Just reading how Sen. Clinton acknowledges her voteto fight the terrorists BUT says- as far as the wire taps- she would do it in a lawful way!

How idiotic along with remarks of OTHER so called lawyers who came out to say Mr. Bush was OBVIOUSLY doing something illegal ...When investigated for  these OBVIOUS violations,....it was deemed they would have to be LOOKED into ....So OBVIOUSLY, they AREN'T OBVIOUS!!!!

And let's see a lawyer with brains challenge it..guess they all missed that day in class when that subject came up....
I Don't See Hillary Presidential Material..it'll be a waste for the Dems if she runs with those kind of off the cuff remarks! 
 

I don't see how this remark is showing her ignorance (maybe if you provide a link...)  She is absolutely correct that there is a LEGAL way to do it-that is to get a warrent from the FISA, which Bush did not do. The thing is, this is an OBVIOUS violation of the law but unfortunately, it is not being looked into because the Republicans own the House and the Senate as well as the White House. Which leads to the big picture here-there is no checks and balances which is what the Constution is based on. FISA was created just for those checks and balances because Richard Nixon was spying on who he deemed as "his enemies" without those checks and balances. Nobody is questioning about "spying" on suspected terrorists as long as it is done within the law-that is getting a warrent. But that was not done. What would happen if the police came to your house to search-the first thing you ask them, "Do you have a warrent?" They CAN'T do a search without going to a judge and having to present probable cause. However, the president has a bit of leeway-he can order survelance and THEN get the warrent-but the warrent has to be obtained within 72 hours of when it was first done. But he did not that do that-which is illegal! Just because we are at war, does not give the president the right to violate the law. In an ideal world nobody is above the law but Dubya seems to be which is a major stain on this country and on our Democracy.



Cat

I just hope they don't nominate her. I support Mark Warner for the nomination.

Just reading how Sen. Clinton acknowledges her voteto fight the terrorists BUT says- as far as the wire taps- she would do it in a lawful way!

How idiotic along with remarks of OTHER so called lawyers who came out to say Mr. Bush was OBVIOUSLY doing something illegal ...When investigated for  these OBVIOUS violations,....it was deemed they would have to be LOOKED into ....So OBVIOUSLY, they AREN'T OBVIOUS!!!!

And let's see a lawyer with brains challenge it..guess they all missed that day in class when that subject came up....
I Don't See Hillary Presidential Material..it'll be a waste for the Dems if she runs with those kind of off the cuff remarks! 
 


Simple.  There's a legal way to wiretap, and an illegal way to wire tap.  Bush choses to use the illegal way.

It's not even like a proper wiretap order is ever denied by the court set up to hear them, and there isn't even a "24" Jack Bauer need to avoid getting them, since you can apply for them up to three days after you've done the emergency wiretap.

I'm not a fan of Hillary's, but she's not wrong here.  Sorry.  Incidenctly, Hillary was in the top tier of her class at law school.  Bush isn't a lawyer (as he's fond of saying) so if it came down to a materr of understanding the law, I'll take the word of a lawyer over that of someone who wasn't sober until ten years after finishing his business degree.

I support Mark Warner for the nomination.


I really like Mark Warner.  I could easily see myself voting for him for president.

It's too bad Virginia only allows one term for governors, now they got that a** Tim Kaine.

This was part of the story run on Yahoo news:

Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists. I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way," the New York Democrat said.

Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, told reporters she did not yet know whether the administration's warrantless eavesdropping broke any laws. But the senator said she did not buy the White House's main justifications for the tactic.

"Their argument that it's rooted in the authority to go after Al Qaeda is far-fetched," she said in an apparent reference to a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack. The Bush administration has argued that resolution gave the president authority to order such electronic surveillance as part of efforts to protect the nation from terrorists.

"Their argument that it's rooted in the Constitution inherently is kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn't that hard to get their permission," she said. The super-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established by Congress to approve eavesdropping warrants, even retroactively, but Bush has argued that the process often takes too long.

In Bushs' speech recently, he stated how a LOT of people were calling what he did illegal but it WAS NOT....whatever his proof/arguement was..I believe it had to do with being able to make the executive decision to do this...waiting for 'however long' is (to me at least)... waiting for the terroists to hit first THEN deciding to act..not in THIS fight..I say SCREW the people who are against the profiling and 'rules' that are used in civil crimes i.e. must having a warrant..that's agreed but federal terrorism fighting should have anything they want whenever they want...

Simple.  There's a legal way to wiretap, and an illegal way to wire tap.  Bush choses to use the illegal way.

It's not even like a proper wiretap order is ever denied by the court set up to hear them, and there isn't even a "24" Jack Bauer need to avoid getting them, since you can apply for them up to three days after you've done the emergency wiretap.

I'm not a fan of Hillary's, but she's not wrong here.  Sorry.  Incidenctly, Hillary was in the top tier of her class at law school.  Bush isn't a lawyer (as he's fond of saying) so if it came down to a materr of understanding the law, I'll take the word of a lawyer over that of someone who wasn't sober until ten years after finishing his business degree.

Ditto.  Sen. Clinton is one of the finest lawyers in the country.  It perplexes me that she's going for a political strategy (so-called "triangulation," so-called "moderation") that's a proven loser.  If the Dems nominate Hillary I'm gonna sit on the curb and cry.  Then I'll go vote for the Greens, or the Reds, or Homer Simpson...but not Hillary!

Just imagine if it had been Clinton doing illegal wire taps...and declaring he was above the law!
::)

This was part of the story run on Yahoo news:

Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists. I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way," the New York Democrat said.

Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, told reporters she did not yet know whether the administration's warrantless eavesdropping broke any laws. But the senator said she did not buy the White House's main justifications for the tactic.

"Their argument that it's rooted in the authority to go after Al Qaeda is far-fetched," she said in an apparent reference to a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack. The Bush administration has argued that resolution gave the president authority to order such electronic surveillance as part of efforts to protect the nation from terrorists.

"Their argument that it's rooted in the Constitution inherently is kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn't that hard to get their permission," she said. The super-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established by Congress to approve eavesdropping warrants, even retroactively, but Bush has argued that the process often takes too long.

In Bushs' speech recently, he stated how a LOT of people were calling what he did illegal but it WAS NOT....whatever his proof/arguement was..I believe it had to do with being able to make the executive decision to do this...waiting for 'however long' is (to me at least)... waiting for the terroists to hit first THEN deciding to act..not in THIS fight..I say SCREW the people who are against the profiling and 'rules' that are used in civil crimes i.e. must having a warrant..that's agreed but federal terrorism fighting should have anything they want whenever they want...


There is absolutely NO evidence, none, that supports the need for breaking the laws of the constitution.  The problem isn't that more random intelligence is needed, it's that more people need to be able to interpret the results.  All the pieces were in the hands of the intelligence organizations in the 9/11 attack, they just couldn't interact with one another. That's what the Dept. of Homeland Security is supposed to solve.  Instead they're putting liberals on the "Do Not Fly" list and video taping left-wing protests.  Yeah, I really feel threatened by vegans.  This wiretap nonsense is just one more step in that direction.

Instead we have a huge increase of surveliance, none of which is going to produce any more evidence of terrorism than is already in place.

Clinton is right in not saying "he's guilty".  Ever notice how newspapers say "accused of a crime"?  If she said he was guilty of commiting a crime, it would be slander. 

Let them have anything they want?  Please.  There's dozens of countries around the globe that have those kinds of polce forces already.  We invaded one a couple years ago, perhaps you heard or it? Iraq. 

Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And, if someone decides YOU'RE a "terrorist"?  Are you willing to let them do anything they want whenever they want to YOU?


Of course..I've nothing to hide or worry about BECAUSE I HAVEN'T KILLED ANYONE OR AM SUSPICIOUS ...I let them make me take off my shoes at the airport..'go ahead searchme" But watch the terrorists run...and try to get off the hook with a technicality by ACLU...

Bush apparently was ACTING by way of the resolution to let him wiretap...The debate will go on whether he can do that but it was not OBVIOUS or he should be committed if he just makes up excuses why he can override anyone.

i'm having a heluva time even sorting out what the right-wingers are even saying on this. it seems to boil down to, what bush is doing is legal, and FISA is illegal. i've decided i'm just going to stop obeying all the laws that i think are stupid. whaddaya mean i can't turn left on red? that impedes my prerogatives as a motorist!

question for rightists -- should there be ANY constraints on executive power? if so, what should they be? remember, all these dictatorial powers you guys are conferring on herr bush will also apply to any forthcoming democratic president who finds his or her way into office. y'all really want hillary sniffing through your boxers without a warrant?

as a side note, i listened to a lot of bush's press conference and there's something about his whole slurry speech and wormy laugh that really creeps me out. it's like he has brain damage or something. seriously, that dude is sad.

Of course..I've nothing to hide or worry about BECAUSE I HAVEN'T KILLED ANYONE OR AM SUSPICIOUS ...I let them make me take off my shoes at the airport..'go ahead searchme" But watch the terrorists run...and try to get off the hook with a technicality by ACLU...


really? the 9-11 terrorists had no file on record that flagged them as terrorists.  So I guess we just treat everyone like a terrorist.  Land of the free indeed.

oh, cool, you mentioned the ACLU, the boogy-man of the right-wing.  The first place Rush ran to hide when his doctor shopping was uncovered. 

This just totally boggles my mind. I see history repeating itself. There is a question that many people have asked, "How could the Germans allow Hitler to rise to power?". Easy, I see it happening again in this country. I know there are going to be several people who jump all over me because I am comparing Bush to Hitler but Bush is doing some of the same things that Hitler did. One of them is squelching Rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution. Those Rights include unlawful search and seizure (Amendment IV) and if we dare say anything about it, then we are called "unpatriotic".

Don't people see it? The fabric that holds this country together-the Constitution, is under attack. And that is not by any terrorist overseas-that is by the terrorists in Washington. Without the checks and balances of the Constitution, this place is no longer a nation-it is a dictatorship. Is that what people really want? And this is not a partisanship analysis. If the president was a Dem and was doing the exact same thing, I would still be crying holy hell. I think people really need to wake up before they find themselves sitting in a constintration camp for what they believe. If you think that I am exagerating, you are dead wrong. Does the name Guantomino Bay ring a bell? There have been many American citizens who have been detained without due process and without being charged for anything-which is totally against the Constitution. Yes, this country is at war-and it is not in Iraq or in Afganistan. We need to do something about it NOW before it is too late.

I am not going to quote Ben Franklin again-even though that quote does apply but I will quote Martin Niemoller.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.


So think about his words the next time you say, "Let them search me. I have nothing to hide."



Cat

And, if they decide to come search your house, you'll just open the door and let them?  How about a full body cavity search?  Taking off your shoes at the airport is something EVERYONE has to do....wiretapping a phone is not.



The wire tapping incident had NOTHING to do with SUSPECTED INNOCENT people..why would ANYONE complain about  the President wiretapping conversations of those who may have something to do with SWORN ENEMY TERRORISTS against our country?

Doesn't Mr. Bush also have the right to throw away the Geneva Convention terms when it comes to terrorism? :-\\ 

The wire tapping incident had NOTHING to do with SUSPECTED INNOCENT people..why would ANYONE complain about  the President wiretapping conversations of those who may have something to do with SWORN ENEMY TERRORISTS against our country?

Doesn't Mr. Bush also have the right to throw away the Geneva Convention terms when it comes to terrorism? :-\\ 



You are wrong there.  Check this out. And this is from the Libertarian Party which is very far to the right.


http://www.lp.org/article_276.shtml


Cat

Maybe the leads didn't all pan out but it was a necessary need after what occured..some said how Bush would have had time to get a warrant of sorts easily...whatever happens now is up to the courts to decide if he was in the right...


This is Bushs recent take on it when asked:
(source YAHOO News 1/27/06)

Bush defended his order permitting the National Security Agency to listen in on phone calls and read e-mails of Americans suspected of communicating with terrorists. Critics claim the program violates civil liberties and say the government is circumventing the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I have looked at this program from all angles, and my dilemma and my problem is I can't explain to you how it works in order to justify your question without telling the enemy what we are doing," he said.

Asked if he thinks there is anything a president cannot do if he considers it necessary in an emergency, Bush said he thought there were "clear red lines" a president cannot cross.

"I don't think a president can ... order torture, for example," Bush said about his presidential powers under the Constitution. "I don't think a president can order the assassination of a leader of another country with which we're not at war."

exactly the problem with wiretapping people without due process. unless someone other than the executive branch evaluates the case against the suspect, you have no grounds to presume he or she is a "terrorist." we could just take the president's word for it, but that's what dictators ask for too.

you guys have a real nonstarter this time. this argument is so prespammersite. "the president should be allowed to spy on anyone he wants, because he said it's okay." i mean really, don't you feel a LITTLE silly saying this? ???

exactly the problem with wiretapping people without due process. unless someone other than the executive branch evaluates the case against the suspect, you have no grounds to presume he or she is a "terrorist." we could just take the president's word for it, but that's what dictators ask for too.

you guys have a real nonstarter this time. this argument is so prespammersite. "the president should be allowed to spy on anyone he wants, because he said it's okay." i mean really, don't you feel a LITTLE silly saying this? ???


Again...the US has SWORN ENEMIES OF THE COUNTRY...whatever determination was used to target who he targeted must have had intelligence behind it(if it turned out EVERYONE he bugged wasn't involved-his intelligent source is the problem and shows it to be faulty).....but of course it is absurd to bug " ANYONE HE CHOOSES" and there should be a big outcry....., THAT is the problem...whatever put the bug in his ear as to who he can listen in to should be addressed unless it will jeopardize secret security he is using.

so let's ask why it was okay to tap ...if he got away with it and Hillary knows something different about the law then the President and his trou[...let HER state the 'illegal' violation that he seems to feel was justified...too many people like to say something then not provide the arguement for their stand and so we get President BASHING instead of guiding and contributing to a worthy resolution.

Again...the US has SWORN ENEMIES OF THE COUNTRY...whatever determination was used to target who he targeted must have had intelligence behind it(if it turned out EVERYONE he bugged wasn't involved-his intelligent source is the problem and shows it to be faulty).....but of course it is absurd to bug " ANYONE HE CHOOSES" and there should be a big outcry....., THAT is the problem...whatever put the bug in his ear as to who he can listen in to should be addressed unless it will jeopardize secret security he is using.

so let's ask why it was okay to tap ...if he got away with it and Hillary knows something different about the law then the President and his trou[...let HER state the 'illegal' violation that he seems to feel was justified...too many people like to say something then not provide the arguement for their stand and so we get President BASHING instead of guiding and contributing to a worthy resolution.



The thing is we don't know WHO he is bugging because there are no checks and balances! So yeah, he is bugging "anyone he chooses". With the checks and balances provided under the FISA, there is no question.



Cat

Why should I trust anything this Administration says?  Why should I believe them when they say they're only intercepting calls from Al Quiada?  It's absurd! 

Why should I believe them when they say they're only intercepting calls from Al Quiada?  It's absurd! 


Like they have all of their numbers on some high tech Caller-ID that flashes a red light and sets off a siren...

"We have one here, sir. I think it's coming from a terrorist cell in Iran. What should I do?" 
"Intercept it! We can't take any chances!"