Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Attorney General Won't Rule Out Domestic Warrantless Taps

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Flyboy, Apr 8, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/06/attorney-general-wont/
    After citing his concerns that there was no limiting principle to the Administration's claim of authority in the War on Terror, Rep. Schiff asked the Attorney General whether the Administration believes it has the authority to wiretap purely domestic calls between two Americans without seeking a warrant.

    "I cannot rule that out,"
    responded the Attorney General.


     
  2. antarti

    antarti Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    Florida
    Why legislation to reassert anything, shouldn't they get this before a judge first? Won't the new legislation just be ignored too?
     
  3. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    Given this administration's track record, I would say that it's a safe bet that if they refuse to "rule out" anything, they are in fact doing it. It would be foolish to assume anything else.
     
  4. garyk/nm

    garyk/nm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    481
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Hey Berto! We can't rule out you being forcibly removed from office, either.

    Just who do these idiots think is working for whom? Is it time for a reminder?
     
  5. American By Blood

    American By Blood Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    Maryland, the 'Kwa
    I really should print up a batch of "Don't blame me--I voted for Peroutka" bumper stickers.
     
  6. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    Hmph.
    John Yoo says the government can "crush the testicles of an innocent ten year old child" to get his parents to talk.

    Samuel Alito and Alberto Gonzales believe the power of the "Unitary Executive" may not be diminished by law or act of Congress and that the Executive branch has the power to interpret the law.

    The Committee for State Security has grown to include a sex crime division - run until recently by a guy who got arrested for wanking in front of young girls and an office whose whole purpose is to siphon taxpayer money to religious groups (in exchange for what? intelligence assessments by church pastors? votes?)

    The POTUS believes he can order wholesale warrantless spying on conversations in the US between American citizens who are not suspects in any criminal case.

    How much worse does it have to get before people will pull their heads out and realize that a democratic republic requires citizens who will educate themselves and take an interest in their governance? Have we really fallen that far in one lifetime?

    Heck, while I'm thinking songs and poetry here's one from the late Phil Ochs:

     
  7. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Do you understand what this means?

    Do you think that Congress has the power to intepret the law regarding the Executive Branch? It doesn't and shouldn't. Do you think Congress has the last say about what the Executive Branch does? I suggest you go back and read some simple literature about the Constitution and the three independent branches of government.

    Congress does, in fact, interpret the law regarding itself, too. The President has nothing to say about that, either. The Supreme Court can overrule the Executive or Legislative Branches by interpreting the law, but neither the President nor Congress has the Constitutional authority to oversee the other.

    Basic stuff.

    I despise Gonzalez, but there's nothing in your statement that indicates that he or Alito are doing anything but follow the Constitution as written in this case.

    What, Gonzalez' statement that he "couldn't rule that out" says this to you? I don't see where his not wanting to make an absolute statement like that while testifying to Congress equates to ordering "wholesale warrantless spying."

    Here's why this appears like little but a partisan fight...

    This is what I'd want to know, and it's what I'd expect honest people trying to work toward a productive resolution would want to know:

    1. Who was tapped, on what justification, and was any information gathered used.

    2. How was information used?

    3. How was information used inappropriately?

    4. Was anyone actually harmed?

    If anyone were actually harmed, I'd want restitution for them. If there was an indication of the intent to do harm to the innocent, then I'd want people punished, especially the President.

    Then I'd want the law to be changed to clarify "who, what, where and how" for the future.

    That would be a productive inquiry. As it stands, there are a lot of blowhards trying to get more face time on CSPAN and score points for their parties. Whatever the outcome, I doubt that we the people of the US will end up better off.

    BTW shouldn't this be a Supreme Court case rather than a Congressional grandstand if it's a violation of the Constitution as people assert? If so, why isn't it?

    Tellner, though, lay off the bongloads. Hippie music and critical thinking are almost mutually exclusive.
     
  8. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    It's for those exact reasons that this info will forever be 'classified', so we can run into a hundred brick walls trying to plug the power gap.
     
  9. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Supreme Court.

    If Congress wants to see information it has the right to see and the President is withholding, it needs to go to the Supreme Court. Judicial Branch.

    Going on television with a stalemate accomplishes little but scoring partisan points. That's why it's disingenuous.
     
  10. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Ah, but times have changed, and we don't need to worry about getting a "knock on the door" anymore :)

    These days, they just don't bother knocking ... :uhoh:
     
  11. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    Hah!


    Biker
     
  12. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    This is why the Republican party will die. The Neo-Cons don't care about the constitution. Where do the Republicans who still want a free country go? The Dems. Right now I'm wondering who is worse for our liberties. Not who is better.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page