+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 34

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Comments like the title of this thread are made on this forum by some on many occasions. I would be curious to see a list of actions that those of you who believe this type of comment think fall into that catagory.

    Can we have a discussion that does not include personal insults or attacks about the "radical and reckless" conduct of the President and his Administration?

    Claims I have heard:

    Lied about the reasons for war (no credible proof of this by way of investigations)
    Disregards the constitution (I am interested in what he has done to prove this)
    Disregards the Geneva Conventions (I am trying to have this discussion on another thread)
    Orders unlawful wiretapping (so far it appears that is infact a lawful order)

    These are just the first four claims that come to mind. I am really interested in looking at the claims and possibly seeing if we can prove or disprove the claims. Anyone up for the challange without calling each other names?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Comments like the title of this thread are made on this forum by some on many occasions. I would be curious to see a list of actions that those of you who believe this type of comment think fall into that catagory.

    Can we have a discussion that does not include personal insults or attacks about the "radical and reckless" conduct of the President and his Administration?

    Claims I have heard:

    Lied about the reasons for war (no credible proof of this by way of investigations)
    Disregards the constitution (I am interested in what he has done to prove this)
    Disregards the Geneva Conventions (I am trying to have this discussion on another thread)
    Orders unlawful wiretapping (so far it appears that is infact a lawful order)

    These are just the first four claims that come to mind. I am really interested in looking at the claims and possibly seeing if we can prove or disprove the claims. Anyone up for the challange without calling each other names?
    The fact that anybody could actually pose questions like that is really astounding. However, when it comes to the fanatical right, not surprising.

    This is like dealing with people who believe in UFOs. or crop circles. No matter how thoroughly and decisively their fantasies are scientifically debunked, it just makes them cling to their bizarre convictions ever more desperately, zealously and truculently.

    I have been listening to Constitutional Law scholars all day. Not one of them thinks that The Bush Regime is on legitimate legal ground when it comes to their surreptitious spying on American citizens. Not one.

    In fact, a federal judge on the FISA court even resigned today in protest.

    The other stuff doesn't even merit debate anymore and the fact somebody could still pose these issues seriously, indicates to me that they need some serious help.
    Last edited by dante; 12-22-2005 at 12:05 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    HI RegulationE,

    Well, the fact that a FISA Judge resigns in protest of the recent situation, must give you pause. Judge Robertson knows what is legal or illegal pertaining to domestic wiretapping, would you agree with that?

    I ask you, what do you think about the new development?

    Judge Resigns in Protest of Wiretappimg Scandal

    DeeDee1965

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    26

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    I didn't realize there was a constitutional law scholar channel on cable. Who, exactly, did you hear discuss this?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    26

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Even though he's not a constitional law scholar, he was good enough for Bill Clinton, and here's what he has to say in today's Chicago Tribune:

    President had legal authority to OK taps

    By John Schmidt
    Published December 21, 2005


    President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

    The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

    In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

    Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

    In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

    The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

    But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

    Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

    FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

    The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

    But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

    FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

    Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

    But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

    ----------

    John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.







    Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    DeeDee, I'm not sure you can give the judge resigning much merit, because he was appointed by Bill Clinton, so it could be a political move. I'm not saying it was, just that the possibility does exist here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinInTn
    I didn't realize there was a constitutional law scholar channel on cable. Who, exactly, did you hear discuss this?

    So much for protecting Constitution

    By Geoffrey R. Stone, law professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime"
    Published December 21, 2005

    The facts of this case: In early 2002, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to monitor international telephone calls and international e-mail messages without any showing of probable cause to believe that a participant in the communication was involved in unlawful or terrorist activity, and without obtaining a search warrant from a court of law. This action was a direct violation of federal law and the United States Constitution.

    The 4th Amendment ordinarily prohibits any search, which includes interception of telephone and e-mail messages, without probable cause and a judicial warrant.

    Each of these requirements--probable cause and a judicial warrant--plays a critical role in our constitutional scheme. Expansive government surveillance of its citizens (think of Orwell's "1984" or the Soviet Union) can undermine privacy, autonomy, independence, spontaneity, openness, dissent and the general sense of freedom that is essential to a self-governing society.

    Moreover, even with a probable-cause requirement, there is the question of who decides whether there is probable cause in any given situation. Because executive branch officials are focused on zealous law enforcement, they will inevitably construe "probable cause" too generously. Thus, a court order is necessary, to enable an independent branch of government--the judiciary--to determine whether probable cause exists in each instance.

    President Bush is not the first president to engage in unlawful and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson secretly authorized J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau of Investigation to run hog-wild, creating files on thousands of law-abiding American citizens. When all this came to light, Atty. Gen. Harlan Fiske Stone ordered an end to such practices: "A secret police may become a menace to free government and free institutions because it carries with it the possibility of abuses of power which are not always quickly understood."

    Half a century later, Lyndon Johnson authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the telephone communications of leaders of the anti-war movement to determine if they were aiding communists overseas. Because this program was clearly illegal, NSA devised separate filing systems for these intercepts and fraudulently classified the records "Top Secret." NSA formalized this program under the code name MINARET and directed MINARET "to restrict the knowledge that such information is being collected."

    President Richard Nixon expanded these programs dramatically, drawing in a host of government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, Army Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency. The Nixon administration ordered the CIA, for example, to intensify its domestic surveillance activities. Eventually, 300,000 names were indexed in the CIA's computers. The agency was fully aware of the illegality of these activities.

    Ultimately, Congress, the courts and the electorate brought about a public reckoning, culminating in Watergate and the enactment of even more emphatic safeguards against unconstitutional surveillance.

    Nonetheless, Bush has the audacity to assert that his authorization of NSA surveillance of American citizens on American soil was "lawful." It was not. It was a blatant and arrogant violation of American law. If Bush wanted the authority to undertake such surveillance, he should have gone directly to Congress and sought such authorization, publicly. He did not do this, because it would not have been granted. So, instead of acting in accord with his pledge to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," he acted surreptitiously and unconstitutionally. What is revealing about Bush's view of the terrorists is that he apparently believes they assume we act within the bounds of our own Constitution. So, he decided, we'll trick them. We won't.

    President Bush believes that whatever he thinks is necessary must be lawful, whether it be domestic surveillance by NSA, or torture, or denying the Guantanamo Bay detainees the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Bush is a man of faith, not a man of law. That is a problem.
    Last edited by dante; 12-22-2005 at 05:18 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Just got back from a NBA game.....I find it interesting the only item listed so far is the most recent Wiretapping talking point.

    So far we have the current Attorney General and an Associate Attorney General under Clinton, and deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick Under Bill Clinton believing the order was lawful. As well as Four federal courts of appeal.

    On the other side we have a Law Professor and author from the University of Chicago claiming it was not and basing the claim on the 4th amendment. However the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 is where the question of legality comes up, not the 4th amendment.

    Interesting, very interesting.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by dante
    The fact that anybody could actually pose questions like that is really astounding. However, when it comes to the fanatical right, not surprising.
    The fact the the fanatical left doesn't want to have conversations like this is really amazing. What are you afraid will happen, maybe that your beliefs will not hold up?

    Quote Originally Posted by dante
    The other stuff doesn't even merit debate anymore and the fact somebody could still pose these issues seriously, indicates to me that they need some serious help.
    What other stuff would that be? I have asked for those who believe the President is in violation of anything to please post it so it can be discussed. Only when you understand what the two sides of a debate are talking about can you learn anything from it.

    Our media is not doing a good job of exploring anything these days. It even appears they are doing a terrible job fact checking. I am simply interested in attempting to fact check side by side with people from both points of view.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    .................................................. .................................................. .
    Last edited by dante; 12-22-2005 at 06:11 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Obviously Dante is not able to carry on a discussion, anyone out there from the left or right want to attempt to do so?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    26

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    There is no discussion with the left, Reg E. When they have no argument to make, they attack, name-call, or in Dante's case, post crude drawings.

    Will have to look into the one person he listened to, the law professor, to see about his credentials. Still waiting for the names of the others he heard.......

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    DeeDee, I'm not sure you can give the judge resigning much merit, because he was appointed by Bill Clinton, so it could be a political move. I'm not saying it was, just that the possibility does exist here.
    Grim,

    Do you think that a judge appointed by a Democrat, does not do their job properly?

    Grim:
    If you got a promotion from a boss you did not agree with, would you do your job inefficiently?
    Or:
    If you got a promotion from a boss you did agree with, would you do your job with more efficiently?

    Judges who are appointed for the most part, perform their jobs with efficiency and integrity. To imply anything else is not an argument. And I am sorry to say, says more about your sense of integrity and honesty.

    Judge Robertson, worked on the FISA court. He knew what was legal and what was not legal. Of course judges interpret the laws differently, hence appellate, state, and federal supreme courts. If he resigned in protest, that does say something about what is going on. Judge Robertson sees the nuts and bolts of the FISA laws, in a way that we on this board do not. If you cannot see that, then what is the point in having any kind of discussion with you?
    It would imply you are :eek: biased!! ;)

    DeeDee1965

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Judges who are appointed for the most part, perform their jobs with efficiency and integrity.

    Judge Robertson, worked on the FISA court. He knew what was legal and what was not legal.

    Judge Robertson sees the nuts and bolts of the FISA laws, in a way that we on this board do not.
    I took out the points you made concerning the judge and removed the comments to Grim in the above Quote. THIS IS NOT DeeDee's COMPLETE QUOTE scroll up if you want to read it completely.


    DeeDee,

    Your comments above do make a point. It doesn't matter who appointed a Judge; Clinton or Bush Jr or whoever, they are going to be people of high integrity and will know the law.

    Since we can agree on that, what do you make of this:

    FISA established a special court, composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered term.s and are from different circuits.

    The other six would also know the nuts and bolts of the FISA law and would also know what was legal and not legal. They have not resigned so does that make this all legal?

    So far this would indicate a 6-1 vote in favor of it being legal. Not attacking, actually asking for your opinion on why the other 6 did not resign.
    Last edited by RegulationE; 12-22-2005 at 06:47 PM. Reason: this board does not let the word te.rm appear without a period

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by RobinInTn
    I didn't realize there was a constitutional law scholar channel on cable. Who, exactly, did you hear discuss this?

    You won't find this stuff on The Cartoon Channel or Fox News (same thing). You need to expose yourself to a more diverse variety of sources for your news and information.

    Try this:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/19.html#a6391
    Last edited by dante; 12-22-2005 at 07:10 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    I took out the points you made concerning the judge and removed the comments to Grim in the above Quote. THIS IS NOT DeeDee's COMPLETE QUOTE scroll up if you want to read it completely.


    DeeDee,

    Your comments above do make a point. It doesn't matter who appointed a Judge; Clinton or Bush Jr or whoever, they are going to be people of high integrity and will know the law.

    Since we can agree on that, what do you make of this:

    FISA established a special court, composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered term.s and are from different circuits.

    The other six would also know the nuts and bolts of the FISA law and would also know what was legal and not legal. They have not resigned so does that make this all legal?

    So far this would indicate a 6-1 vote in favor of it being legal. Not attacking, actually asking for your opinion on why the other 6 did not resign.
    Hi Regulation,

    I have no idea why the other six judges did not resign. How would I know that??

    My reason for thinking the resignation of Judge Robertson from this court is significant, is simple.

    Judge Robertson worked on the court. He knew the laws pertaining to this particular court meant. He understood the implications of the laws, and the reasons for their existence. If this one judge, is moved to resign from the court he was appointed to serve on, he must have a reason.

    Judge Robertson, is not playing political games. He is not a politician. He is an authority on these laws, and his expert opinion is not to be taken lightly. Judge Robertson resigned in protest. To me this indicates, he wants other judges, legal scholars, politicians and the American people to stand up and take notice. To pay attention to what is going on, in the name of "National Security." To question what the President, his administration is doing.

    There is a serious problem, and Judge Robertson is pointing his finger at it, and saying, "Look. See. Hear. Question. Act."

    DeeDee1965

Similar Threads

  1. Remember How The Bush Regime Kept Us Safe? Sure
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-28-2009, 04:47 PM
  2. Drive out Bush regime conference
    By researchisthekey in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 01:11 AM
  3. Bush Regime: Beyond Amateurism & Incompetence
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-03-2006, 08:32 AM
  4. Just Say No To Bush Regime's Spending Largesse
    By dante in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-17-2006, 08:56 PM
  5. Bush Regime Hates Our Freedom
    By dante in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-02-2006, 03:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 1984, 2001, access, act, acted, action, actions, administration, age, agency, agreed, agreement, al qaeda, amazing, amen, amendment, america, american, another, anti, appeal, appears, army, art, article, associate, attacking, attacks, attention, attorney general, author, authority, authorization, authorized, auto, aware, based, bay, bet, better, blatant, book, books, bring, broke, brow, brown, bureau, bush, buy, cable, calling, calls, cannot, careful, carry, case, catch, central, cer, chan, channel, checking, chicago, chief, chris, christmas, church, circuits, citizens, claim, claiming, cli, clinto, close, code, collected, coming, comments, common, communication, community, complete, completely, compliance, con, concerned, concerns, congressional, cons, constitutional, continue, convictions, correct, country, court, court order, courts, crap, crazy, credentials, credibility, credible, critical, cure, current, dam, damn, dan, day, days, debate, debunked, december, decided, decision, deep, defend, democrat, department, development, didn, differently, difficult, direct, discuss, disease, district, doctors, doesn, don, dow, duc, early, eliminate, ended, enemy, entire, essential, eva, evidence, exists, experience, expert, explained, expose, extraordinary, faced, factor, faith, fall, favor, fear, federal, felt, files, finding, fisa, fly, foreign, fox, fully, future, games, general, giving, good, great, grim, ground, group, guy, guys, had, hands, happening, hard, hear, heard, held, hey, high, his, hog, holding, holidays, html, huge, huma, human, ice, identify, ill, imagine, ime, important, include, industry, info, insider, insults, int, intelligence, inter, interested, internal, investigations, involved, involves, ion, isn, issue, issues, item, john, johnson, judge, judiciary, kind, kinds, knew, law, leaders, leaving, legal, legitimate, letters, liberty, license, light, limited, line, lis, listed, logic, long, longer, losing, lot, mail, mails, making, marti, martin, matter, mayer, mea, meaning, medical, members, merry, messages, mind, more, move, movemen, movement, national, national security, need, needed, ner, nixon, north, nose, odd, odds, officials, only, open, opposite, order, ordered, part, partner, passage, pause, pays, people, permanent, person, personal, phone, physical, picked, planning, playing, ploy, point, politically, politician, pos, pose, position, post, posted, power, presiden, prevent, prior, privacy, private, pro, program, proof, protecting, protection, protest, prove, public, published, pure, question, questions, quickly, quit, quote, raise, rated, read, reason, reasons, received, red, regime, relief, removed, resign, resignation, resigned, resigns, respect, response, responsible, revealing, richard, rick, risk, role, rowe, run, sad, san, santa, satisfied, sca, scholars, scripts, search, secret police, secretly, security, seem, sen, sense, sept, serve, served, service, set, simple, simply, site, smoke, son, sorry, sources, special, speed, spying, star, start, state, stated, states, stay, sti, stone, stood, story, stuff, suits, sul, supported, supports, supreme, supreme court, surveillance, system, systems, taken, takes, talking, targeting, ted, telephone calls, terrible, terrorist, they, thinks, thought, thread, threats, time, times, title, today, told, tom, top, tor, transcripts, trick, ufos, unconstitutional, uni, union, united, united states, url, vic, view, viola, votes, waiting, wall, wanted, waste, ways, wilson, win, winning, wins, wire, won, worked, working, worth, wrong, years

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •