Democrats Today Will Kill Any & All Chance to Impeach Bush

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    (As if they were ever gonna anyway!:happy-very:)

    They will join him in being co-equals in violating their oath to uphold the US Constitution.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/08/accountability/index.html

    To the democrats here, what little high ground you might have held over the repubs. is now gone for good if your party does today as expected. You should hold your heads in shame as your party completely failed (out and out lied IMO) in what they told the US electorate in 2006'!

    Like the republicans, they now prove what they really are all about and if you continue to support them, what does that truly say about YOU?
     
  2. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Democrats should worry about the fact a strong economy has tanked since they took control of congress.
     
  3. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Why? All they have done since taking control is comply completely and absolutely with the White House. The balance of power, and the legislative results, are virtually indistinguishable from when the republicans were in control.
    Why do you think that a democratic congress actually gets higher approval ratings from republicans than from the opposition party that they supposedly represent? I used to jokingly refer to the democratic party as "republican-lite", but I think it's even worse than that now. From a recent FOX news poll:
     
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I don't necessarily disagree. I do think they have been ineffective.. But.....
    Regardless of the merits of the argument , the democrats will hear and recieve the blame for our once strong economy tanking since they took over.

    Its the same litmus we apply all the time. how was the economy when you took over how is it now?
     
  5. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Back on topic Wkmac,

    I keep hearing how bush has abused his powersto spy without warrant. Do we have anyone out there claiming their rights to engage in illegal activity were violated?

    isn't that what this issue is really about aka I'm engaged in drug trafficking and do not want the bush administration spying on me under the pretense of looking for terrorist?

    With this bill isn't the drug trafficker still free to sue the government for illegally interrupting his drug trafficking business?
     
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    So I'm continuing on with my search. I see the articles referencing the "illegal wiretaps" the retroactive immunity from prosecution. etc.

    But I can't find any victims. Who are the victims in this alleged crime?

     
  7. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    That's the whole problem, nobody knows because there was no oversight, judicial or otherwise. The purpose of the telecom lawsuits was to find out exactly who the government spied on and why. The lawsuit against AT&T is a class action that represents anyone in their customer base who may have been spied on, had their communications monitored, etc, without just cause. One effect of the FISA bill that was passed yesterday will be to prevent anyone from ever finding out by dismissing the lawsuits and, in addition, grant full immunity to the telecoms involved despite the fact that no one even knows what laws they broke, and to what extent. It's a terrible precedent which effectively establishes that that the government can order people and corporations to break the law, then subsequently grant them immunity from being prosecuted for whatever crimes they commit while in the service of the government, in addition to shielding them (and the government) from any investigation to ascertain exactly what laws they broke and why.
     
  8. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Are you sure about this? I'm not a legal eagle but from what I've read the oversight fell to the AG who then reported directly to multiple subcommittees in Congress. If this is true and not just some smoke and mirror this is much better oversight than judicial since it is much easier to hold a congressman accountable than a Federal judge.

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001871----000-.html
     
  9. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    The link you have refers to the AG's oversight under the pre-existing FISA regulations, which were not being followed by the administration's secret (and illegal) wiretapping program and will not be followed under the new legislation that was passed yesterday. If in fact the administration had been complying with the existing laws, they wouldn't be so insistent about making sure that the new FISA bill contains retro-active immunity and protection from lawsuits. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.
     
  10. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Ok I thought you guys were talking about the FISA laws. My bad. So who funds this super secret program that you know about and I would say if it is Congress there is your oversight. If it is a private citizen that is funding this secret program then I can see where you are claiming there is no oversight. I can also see where this should be illegal.

    I take that back after skimming through the posts again you guys were talking about FISA. Even the original article is about FISA. Congress has oversight not only in funding but in specific subcommittees. After a quick google search there has also been full committee oversight hearings on the FBI's use of these laws which seems to go beyond what is required by the FISA law.

    You are right I have no idea what is in the new FISA bill but I am guessing since it passed the President will sign it and it will become the new law. The old laws allowed for warrant-less surveillance as I am sure the new law does. It seems odd that some of the same people that want to expand constitutional rights to non citizens in foreign countries through things like FISA laws have lots of problems with expanding our form of democracy to other parts of the world.

    Anyhow it seems to me that the FISA laws go to extreme measures to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
     
  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Agreed. I personally don't need protection from illegal search and siezure. I do not engage in criminal activity. I have nothing to hide.

    And then again those laws are not being used. Ever watch COPS? I have yet to see someone refuse to let a police officer search his vehicle.:happy-very:
     
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Tie,

    I don't need a victim although it is possible I myself am one because one on the Telecom providers is also my provider. You yourself could be one but this isn't the point with me. The point is that the President and Congress may have in fact just voilated the 4th amendment

    but we may never know or for that fact we may never know that no violation actually occured at all because this now IMO buries the issue. If this or any other adminstration can bring in some law expert as legal advisor and their advice is no harm no foul and this stands that any adminstration advisor can on their own determine or interpret constitution intent to mess with their pubic policy,(and we 8itch about judges) then IMHO none of the Bill of rights are safe from any side of the political flavor of the month.

    The idea of the bill or rights was to guarantee NO ONE, under any pretext could position themselves to abuse power and adversly effect the citizery as a greater whole. There are times in life that situations arise where bad people do bad things, very bad things and like you I get frustrated to with what happens when it seems bad people get away with something or so it seems. But the fact is our foundational premise of society was built upon specific fundamental rules that specificed what gov't could and could not do and when need be how to go about doing it. If we think because of today's modern age that these laws are flawed then there is a process to go about amending them in order to make them work. The law is stil the law. If any person or persons is allowed to circumvent the law whether justified or not, the legal precedence is there to circumvent it again and next time that very precedence may in fact make you a victim. Many who screamed about clinton circumventing the law (and he did IMO too) are now defending similar acts of law breaking all because they believe the pretext to be justified. I remember back in the day when conservatives screamed about the "situation ethincs" of what they called humanism and now today's conservatives have thrown in the towel and joined the fray!

    If we can circumvent the 4th amendment today, maybe tomorrow it will be your right to religious worship, or free speech or even your right as a parent to tell your own children some truth that the gov't now finds offensive. I know you and others see this all down to some contest meaning that if you are or seem to be against one you are for the other or in some sense you've politicized the debate down to either republican or democrat. You also IMHO are over reacting illogically out of fear because in the earliest of days, there may well have been a case for such surveillence but IMO it was obvious in short order that Al Qaeda operatives weren't dropping a dime in the nearest phone to get marching orders. Internet? Maybe, but even now that seems a stretch. But for the gov't to continue surveil into 2007' IMO suggests another motive that "MAY" and I say "MAY" not be geneuine.

    The gov't may be completely innocent and this is much ado about nothing but let me ask you this. If that's the case, then why the need for immunity for the telecoms? I mean the terrorist and everyone knows the gov't was looking so protecting gov't operations is kinda out the window now. So what's to protect by putting sunshine on this whole matter?

    How long before the gov't using this telecom deal and public safety has UPS start inspecting the contents of all packages? We both laugh of such suggestion but should we? What would the cost be to UPS to inspect every package for it's contents? Could a package through UPS pose a great a safety risk to the general public as a phone conversation or an email? Where's the law that protects us as a company from such draconian and costly measures? What if Fred Smith and the FedEx folks came up with a patented device to inspect every package on the grounds of public safety and for them the cost was nothing but lobbied Congress and the President to mandate UPS to follow suit and we had completely change our methods and buy the patented devices from FedEx? What if that cost was such that it was a deal breaker and caused UPS to give up US domestic shipping altogether? How would you then feel about the legal foundation that you supported?

    Crazy! Conspiratorial! Grassy Knoll and Art Bell hysteria! Yeah, but we've already decided via precedence that there is no rule of law so we are free to make them up as we go and in all the discussion we've had here on so many topics, is that not in most cases the root cause of bad gov't? When gov't decides to ignore law and "wing it" we some how seem to get screwed in the end and the initial problem always gets much worse.

    I won't kid you or anyone else, that becuase of the nature of what we are dealing with, this is a tough call. It's a damn if you do and damn if you don't but it comes down to this for me. Al Qaeda and it's minions have some reach but I don't believe at this time it is near what it may have been prior to 9/11. I still believe there was a lot of luck on that day but the American people are more observant now as a result which makes it harder to pull off another attack. However, the case can be made of the far greater threat to the American public and that threat IMO is the politician and the political operative. They've shown to lie, to flip flop and turn on a dime for political advantge and no matter how justified Bush is now, I fear the people coming after him even more who might take that inch and turn it into a mile.

    Now, let me leave you with this scary thought. The precedence is already there for the gov't to listen to our phone calls and inspect our emails and they've had it for decades even though the internet didn't exist. They already have the right to inspect ever package or even all the mail or to force UPS, FedEx or USPS to inspect the inside of every letter/parcel they carry. It's all there and has been for many years and now we finally have a gov't ready to really exploit this fact but instead of telling us the truth that the authority already exists, they instead do what others in the past have done and try and hide it from public view.

    I'll go you one futher Tie, The reason for going into Iraq was a sound and valid one but it's none of the reasons ever given!
    :wink2:

    I've told you guys before about reading these boring and obsecure think tank reports that shape gov't but you just won't listen!
    :happy-very:

    Sorry it took so long to respond but I took some vacation days and went vacationing! I've decided from here on out that I will no long call them vacation days but rather retirement training days!
    :happy2:
     
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Mac,

    Understood. I would like to think the 4th amendment is written to protect me but its really written to protect the criminal. I don't need protection from illegal searce and seizure because I have nothing to hide. Overzealous wording that makes law enforcements job that much harder and provides the lawyers with a job. I also think the crime should be evaluated from the victims perspective. I have yet to see a victim. But the good news is there have been no more innocent victims dying at the hands of the terrorist in the US since these processes were put in place. So I understand the 4th ammendment concerns but don't think anyone is really going to get too worked up about it as long as the results are there.
     
  14. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    This bill be challenged on constitutional grounds relating to the 4th amendment and in the end the Supreme Court will rule one way or the other and we will have to live with that ruling. I do think it's interesting that so many people who get on their soapboxes and rail about the importance of the second amendment and the sanctity of their "constitutional rights" to keep and bear arms are willing to write off the 4th amendment as somehow not so very important. The constitution is either worth protecting or it isn't. If you devalue part of it you devalue all of it, and eventually the same arguments that were used to take away the rights you don't care about (Say those magic words: THE WAR ON TERROR!) will be used to take away the rights that you do care about.

    I'm more concerned with the idea of retroactive immunity. The notion that it's ok for corporations to break the law as long as they complying with a secret and illegal government program is a terrible precedent to set. If what the government and the telecoms did is defensible and justifiable ( and I have no doubt that much of it was, particularly in the weeks and months directly following 9/11), then they should have no problem making that case in court. If they did things that were not defensible then they should have to answer for them. That's the way our country is supposed to work. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Or at least we used to be.
     
  15. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    The best thing you can do for the terrorist is to bog down an investigation in the legal processes we have. Despite that I would be willing to agree if someone or many someones would stand up and say they were victimized by the process. I don't see anyone standing up. So at this point we are trying to make a case without victims. Without victims there is no crime. Therefore what you're basically asking us to do is to go fishing to see if a crime was committed. If you truly believe in the 4th ammendment then you have to believe it was written to prevent this type of fishing expedition. Can't have our cake and eat it too. Unless More is willing to bake us two of them.:happy-very:
     
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Disagree Tie! The 4th amendment was written to protect the citizens of this country from gov't abuse. The men who wrote the 4th amendment had themselves been victimized by the British crown in this very area and understood the nature and power of unchecked gov't. IMHO saying the 4th amendment was written for criminals and therefore it should be done away with is like saying the 2nd amendment is to protect criminals so they can have access to guns so we should do away with that.

    Today, the muslim faith is a growing religion so maybe we should modify or let's just eliminate the 1st amendment protections for freedom of religion. To many people say unkind things about other people and the way they live, some of these people have alternate lifestyles that mean and evil people publically condemn. Freedom of speech protects these evil people when they speak out so we should do away with the freedom of speech.

    Tie, be very careful in the box that you are so swift to open.

    Also we are looking at this issue from a personal basis but there is another side of it that we should consider what it's ramifications longterm might be.

    https://web.archive.org/web/2008120...webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0390.html

    Tie, if Clinton and his gang had this surveil power back in there day, what do you think would have happened to much of what wrongs were exposed about them? You've got to look longterm and consider that down the road there will be politicians elected that them having these powers may not be a good thing after all. It's called unintended consequences.

    Jones said:
    Good point Jones and this is exactly where Congress really violated their oath. Art. 1 Sec. 9 of the US Consitution sez that Congress "SHALL NOT" make any ex poste facto law. This means you can't criminalize an act yesterday when the commission of such as was legal but at the same time you can't take a criminal act yesterday and retroactive make it legal today. Art. 1 Sec. 10 makes it unconstituitonal for the States to make Ex Poste Facto law as well.

    As for Gov't and Corp. being in league, many here from both sides would condemn the one while defending the other depending on the issue and I've tired to point out this fallcy from both sides and that under the guise of old European Merchantilism that now grips America, bothsides are co-equal partners and this Telecom immunity is again just the latest proof.

    You many not like Murray Rothbard and I appreciate that but on this matter of Gov't-Business Partnetship I hope you will take a few minutes and read the article at the link on this very issue in light of this Telecome legislation.



    Jones, I consider you one of the few people here that even though you may not agree in total, you'll still get it.
    :wink2:
     
  17. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I'll take the extra traffic stop from an overzealous cop before I will take my family dying at the hands of the terrorists.

    Protecting the constitution and its intent is a wonderfully cerebral exercise that sounds astetically pleasing. But in reality I think we have some flex on the fourth ammendment that needs to be exercised while still maintaining the overall rights of the citizens.

    Here we will continue to disagree.:happy-very:
     
  18. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    And on that point we do agree!

    Hey, does that count as bi-partisanship?

    :happy-very:

    c ya!
     
  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  20. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    What it truly says about you is we can disagree with this spineless congress on FISA on this important issue, but IMO, not dealbuster issue to jump the fence and radically change your whole political profile. My opinion is that Barack has a constitutional law degree background as does Greenwald, and Obama could be much more influenced by disenchanted democrats to regress his position and stick to his bread and butter "the constitution" rather than to change a brick wall in McCain. What it truly says about Independents/libertarians is that you know you don't have a prayer with any candidate you put on a pedalstal this election cycle, so why damage the possibility of toppling the Neo-Con power structure? I guess you rather have them in power for another 8 years. Maybe it's part of your over all scheme to watch this country go to the toilet so a Libertarian or 3rd party candidate has a legitimate chance.:wink2: