Dems Okay with Domestic Spying /will let Courts Settle FISA violations?

[radio4progressives]

Excuse Me? Who among us are OK with Domestic Spying?

Who among us are Ok with letting the Courts decide on FISA Violations, instead of insisting that the President CEASE AND DESIST NOW??

Who among us think that's the position the Democratic Leadership should be taking?

Who among us think Jane Harmann (among others) need a good political spanking, have their mouths duck taped, then sent home packing based THEIR OWN egregious Constitutional Violations (by supporting and keeping quiet about Domestic Spying) against the citizens of this country and her district?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174_pf.html

[endarkenment]

1. Not me.

This is bullshit. The executive broke the law and refuses to even discuss the details of that law breaking. The executive has asserted that it has the authority to ignore law and consitution - and our 'friends' in our party are agreeing with them.

[Mass]

2. So we should not spy on the terrorists? This is silly.

I have not heard Harman and I have not a lot of hope she expressed herself correctly, but the point Democrats have been making from the get-go is that they support spying on terrorists, but that this did not prevent Bush to do that within the limits of the law (meaning thru FISA or if FISA is not adequate, but going back to the Congress and change the law).

[Deep13]

4. This has nothing to do with spying on terrorists,...

...regardless of what the Washington propoganda machine is saying. This is about spying on Americans without a warrant and against legistaltive commands not to do so. Harman on MTP said she was all for it if it is legal as though that is somehow possible.

[Mass]

5. I am not saying it is about terrorists. I say you should listen to Dean

and others. They say things as clearly as they can and people like Harman as well as people yelling on the privacy issue are just muddying the waters and do not help.

I dont think that the NSA issue should be ignored, I think it should be pursued, but following the accountability aspect: once again, Bush refused all accountability, as he did for Iraq, for Katrina, for the energy meetings, (add your own).

We have a governement that refuses accountability and asks us to trust him on his word. It has proven multiple times that it cannot be trusted. Here again, this is mainly an issue of accountability (that is what warrants are - It is irrelevant whether the program is good or not, we cant prove whether it is or not as long as we dont have any accountability).

[radio4progressives]

10. Exactly..

This is all about the reenactment of John Poindexter's Total Information Awarness program that was created during the Reagan administration, which Congress shut down and has now been resurrected under this administration.

That's the domestic spying apparatus which existence is in denial, but is in fact been resurrected - and people like Harman and other DLC (read Neo Con) Democrats who haven't the faintest idea of the meaning of the Bill of Rights, or at least no demonstrable Reverence for the principles of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are traitors in my view and must be ousted.

[Deep13]

3. Saw Harmann on MTP. WTF???

Her view essentially: good idea but might be illegal.

Are you fucking kidding me? How can she say she supports an admittedly illegal program and how could she say she didn't know it was illegal until later? Doesn't she have a copy of the goddamn 4th Amendment? Has everyone forgotten that the "president" knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing? How many more times will we juggle the Federal government to cover for junior's incompetence?

The "president" is not our Dad. He is one official among many. He does not have a right to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, even if it was in the interests of the country, which it is not. These assholes who say the Constitution grants the "president" with inherent authority to ignore the 4th Amendment, I would like to hear one talking head say, "Exactly which provision creates that authority, because it seems to be missing from my copy."

[ColonelTom]

7. Harman - "I think it [wiretap program] does" fit within the law

" members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program."

In short, despite having a fairly good command of the legal landscape, Harman's only real beef with the President's actions is that the NSA Act of 1947 wasn't fully complied with by the "Gang of Eight" briefings. Harman's another DLC Republican plant in the Democratic Party.

[radio4progressives]

8. I'm Calling On All those In Harman's District (Los Angeles) to REPLACE

I now read at washington note that Harman is not well liked among her colleagues in the House and that Pelosi is seeking to replace Harman on the Intelligence Committee in 2007 - if Dems do well in the 2006 elections. But given the strong arming by the DLC members, Pelosi's efforts to do that will likely be undermined. (my opinion)

It isn't too late to try and find a Democratic contestor to replace Harman, someone who RESPECTS CIVIL LIBERTIES and will FIGHT to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, AND seek to PROSECUTE the President and his cohorts in these violations, not give them a pass like apparently Harman is inclined to do.

[radio4progressives]

11. you put it very well... this is insane and the rank and file had better

let these people know they are wrong and they are harming us and that no, the courts are NOT there to settle this matter, CONGRESS needs to PROSECUTE these bastards based on their own publically stated confessions of violations.

i can't even believe this is being "debated" if it weren't for the vichy dems, it would NOT be debated . it would be dealt with directly, as it should be.

[Life Long Dem]

6. What is so hard to understand?

"... a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so." said Bush.

They know the law. They knew they had to keep this hush hush.

[ColonelTom]

9. Here's Sen. Roberts' rationale

"Now, if we choose to go ahead and fix FISA, which was considered and then drawn back by the same people that were in the room and I was in the room when that happened, decided, “How do we do this?” And the end result was we would end up with the same kind of a program."

In other words, since the Democrats wouldn't have blocked it anyway in Congress, Sen. Roberts argues, what was the point in going to Congress? We'll just do whatever the hell we want, just like we've been doing since 2001.

[paulk]

12. "who among us are ok with Domestic spying"?

well, right now polls are showing that the majority of Americans are ok with it...

and the majority of Americans are ok with it continuing, as long as they think it's protecting us. And since BushCo
won't tell anyone the details, it's hard to argue that it's not.

The Democratic leadership can't put itself in the position of opposing something that may actually be helping stop
terrorists from attacking this country. And there really are people out there who would - fly airplanes into tall buildings? Release a "dirty bomb"? Blow up a nuclear power plant?

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. How about pointing out it started before 9/11?

And the ABA poll released the other day was 75% against.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. I have yet to see an honestly worded poll with majority support.

P.S. I am giving you a heart. :hug:

[radio4progressives]

17. oh boy... you really have bought into the whole package hook line & sinker

i would have to be at my computer for the next several hours i guess to point out that all that you have presented is how the administration wants americans to see this. unfortunately as you do point out, the Dems have yet to clearly and correctly refute these false premise's.

[paulk]

25. how do you counter the MSM on this, then?

by blaming Democrats? I realize that is your main reason for being on DU, but it would help if you would occasionally try to be fair.

It's the administration that flew those planes into the WTC? I do realize there are some here on DU that believe that, but you're not going to find much support for those ideas anywhere else. Most people don't find the idea that there are people out there who want to kill us a "false premise".

--------------------

You have a bad habit of denigrating the intelligence of posters when they arrive at different opinions than you do. I realize there are many of us who don't share your keen and exacting view of the world, a view no doubt informed by an understanding of reality few of us could ever hope to achieve, but it would be nice if, every once in a while, you afforded us fish the benefit of our own convictions and beliefs.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. "denigrating the intelligence"

You say that like you never denigrating the intelligence of posters when they arrive at different opinions than you do.

|“denigrating the intelligence of posters when they arrive at different opinions”

|“denigrating the intelligence of posters when they arrive at different opinions”

“denigrating the intelligence of posters when they arrive at different opinions”

|“denigrating the intelligence of posters when they arrive at different opinions”

[Zodiak]

83. As we used to say in the neighborhood

*STOKE!!!*

That was a GREAT comeback...use their own words against them.

[mzmolly]

23. Domestic with FISA approval. They are trying to make this about "spying"

perse, and not illegal wiretaps. Maddening. DU-ers appear to be buying the spin.

[paulk]

27. it's two separate issues, really

the Republicans are doing a good job of conflating the two.

they've got the help of the MSM, as always.

and the help of the far left, as always...

[mzmolly]

29. Well, we have to he careful not to "react" to media spin, that's for sure.

:hi:

Democrats take issue with the legality of this program, just like Arlen Specter does. It's not about keeping the President from "spying on terrorists who reside in the US" but they will do their best to make that the argument, we can't let them.

[Clark2008]

24. Then most American's are insane

They've been dumbed and numbed to the tune of "Terra! Terra! Terra!" and "Fear! Fear! Fear!"

Fucking ridiculous.

[ColonelTom]

26. Democratic leaders can't oppose it? You've got to be kidding.

The Democratic leadership can't put itself in the position of opposing something that may actually be helping stop
terrorists from attacking this country. And there really are people out there who would - fly airplanes into tall buildings? Release a "dirty bomb"? Blow up a nuclear power plant?

Stop repeating the Republican talking points. This is not a choice between wiretapping terrorists and not wiretapping terrorists!

This is a choice between following the law and breaking it. BushCo chose to break the law. Why? Because they knew there would be objections to the unfettered discretion they sought - and there were in fact such objections in the process of drafting the 9/15/01 authorization to use force. What they couldn't get through legitimate means they got by breaking the law, or perhaps more accurately, by saying the law didn't apply to them.

What the Democrats need to say is that Bush's policies do not protect liberty. They sacrifice liberty needlessly at the altar of fear. Bush can get all the wiretapping authority he legitimately needs through FISA, as it's written now, without trampling all over our civil liberties.

BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BROKE THE LAW REPEATEDLY. What's so hard about saying it?

[paulk]

32. no.

it's not a Republican talking point that there are organizations out there who mean
to do us harm.

Domestic wiretapping with FISA approval is a different issue from Bush purposefully breaking the law to
set up a contitutional confrontation over this... which is what is going on, IMO.

We can't argue against the NSA wiretaps, because we don't know if they've been helpful. The thing to do would be to force the executive to go through FISA. Like he should have.

Bush breaking the law is a seperate issue. Democrats can and should take Bush to task for deliberately breaking the law when he just as easily could have followed it. But I don't think it wise to attack the policy - the NSA wiretaps, until more is known about what the policy actually is .

[ColonelTom]

36. Congratulations! You've bought the "9/11 changed everything" meme.

It is a Republican talking point that since 9/11 "there are organizations out there who mean to do us harm." There always have been and always will be. That did not change on 9/11.

Domestic wiretapping with FISA approval is not what we're talking about. Wiretapping (domestic or international) without any judicial or Congressional oversight is what we're talking about.

If the Bush administration isn't willing to provide sufficient details, we cannot assume that the program is legitimate. He's asking us to trust him. THIS is the point that Dems should be pounding home - this Republican administration has not earned our trust. In fact, it has given us countless examples of why we should not trust it. The NYT lead editorial on Sunday nailed this point in a way that few Democrats (Feingold all along and Hillary Clinton in the last week) have been willing to do.

For public consumption, this isn't about wiretaps or terrorism. This is about trust and unchecked authority. The Bush administration hasn't earned the former, and no administration should have the latter.

[mzmolly]

37. I don't think any Democrat supports domestic wire tapping sans FISA.

Domestic wiretapping with FISA approval is not what we're talking about. Wiretapping (domestic or international) without any judicial or Congressional oversight is what we're talking about.

This is spin - meant to divide and it's apparently working?

[radio4progressives]

58. Excellent post Colonel! n/t

:thumbsup: :applause:

[paulk]

87. most Americans DO think that 9/11 changed everything

and since this thread was originally about Democratic Party strategy on an issue that relates
to terrorism - what most Americans think has to be taken into account. And the counter argument that nothing has changed from pre-9/11, while true, doesn't do well when juxtaposed against those burning towers.

I think the program needs to be separated from Bush's handling of it, and I think that is what the Dems are trying to do. I personally don't know enough about the program to make a judgment of it - outside of the belief that it's most likely being abused by the Bush admin. But I still think the program and what Bush may or may not be doing with it are two separate issues and should be approached as such by the Democratic Party.

I've never said that this program, and Bush's handling of it shouldn't be investigated. But, I think the Democratic Party needs to tread carefully here - national security is the one issue that the public still trusts the Republicans more than the Democrats on. The Democratic Party can't be seen as opposing a program that may in fact help stop terrorist attacks in this country. And that is how the MSM is going to spin this if given half a chance.

[radio4progressives]

57. omg... Orwell's Ministry of Truth got you big time...

don't think there's much can be done about it, judging from these remarks .. :shrug:

[paulk]

86. once again - instead of addressing my point

you resort to personal attacks.

Proving the point of my post, actually.

[endarkenment]

30. Go back and look at those polling questions.

They asked something like 'would you approve of the government monitoring domestic phone calls to suspected terrorists?' Heck, I'd agree to that. The FISA court would agree to that. So obviously that is not what the administration is doing, otherwise they would have simply gotten a few more FISA warrants to add to the 15,000 or so they already have gotten since 9-11.

When you find yourself drunk on koolaide, stop drinking.

[paulk]

33. that's the point, isn't it?

Americans don't know what this program entails. You or I don't know what it entails! Everything is spin right now, spin BushCo is winning. The OP wants to blame Democrats... for not condemning Bush's program with the wiretaps. My point is - how can they condemn it if they don't know what it even is? How could they condemn it if it may actually be helping fight terrorism? And we have no way of knowing if Bush's claims that it is are true or false.

That Bush broke the law is a seperate issue.



I'm not drunk on kool aid, endarkment. That's a cheap shot, and doesn't further your argument.

[endarkenment]

35. Cheap shot? Perhaps.

However your posts in this thread make in unclear what your position is here. You sighted the polling numbers without making the observation that the polls asked a deliberately misleading question. Why would you do that?

"My point is - how can they condemn it if they don't know what it even is?" - perhaps had you made that your point to begin with I would not have confused you with the rest of the koolaide drunkards.

[radio4progressives]

59. uhem... we may not know everything, but we know enough .. ....

to know Domestic Spying has been going on since BEFORE 9/11!

It actually began just after the Bush administration moved in the White House, nine months before 9/11.

You do remember who John Poindexter is don't you? the Convicted criminal from Reagan administration who developed the Total Information Awareness program which essentially set up an apparatus to be able to conduct Domestic Spying on all Americans and set up the Shadow Government - when this was exposed during the Iran Contra investigations, Congress shut down that program permenantly but apparently John Poindexter was brought back in by this adminstration and he went to work setting it up again.

The broadcast and cable MSM are busy with the trivial aspects of the Domestic Spying, calling it "terra-ists surveillance" releasing bogus OBL tapes and bogus foiled terra plots in Los Angeles and on and on and on, in the meantime a lot of execellent reporting going on in the PRINT media, in the papers of record. I strongly suggest you shut off the tv and start reading recent editions of the NYT and Washington Post among others.

[High Plains]

88. What do we know about the program?

That the president claims the right to spy on Americans without a warrant.

That the president would rather do that than comply with FISA, which bends over backwards to let the president spy on Americans--as long as he gets a warrant AFTER THE FACT.

What else do you need to know? Gee, maybe if you ask the president nicely, he'll tell you all about it. Otherwise, I guess you're stuck in a sort of Catch-22: We can't criticize the program because we don't know what it is, we don't what it is because the president won't tell us, so we can't criticize the program...

I don't really care if a majority of Americans support blatantly unconstitutional usurpations of our rights. I would rather be a member of an opposition party with principles than a member of a party that wins elections by applauding the destruction of the Constitution in the name of expediency. Of course, with the current Democratic leadership, I get a losing opposition party without principles. Goddamnit, stand up for something, Democrats!

[paulk]

90. again: what the president claims as a right and what the program

is are two seperate issues.

In your eagerness to attack the "Democratic leadership", you conflate the two, making the task of the Republicans and their lapdog media that much easier.

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. THE DLC HAS SPOKEN! SIT DOWN SHUT UP!

[kentuck]

18. I disagree with the Congress turning over complete oversight to the court

Oversight is Congress' responsibility. The court is there to rule on the legality.

[radio4progressives]

60. exactly.. but apparently that's what the DLC wants to have done.. n/t

[radio4progressives]

61. Now one has to question why would the DLC want to be able to have

domestic spying legal?

[NightOwwl]

19. Once again our Dem "leaders" show their lack of spine.

Daschle spewed the same line on MTP. I had to turn off the TV because I just ate...and their capitulating was making me naseous.

[mzmolly]

22. Remember Daschle is no longer a leader guys. This story should be read

with caution.

:hi:

[radio4progressives]

62. I did too.. i couldn't stomach it..

it was a clear signal that the DLC loves the idea of domestic spying be ok.

have i mentioned how much i hate these fascists bastards?

[Doctor_J]

20. This solidifies my contention

that the 4th Reich will not lose power from within the country - it will meet its demise just like Hitler did. How sad that we (the US citizenry) can't muster a coalition of the majority to take care of our own problems.

[mzmolly]

21. Two Democrats - and one is no longer an elected official.

What spin they are trying to put on this! Imagine if the WAPO started saying "Republicans angered over Bush's spy program" due to Arlen Specter's position?

Further, the article is misleading - see AtomicK's post below. :)

[AtomicKitten]

28. Jane Harman does NOT approve of wiretapping without a warrant.

I have already posted her OP-ED here repeatedly.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/05/EDGQGH2G7U1.DTL

Here's a piece from ThinkProgress: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/19/malkin-harman-apology/
where she clearly states Bush's spy program violated the law.

From the article you posted, "Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program."

Keep up the weak-on-national-security meme and lying about Dems approving of Bush's illegal spy program.
The truth is they oppose him doing it illegally and not going to FISA.

Don't you ANTI-DEMOCRATS ever get tired of twisting the truth to suit your agenda?

Rhetorical question.

[mzmolly]

31. Thanks AK.

We all have to be sure to read beyond the "Headlines."

[ColonelTom]

39. With all due respect...

How many people read the SF Gate op-ed page? How many people watch Meet the Press?

When you keep saying "I support the program, I've never flinched from that" - as Harman did on MTP yesterday - most listeners won't bother to see your other arguments as anything more than hair-splitting and legalistic mumbo-jumbo.

Democrats need to define the program as "warrantless wiretaps without any court review or approval, and without Congressional oversight." Then they can say they're against that needless power grab, because wiretaps have been a key, effective component of our national security operations for decades.

On MTP yesterday, Harman sounded like John Kerry discussing the Iraq war vote in the '04 debates. And that's not good.

[mzmolly]

40. Democrats have defined this issue as you note. The media is spinning

this and having guests that promote their doing so.

[AtomicKitten]

42. your point?

You merely reiterated what I've already said, but you added the disclaimer that we can't hold people accountable for accurately representing the facts.

There is a handful of ANTI-DEMOCRATS here at DU whose contribution to DU is almost entirely trashing Democrats, not criticizing Dems which is reasonable discourse, but twisting facts to support their abject contempt for the Democratic party in toto. I don't know about you, but I find the Republicans infinitely more egregious and despicable.

The OP posted a piece from the unquotable rag that did not substantiate his interpretation. Quite the opposite. It is this purposeful misrepresentation of the facts which we see over and over again here at DU that I oppose.

Jane Harman is doing her job reinforcing that Dems aren't weak on national security, because that is precisely how the Republicans are trying to paint Democrats. This will be a critical issue in the upcoming election. She also has consistently maintained that the wiretapping program Bush is using violates FISA law AND the Fourth Amendment.

What more do you people expect from her? Nothing reasonable as far as I can tell.

[ColonelTom]

49. My point - "I support the program" sends exactly the wrong message

And that's why the OP came away with such a negative impression of her.

She's following the DLC playbook, which involves constantly worrying first about looking "weak on national security." When Democrats do that, as Harman did yesterday, they end up looking weak, period. Harman's message got so muddled by her initial salvo - "I support the program, and I've never flinched from that" - and her repeating that mantra several times during the discussion that I'm not convinced it takes a "purposeful misrepresentation of the facts" to conclude that she's generally in favor of what the President is doing.

Harman may be a good person, and I do believe she has a good grasp of the laws involved. But I think it's very easy to watch the MTP interview and get the OP's impression that she's caving in to the President on the issue of wiretaps, relegating her good arguments to the realm of nitpicking on legal niceties.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. Bahy and Vilsack are on board

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2452554&mesg_id=2452554

[AtomicKitten]

54. you only get the "impression" if you were inclined to begin with ...

and these people here at DU are.

However, if these self-proclaimed aficionados of news consumption had really been paying attention (I have posted other info about her and they ignored it), they would "get it."

I'm not fond of the DLC either, and BTW I don't subscribe to the rabid groupthink here at DU accusing everyone and everything of being DLC if they don't agree with this handful of people, but they are right-on when it comes to this issue.

The Republicans have been quite open about making it an election issue. The Dems MUST support wiretapping for national security reasons and still be clear that Bush's way of doing it is illegal. That distinction has been made, although conveniently ignored by some here.

Opposing wiretapping is the wrong message for Dems.
Opposing ILLEGAL wiretapping is the right message.

[ColonelTom]

56. Harman, like Vilsack, isn't sure these warrantless wiretaps are illegal

First of all, Harman's op-ed piece is pretty much right on the money, which makes her appearance on MTP all the more frustrating.

Here's Gov. Vilsack, as reported in the Des Moines Register:

If the president broke the law, that's unacceptable. But I think it's debateable whether he did.

On MTP, Harman was right there with Vilsack:

We’re only 36 members total that we’re talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory.

So I guess Harman opposes illegal wiretapping in the abstract, but isn't willing to say flat-out that the NSA program was illegal? That looks weak - not weak on national security, but weak period.

Similarly, she wasn't willing to say flat-out that the President misled the American people:

MR. RUSSERT: You think the president misled the American people?

REP. HARMAN: ...I—I think we should be listening. I support this capability, but I also think Congress should be listening. I think that this entire program now should be briefed to the two intelligence committees, as is required by the National Security Act of 1947.

Heck, even Joe Biden was willing to say the President "misled" the American people on Iraq. Now we Democrats can't even muster the courage to come out and say that on the warrantless wiretap program? Again, that's not weak on national security - it's weak period. And it's why we're struggling to find our footing for the 2006 elections when Bush's and the Republican Congress' ratings are about as low as they could possibly be.

I can't speak for the original poster, but that's why I'm upset with Harman and the DLC.

[radio4progressives]

65. I agree with your analysis of the problem but i disagree with the wording

You said: Democrats need to define the program as "warrantless wiretaps without any court review or approval, and without Congressional oversight."

On the right track, but i think it's much more effective to say what it actually is: Domestic Spying or Illegal Domestic Spying

:shrug:

[radio4progressives]

63. You know, it really doesn't matter - She was essentially agreeing with

that it's questionable whether or not the president broke the law, (sheesh!)

and that the COURTS will have to decide. please ! my intelligence is insulted when these idiots get on tv and cha cha cha cha around basic fundelmental principles of the Constitution!

Feingold on the other hand knows exactly how to respond to this bullshit.

[Nederland]

38. If not the courts, then who?

I'm confused by your objection.

Democrats are merely saying that the President should follow the FISA law that was passed in the late 1970's. This law set up a court to review wiretapping requests. Let me stress the point: this the law, it was passed by Democrats, and it is a law that Bush is breaking. Are you suggesting that this law is wrong? If so, who should review wiretapping requests?

[Disturbed]

43. The RW spin is that getting warrants takes too long.

As Daschell pointed out, the wire tap can be in place for 72 hours then FISA Court must approve further taps. A wire tap can be put in place without a warrant for 72 hours. The point is that the Bush Regime didn't bother to do this, therefore they violated the Law. Furthermore Shrub says that they will keep violating the Law because the IWR Vote allows the Law to be violated. It is rubish!

[AtomicKitten]

44. none of the RW spin is reasonable.

They have extended the 72-hours to 15-days and this, of course, is after the fact. There is no reasonable excuse for not going to FISA.

Jane Harman pointed out that not only are BushCo's actions violating FISA law but also the Fourth Amendment.

[Nederland]

45. That's not my question

My question is why the OP thinks going to the courts is a bad idea.

[AtomicKitten]

46. It's not a bad idea.

Make these bastards prove their case - they can't.

Once deemed illegal, impeachment is on.

I dare the Supreme Court to intervene.

[Nederland]

47. Exactly

I wish I knew why the OP thinks its a bad idea to have the courts look into this.

[AtomicKitten]

48. it's the status quo around here

He just wanted to trash yet another Democrat without looking at the facts or understanding the implications.

[LincolnMcGrath]

50. Who determines reasonable discourse? You?

For instance, would someone who called the DLC idiotic be considered ANTI-DEMOCRATIC to you?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. lol

[Moochy]

69. lincoln has more hearts than atomickitten

that is all.

[AtomicKitten]

70. deleted

[Moochy]

71. Aww and I was gonna give you a heart

:cry:

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. Like your deleted post above? Get real!

[AtomicKitten]

74. deleted

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. You need a hug, don't you?

[radio4progressives]

68. DLC are NOT Democrats . I trash the DLC, I do not trash Democrats

i might get pissed off at a few idiots and anyone who doesn't get pissed off at these idiots may as well be automotrons. i am not one of those.

[AtomicKitten]

73. deleted

[LincolnMcGrath]

75. Answer post #50

[AtomicKitten]

77. deleted

[LincolnMcGrath]

78. If I give you a heart, will you feel better?

[radio4progressives]

79. So, let me see.. You Agree with the DLC that Domestic Spying is Ok by You?

The essential question I raise in my OP is:

who among us agree that Domestic Spying is ok?

Is that the issue you disagree with me on?

just looking for a little clarity here... i'm mean it's insane to say "people that don't agree with me...blah blah blah blah blah...." -

I mean not only is that insane, it's completely rediculous.

For instance I often promote Feingold because I think he's just about the only elected Demcorat who is actually showing some guts and courage and acting on principle and is telling the goddam truth, when the other spineless nitwits won't. Does that mean I agree with EVERYTHING Feingold has ever voted on?

hell no! so let's at least try a modicum of honesty here, shall we?

I'm asking who among us actually think it's ok for the president (or anyone else in Washington) to authorize Domestic Spying?

That's the question. You disagree? ok just say so.

[AtomicKitten]

80. deleted

[radio4progressives]

67. Think THIS SCOTUS is going to Say Bush Violated the Constitution?

I really don't think so..

[Nederland]

82. Yes, they will

Scalia and Thomas have a very liberal record when it comes to illegal searches. Here is an opinion, written by Scalia himself, in which he strikes down a conviction of a man growing huge amounts of pot in his house. He was caught using a thermal imager, the use of which Scalia considered an illegal search.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html

[radio4progressives]

66. See #64

:shrug:

[radio4progressives]

64. I think we're confusing which Courts... (?)

You're correct on what the FISA court was precisely set up for.

My objection is that the Dems wants the SCOTUS to decide whether or not Domestic Spying is illegal, and whether or not what the President did by side stepping FISA Court on Domestic Spying is ok.

That's what i have a problem with.

[Nederland]

81. Then you have a problem with the US Constitution (nt)

[radio4progressives]

84. No, I don't have a problem with the Constitution but this president does

and anyone else who thinks the Constitution provides the president with the Authority to conduct Domestic Spying.

That's the issue. This Supreme Court have FIVE Justices who the so called Federalists Society who foster the notion that the President has unitary authority, when the Constitution does NOT provide for such authority.

[Nederland]

85. Everything you said is true

But this is true as well:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


US Constitution, Article III, Section 2

[High Plains]

89. Yeah, the Constitution says a lot of things, many of which are no

longer "operative."

The Fourth Amendment: no searches without warrants based on probable cause.

The Eighth Amendment: the right to reasonable bail.

Oh, and let's not forget only Congress has the power to declare war.

The Constitution, sad to say, is only what the Supreme Court says it is.

[bush_is_wacko]

55. I saw this too. I was PO'd at her and Daschel big time.

I agree that we ought to be spying on "terrorist." It is the definition of "terrorist" that I want to know about and I STILL refuse to believe they could not come up with a REASONABLE way for the FISA court to oversee this spying on "terrorists." It seems to me if the RETROACTIVE 72 hours isn't long enough they should have found a way to accommodate the new situations that have arisen because of our current environment.

The excuse that it had to remain "secret" or the terrorists would just change their methods of communicating is BUNK! The terrorists don't just use ONE method of communicating and in all likelihood they are well aware of EXACTLY what kind of technology is out there anyway. I am nothing more than an average, even undereducated, American citizen and I KNOW they are sending "messages" to each other through radio, television, cell phones, mail, email, satellite phones,sign language, organized protests, etc., etc. Unless there is some form of telepathic communication that has been perfected by the terrorists there is just so many options of communicating out there and they can ALL be intercepted.

FISA has never leaked before now and the fact that someone leaked now (IMO, it was likely a FISA judge) should speak VOLUMES to the idiots in DC! There is WAY more to this story than what the preznit and our congressional "leaders" are letting on. It appears to me that a FISA judge knows Bush is breaking the law and that Bush has invented a new definition for the term "terrorist." This whistle-blower is diligently trying to rectify the situation. In other words, a real patriot has emerged from his shell. Unfortunately, there are HUNDREDS of whistle-blowers trying to inform the public about the current administrations multiple corruptions and NONE of them are getting anywhere using the current system. Their stories are being buried. Whoever leaked this information is well aware of that fact and went around the system to get the message out and now we have people like Harmann and Daschel siding with the administration and basically calling for a lynching of the culprit who leaked the information!

Just typing this makes me feel hopeless all over again. This country is being run by utter morons. Apparently a great deal of this country is also inhabited by morons that are either too busy to listen to what is going on, too stupid to understand what's going on, just don't care what's going on or so twisted they actually think the administration is making the world a better place. I hate to say it but I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. Is there anyone that is actually going to stand up and do what's right?