I would agree that, at least to the best of my knowledge, the Clinton/Gore Admin didn't go behind Congress or the Judiciary's back, they were investigated so much it would've been very hard for them to, but they did press for expanded executive power. So yes Gore didn't go as far but he did advocate a more robust executive.
reading it, it almost feels like Al hired John Kay to be his speech writer... -- The police force is watching the people And the people just can't understand We don't know how to mind our own business 'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us Now we are fighting a war over there No matter who's the winner We can't pay the cost 'Cause there's a monster on the loose It's got our heads into a noose And it just sits there watching
This is worth repeating, again: "One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America." Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women." The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously? It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same. We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That pretty much sums things up, doesn't it? Many of us have family members and friends who fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. Bush would have you believe that his "War on Terror" somehow gives him the right to ignore the Constitution of the United States... that document all those millions of Americans fought for, and served to protect. His platform in 2000 was based on being "a uniter, not a divider," and being "a compassionate conservative." He lied. His is the most partisan administration in my memory. He has no compassion... he has soundbites. He lied in 2000, and his campaign in 2004 was based on fear and more lies. His policies are bankrupt, and bankrupting our country. The man has no moral compass. So many of his supporters do so for one issue. MasterBaiter, because he believes abortion is wrong. A friend of mine, because he believes Bush is going to help him keep his gun collection. Others, because they are so afraid of terrorist attacks that they don't care what happens to our Constitution, or are unaware of the danger their own rights as Americans are in. They have bought into Bush's main platform... fear. Gore has it right. So did FDR, when he said that, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Bush is fear. Keep D&D Civil.
so deckard, if the survelliance helps to uncover a plot against the US, you would argue it's just too high a price to pay? after all, it's just terror, why should we be afraid? it's not like anyone's trying to kill us...oh, wait...
direct from cheney's playbook a lot of ifs.. lets eavesdrop on MLK and other activists and dissenters if that helps to uncover a plot against the US, thats not too high a price to pay right Basso? Cheney Cites Justifications For Domestic Eavesdropping
one of the more egregious of gore's comparisons. MLK was not communicating w/ known members of al queda.
Again, there's not a soul arguing that surveillance shouldn't happen. What's at issue is the administration doing it without the consent of Congress or the OK of the judiciary. In fact, they have expressly ignored both Congress and the courts. But you already knew that didn't you?
was the FISA written to stop domestic wiretapping OR to require a court order for domestic wirteapping? how are you so sure thats the case? have you seen the details of the actual wire taps? or we will just have to trust Bush and Cheney because after all, they were absolutely correct about WMDs in Iraq.. so why not get a warrant first or even after the fact?
O dear lord, why is the Anti-CHRIST rearing his frothy, spitting forked tongue yet again? The devil incarnarte has trounced this as broken the law when his opinion is meritless and about as fact based as no one in particular, he has blatantly stepped on the judicial throat, and has twisted the knife slowly on the truth... The truth is it is controversial, but I take great umbrage that this neo-demo has spouted this off as clear cut. Where are the democratic leaders with a smudge of decisiveness and backbone without sensationilizing to the fringe and befuddling the moderates who lean left? The last President on the wrong side who I admired was what Truman?, then downhill from there...
I argue, if any delay or lack of expertise causes terrorists to get off the hook and glee when they blow your innocent relatives to thousands of smallish, smatten pieces...This is a serious reservation.
Again, I know you're smart enough to know that the comparison revolves around secret use of surveillance tools without any kind of oversight.
As has been stated many times, FISA allows for a 72 hour retroactive filing with court. The canard about there not being enough time to act has been proven false. There's no legitimate reason not to go to the courts. If there is, there's no legitimate reason not to go to Congress and ask that the law be changed. That this administration did neither yet undertook surveillance anyway is the issue. Rule of law.
an i know you understand this, but if you don't know exactly what you're looking for, the FISA courts are inadequate. they were conceived at a time when the internet, email, IM, text messaging, all the acoutrements of modern communications, didn't exist. "The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
rimrocker, that isn't what Bush's most ardent supporters want to hear. It's a fact, but they don't want to hear it. It's true, but it means their "beloved President," has lied, and has broken the law, for no more reason than his own hubris. They just don't give a damn. Keep D&D Civil.
And yet the government attempted to link King to Communists (who were the terrorist equivalent of that era) during the civil rights movement. Its easy to make accusations against anyone. J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI mastered the art when they started the COINTELPRO program to stamp out domestic "subversives." While it was originally intended to stamp out the KKK and other groups that engaged in violent attacks on Americans (as does Al Qaeda), it quickly expanded into a program that eventually targeted minorities and unrelated organizations. Please try defending that PETA and greenpeace have links to Al Qaeda because they've been eavesdropped repeatedly under Bush's surveillance program. You probably wont because the truth of the matter is that they're as close to Al Qaeda as Martin Luther King was to communists. There is no connection and the NSA hasn't done squat to prove that there was any connection of environmental organizations to terrorists. We have the FISA court for one reason and that is to stop questionable wiretaps like those on unrelated NGOs.
Good. Well enough. However I still feel even a retroactive filing, would be an "issue" regardless of any circumstance, by the neo-demos...Legitimate is subjective, and with several, if not many intangibles. The Executive branch is best abled in "expertise" (due to dept. of Justice, Immigration, NSA, etc.) to analyze and it has been persuaded in report form from the Justice department that the actions by the President is in precedent with documented case summation and Constitutional inference to be wholly lawful... This is a contentious issue, but not as clear cut as a fringe idiot liberal would believe...
so what if the there are modern forms of communication? can you specify how are the FISA courts inadequate in terms of those? so why not work with a republican congress and change the law? why break the law?
I hear quite well Deckard, despite multiple trips to the gun range mind you...as stated in the previous reply I have stated why he has NOT lied, NOR....broken the law. I personally GIVE A DAMN,...and the spout of unreasoned rhetoric convinces me moreso than ever that your side is only shooting itself in the foot, and can only fail with these tactics...
