68dLByGQmEEr8DwpEgrxrdLdBpeBsk5SjER34q2Sd5 Date: November 3rd, 2026 4:30 PM Author: MASE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=323249&forum_id=2#50226967) |