Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

[LFK]

This is a direct C&P from Bill Maher's blog. Love him of hate him, he asks a valid question.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Maher is the host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” which returns to the air 11PM Friday, August 25.

So a judge has ruled that not only is Bush's warrantless wiretapping program illegal, it's also unconstitutional. And not just unconstitutional, but doubly unconstitutional; it violates both the 1st and 4th amendments. We're talking a smackdown of Judge Judy-esque proportions.

Now, I'm not really pushing the impeachment of George Bush, unless it's about lying about that fish I talked about last season. Them I'm all for it.

But if this decision stands, and this program is unlawful and unconstitutional, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies while in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order. And that means Alberto Gonzalez could be tried, convicted, and deported.

So let's just say for the sake of argument that the Supreme Court upholds this decision and says Bush broke the law and violated the Constitution. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil case, a case that had no bearing on the public as a whole. This would - unquestionably - be a greater offense.

How would you square impeaching Clinton and not impeaching Bush? Or would Bush have to sleep with this judge in Detroit?

It's sort of like the 7 minutes question I always ask Republicans. Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle?

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

For the record I thought the impeachment of Clinton was an utter waste of time.

I find it ironic that we would readily accept wiretaps if a couple of appointed judges say its OK, but its a horrible invasion of privacy if the elected president and several memebers of congress say to do it.

Ken

 

[imported_John o]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

Turns out that the judge who made that ruling, in favor of the ACLU, is a huge financial supporter of the ACLU. Big Big Big conflict of interest here.

 

[Link]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

Bill Maher is an Idiot, but also a Demoncrate so I guess thats Par to Course.
Same for the Judge.
I Hate Bush, I Hate Bush, I Hate Bush!
zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[rottenray6402]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

Judges are people like anyone else. I used to have this idea that they were smarter than the aaverage bear but after my last divorce I found that instead of being smart most of them are on their own little power trips and feel they are invincible. I am not hanging my life or the lives of my family on what a liberal activist judge thinks.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

Why would anyone cut and paste that tripe much less find it insightful? The ACLU shopped this judge before bringing the case and it will most likely be overturned on appeal. More hate mongering.

Typical baiting of a non-existant situation. This is uniting the country how? This helps the war effort how? Provides domestic security how? This is worse than quoting a Michael Moore movie or the NY Times.

Want to impeach Bush, all you need to do is point out his willfull disregard for our boarders. But that would take political guts which the left has none of. See Joe Leiberman. A country without boarders is not a country.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

Want to impeach Bush, all you need to do is point out his willfull disregard for our boarders. But that would take political guts which the left has none of. See Joe Leiberman. A country without boarders is not a country.

This is something that certainly would have my vote. Bush really dropped the ball on the borders.

But your right, the democrats dont have the stones to stand up and do this.

ken

 

[alden135]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

I won't know what to think until Rush tells me.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

All I can say right now is....
For nearly four years members of Congress on a bipartisan basis felt that the program was necessary and administered within the boundaries of the law.

So yes, the appropriate sentence might be for BM to sleep with that judge. accdg to her pic on the www, it might give him a new perspective on things... lol

 

[eeboater]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

I won't know what to think until Rush tells me.

What did Rush tell you today, Alden?

 

[alden135]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

I won't know what to think until Rush tells me.

What did Rush tell you today, Alden?

Nothing. I don't listen when my customers are around.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

EBBTIDE,

They voted for it before they voted against it.:%:%

 

[funjumper]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

So the right wingers can't even answer a simple question. What a shock. Answer the question.

Instead of repeating what Faux news and the swiftboat scumbags say about the so called "liberal activist judge", try doing your own research. The judge isn't quite as liberal as you have been led to believe.

As far as slamming the ACLU, maybe you should actually look at what they do and how they do it, instead of parroting the party line about how EVIL the ACLU is.

Did you know that the ACLU went to bat for an obscure whacko christian sect that wanted to baptise people in a state park? The people who ran the park didn't want to allow it. With the ACLU's assistance, they won. The ACLU isn't what the righties make it out to be. Not even close. Go to their web site and read up on what they ACTUALLY are doing. Not just the crap the righties spew. I disagree with some of what they do. There has to be an organization like the ACLU to help define the lines between what can and can't be done by the government. Without it, the government would just roll over everyone.

Once you are armed with actual factual knowlege, you will have an informed opinion.

In the meantime, Faux news will keep you up to date on the critical issue of the nut job Karr and the Jon-Benet Ramsay case. Funny how that popped up at such a convenient time. The violation of the 1st and 4th amendments got bumped right out of the news

A federal judge who very indirectly supports the only organization that fights equally for everyone's rights. What an awful thing. NOT!!!!

You people don't get that that no one in either party wants the NSA programs stopped. They do need to be operated in accordance with the laws of our fine country. The FISA law is very clear that warrants must be obtained in a timely manner. By blowing off FISA, this administration can wiretap anyone, for any reason, and no paper trail will exist for future analysis. Why is that a good thing?
Why do you feel that Bush is above the law?
Why is it OK for this administration to pick and choose which laws to follow and ignore the rest?
Would you have the same support for Al Gore or John Kerry doing the exact same thing? I doubt it.

Get a grip. This isn't about wiretapping. The Bush adminstration is conducting a fundamental attack on the US Constitution that needs to be stopped ASAP. If it was a Democratic Administration performing these same actions, you all would be howling for their heads. Why do you have so little respect for the rule of law and the US Constitution? Bush even said "It's just a piece of paper". Doesn't that bother you?

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

sorry bud, we have plenty of info, just as much or more than you, i'm sure.

i'd just like to point out how you are claiming bush supporters & fox are changing the topic. personally i believe its what was stated - aclu shopped for their pet judge, got one, and it isn't over til the final judgements are made. if you want to fret over it, go for it. debate is fine. if it turns out to be the wrong thing, then there should be consequences.

i personally still don't think its wrong, and was authorized by congress. i can add more if you think it would even change your mind. but i seriously doubt it would, considering the left wing stmts you've made in the past.

 

[funjumper]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

sorry bud, we have plenty of info, just as much or more than you, i'm sure.

So what is your answer to the question?

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

my plain answer is i support making anyone, politician, prez, whoever - suffer the consequences if they make mistakes.

i just don't see it as something that will turn out the way this is being sensationalized.

BTW: i'd like to see the context of the GWB 'piece of paper' quote, but i guess you don't have it, just the nice little snippet.

here's one for you - the head of ACLU has also said that their main goal is to promote socialism... if that's not wiping their 'critical thinkers' on the constitution, i don't know what is

i'm sure they do make some good choices sometimes, as far as their agenda goes.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

let me give you something to read, considering this whole issue. it is from another site, but brings up good points.
----------quote--------------------------------------------------
If I am subject to a law-enforcement wiretap (I'm talking

garden-variety, pursuant to a warrant), and you call me or I call you,

your end of the conversation is going to be monitored. You, however,

are not the target of the monitoring, and it's unreasonable to suggest

you've been "spied" on. I'VE been spied on, but it's all legal. A

wiretap allows the monitoring agency to monitor all incoming and

outgoing communications to or from the target, regardless of who the

other party is.

To suggest that this works differently when the NSA wiretaps a

terrorist (let the term include "suspected terrorist" and "terrorist

associate") is to say that while the NSA can monitor all other

communications of that terrorist without a warrant, if a call goes out

to, or comes in from, the United States, the NSA either has to shut

down the wiretap for the duration of the call, or (if they can go back

in time) get a separate warrant covering each distinct U.S. person who

calls or is called by the actual target of the surveillance. In other

words, when monitoring an overseas terrorist who is not subject to

Constitutional protections, we would actually have to get MORE warrants

to cover all his communications than is required when monitoring a

garden-variety domestic criminal. (That ignores the fact that such

warrants would have to be gotten in real time, since you have no way of

knowing in advance who the target is going to call or be called by.

And, of course, that's impossible.) This strikes me as an absurd

result. In a court, if a law can be construed two ways, and one of

those ways would require an absurd result, the court will construe the

law the other way -- because the assumption is that the legislature

would not intend an absurd result.

I will grant that your side has slam-dunk, hands-down, no-question won

the argument when you can show that the NSA, after monitoring

communications to and from a targeted overseas terrorist, and having

intercepted a call to or from a person in the U.S., subsequently

targeted the U.S. person's OTHER communications (that is, made the U.S.

person a target of surveillance in his own right) without getting a

warrant. That hasn't even been alleged, let alone demonstrated.

I read an article this morning praising the high-mindedness of a FISA

judge who refused to grant the FBI a warrant to monitor exactly that

kind of U.S. person, because the probable cause for the warrant arose

through the NSA program -- that is, this U.S. person called or was

called by a targeted overseas terrorist, and the government determined

that the content of that call justified targeting the U.S. person

directly.

Rather than show the FISA judge's high-mindedness, it makes me

seriously doubt her judgment. But more to the point, it shows that even

in the context of fighting terrorism, when the government has wanted to

target a U.S. person for surveillance, they've gone to court and gotten

a warrant.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Bush would speak in

absolutes about court orders for wiretaps when a) the context was

domestic law enforcement and the PATRIOT Act, and b) the NSA program, a

national-security (as opposed to law enforcement) program was highly,

highly classified. In order for me to buy the "Bush lied" argument,

he'd have to have explicitly addressed military intelligence in those

statements, because I don't think a reasonable person would construe

them to include military operations.

So, "Nothing has changed" seems perfectly accurate to me: When a

warrant is required by law, the government requests one before

beginning a wiretap; when a warrant isn't required (such as for the NSA

to collect intelligence on overseas terrorists), they don't.

If anyone can point to unambiguous language addressing the situation

where a foreign target of an intelligence wiretap calls or is called by

a U.S. person, and can show where any law clearly requires a warrant

for each person who communicates with such a foreign target, I will

concede the argument. But there's a pretty high burden of proof on

anyone who's claiming that such a ridiculous result is mandated by law,

and nobody I know of has even remotely approached meeting it.
----------quote--------------------------------------------------

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

Bush 2004-2005: "[A] wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed."

(he distinctly is speaking of law enforcement)

------------quote----------------------------------------------
The NSA is not law enforcement. Read the NSA mission statement, strategic plan, and leadership structure, you will see the NSA is a military asset.
The Authorization to Use Military Force granted on Sept 14 2001 by congress granted the president “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided” the attacks of Sept. 11. This clearly grants him authority to use a military asset, such the NSA, to conduct wiretaps on suspected terrorists operating inside the US.
It is not a matter of semantics, only a matter of understanding the difference between military and law enforcement.
------------quote----------------------------------------------

 

[12Footer]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

People carried their hatered of Ronald Reagan to this level also. Sad, really.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Republicans: Are you loyal to the man, or to the principle? C&P

I won't know what to think until Rush tells me.

What did Rush tell you today, Alden?

I'll speak for Alden, EE. Seems he was outd'loop today. Rush's stand-in for today, the absolutely brilliant Walter E. Williams collaborated with another Williams (a one Juan Williams) to declare that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race *****s.

Seems that even the lefty Juan Williams has had 'Enough" and that is what he title his new book. It seems the much reviled Bill Cosby was right after all, regarding current civil rights and its 'black leaders' BS ruining the Black community.

At least, mind you, according to Juan Williams, head correspondant of NPR.