1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by El_Conquistador, Feb 6, 2006.

Tags:
Page 3 of 13
  1. SWTsig

    SWTsig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,054
    Likes Received:
    3,749
    you're not really this stupid, are you?

    serious question.
     
    #41 SWTsig, Feb 7, 2006
  2. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    That's because it's laughable and has nothing to do with Bush circumventing a law in place for the very puropse of what he wants to do. And please show us anywhere in the AUMF where it says that congress gave the president the inherent right to break the law where he saw fit.

    In fact the administration actually wanted the wiretapping statute included into the AUMF and congress refused. Even Republicans are shooting down that little piece of a strawman.
     
    #42 mc mark, Feb 7, 2006
  3. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    I think you just blew through your "most moronic post" standard, and for you, that is quite an accomplishment.

    Congratulations, Parrot.

    [​IMG]
     
    #43 RocketMan Tex, Feb 7, 2006
  4. SWTsig

    SWTsig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,054
    Likes Received:
    3,749
    what in the world are you talking about??? is it really that hard for you to grasp some of the objections many peolpe have concerning these wiretaps???
     
    #44 SWTsig, Feb 7, 2006
  5. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    You continue to ignore the question...

    Why is it too much to ask for the president to obey the law by getting a secret warrant up to three days after the fact?
     
    #45 GladiatoRowdy, Feb 7, 2006
  6. Master Baiter

    Master Baiter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    9,608
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Because he has no answer.
     
    #46 Master Baiter, Feb 7, 2006
  7. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    I know. I just enjoy pointing out the futility of his "argument."
     
    #47 GladiatoRowdy, Feb 7, 2006
  8. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    No! It's because TJ doesn't think we should serve terrorists with warrants. Then they'd know we were after them.
     
    #48 mc mark, Feb 7, 2006
  9. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,532
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    You are clueless. For what has to be the 10th time:

    1) He is obeying the law. He is operating well within the Constitution as well as existing laws.
    2) Expediency - You can't wait to process paperwork when threats present themselves real-time.
    3) The entire FISA warrant process is a joke. Something like 3 have been turned down out of thousands. Because it is such a rubber-stamp process, it proves that this is nothing more than the liberals attempting to manufacture a scandal out of nothing. Why are they so up in arms about a process that is a mere formality? Answer: Partisan rage is exposed.

    Now can any liberal address AUMF? If not, then that's pretty telling. If the liberals genuinely wanted to focus on the law, seems to me that they'd attempt to answer that one... Telling...
     
    #49 El_Conquistador, Feb 7, 2006
  10. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Proof positive that Jorge cannot read.


    BLIND
     
    #50 mc mark, Feb 7, 2006
  11. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,793
    Likes Received:
    20,454
    It already has. I believe it was mc marc that posted that the AUMF doesn't authorise wiretapping without warrants as part of its use of force. It was something great to point out, and neither you nor Gonzales can point out where in the legislation it authorizes that.

    In fact one of the very Senators that voted on it, said as much during the hearings.

    As far as the FISA court, if it is so easy to get a warrant, then there shouldn't be any objections by the whitehouse.
     
    #51 FranchiseBlade, Feb 7, 2006
  12. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,532
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    mcmark, you calling AUMF 'laughable' really doesn't constitute a response, and you know that. Please, that's pathetic even by your standards.

    Serious answers only, please. Why can no liberal address the issues posed by Gonzales?

    Telling...
     
    #52 El_Conquistador, Feb 7, 2006
  13. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,532
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    Liberals, it seems as though you are having trouble grasping Gonzales' argument -- or perhaps you are willfully ignoring it. It totally dismisses FranchiseBlade and mcmark's sad attempts at saying that AUMF does not authorize the President to monitor terrorists.

    Liberals, please re-read this section of Gonzales' speech and try to come up with a better response. Your last few attempts at responses have been dead wrong.
     
    #53 El_Conquistador, Feb 7, 2006
  14. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,793
    Likes Received:
    20,454
    Everyone wants to wiretap terrorists, EVeryone. Most of us just want the FISA procedures to be followed as well.

    As we said nothing in the AUMF authorizes WARRANTLESS wiretaps of American citizens.
     
    #54 FranchiseBlade, Feb 7, 2006
  15. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,532
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    One MORE time for the benefit of Franchiseblade:

    The AUMF is broad in scope, and understandably so; Congress could not have catalogued every possible aspect of military force it was endorsing. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the detention of enemy combatants -- a fundamental incident of war -- was lawful, even though detention is not mentioned in the AUMF. The same argument holds true for the terrorist surveillance program. Nor was the president's authorization of the terrorist surveillance program in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA bars persons from intentionally "engag[ing] … in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The AUMF provides this statutory authorization for the terrorist surveillance program as an exception to FISA.

    and the liberals are stumped...
     
    #55 El_Conquistador, Feb 7, 2006
  16. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75

    lol, no one pays attention to you so you have to quote yourself. :D
     
    #56 underoverup, Feb 7, 2006
  17. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Then Jorge can you explain to us lowly liberals why the republicans in congress refused to grant Bush the specific ability to circumvent wiretapping laws in the AUMF?
     
    #57 mc mark, Feb 7, 2006
  18. Mulder

    Mulder Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    81
    It is a constitutional test. Congress already passed provisions that oversee the scope of the wiretaps. AUMF cannot override an issue that the Congress has specifically given a stance on, specifically wiretaps under FISA unless the Supreme Court ruled FISA as an encroachment on presidential powers and they won't.

    BTW here's another question you will be unlikely to answer:

    Do you even know what Youngstown Sheet is?
     
    #58 Mulder, Feb 7, 2006
  19. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    For the umpteenth time, stop accepting those collect calls from Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran.

    C'mon folks let's perfect this Democratic Bureaucracy!

    A couple of questions:

    1. How do we know that they are not getting the paperwork done-- even after the fact? Has the Administration admitted as much?

    2. Is the Administration in accord since all the publicity arose about this?
     
    #59 giddyup, Feb 7, 2006
  20. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Very good questions. Too bad Mr Gonzales wasn't under oath and refused to answer any questions like that yesterday.
     
    #60 mc mark, Feb 7, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 13

Share This Page