Gonzales' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since no one who supports the warrantless wiretapping has addressed my question, I'm going to repost it in large, red, boldfaced type:

Those of you who support the administration's warrantless wiretaps, please reread the transcripts from Gonzales' appearance and engage in the following intellectual exercise:

Imagine this is the AG from a future Democratic administration, and the topic is the warrantless wiretapping of gun owners. Considering gun owners potential terrorists is not so far fetched, since more Americans die of gun violence each year than have ever been killed by terrorists, and if this precedent is allowed to stand, we will see the practice of warrantless wiretaps spread like cancer.

In this scenario, are you still willing to support a program of warrantless wiretapping?


That'll learn you to ignore my requests.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
In this scenario, are you still willing to support a program of warrantless wiretapping?
Click to expand...

I would be willing to support warrantless tinfoil confiscation.
 
BostonGeorge said:
So you wouldn't support the action but you support executive power to make that decision?
Click to expand...

The premise of Lobotomy Boy's theoretical question is a bit skewed but I understand the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, he makes assumtions such that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is really not applicable nor possible... Initially, he starts with "Those of you who support the administration's warrantless wiretaps," of which I can only agree with first seven words! Secondly, he assumes a fallacy in logic; i.e., a future democratic administration (that's a big jump)! Lastly, he puts four words together that shouldn't ever go together, particularly on a Gun Supporters Discussion Board; i.e., "gun owners potential terrorists." I threw him a bone by saying yes with a ;)... Should Lobotomy Boy recast the scenario with a realistic plot twist (and smaller font) the idea might generate serious replies!
 
CD, ya ol' SOB:) , concerning LB's alleged fallacy concerning a future Dem administration, are you saying that it will never happen? Also, if that were true, it seems that you're intimating that every future Repub POTUS would be worthy of trust. Am I off base?
Biker
 
Camp David said:
The premise of Lobotomy Boy's theoretical question is a bit skewed but I understand the point he is trying to make. Unfortunately, he makes assumtions such that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is really not applicable nor possible... Initially, he starts with "Those of you who support the administration's warrantless wiretaps," of which I can only agree with first seven words! Secondly, he assumes a fallacy in logic; i.e., a future democratic administration (that's a big jump)! Lastly, he puts four words together that shouldn't ever go together, particularly on a Gun Supporters Discussion Board; i.e., "gun owners potential terrorists." I threw him a bone by saying yes with a ;)... Should Lobotomy Boy recast the scenario with a realistic plot twist (and smaller font) the idea might generate serious replies!
Click to expand...


With all due respect, that entire post came off as a weak attempt at brushing the issue aside.

At some point, there will be a democratic president. Might not be 2008, might not be the next term or the term after that, but it will happen. Unless this practice of warrantless wiretapping is stopped, it is logical to assume that it just may continue into future presidencies for a variety of reasons.

As a threat vector for domestic terrorism, firearms owners are certainly not at the top, but then again, according to the VPC we're all murderers and might lash out and kill at any minute. If the plan was to confiscate the majority of the guns in this country by charging nearly all gun owners with a crime, it's not hard to presume how secret, warrantless wiretaps without oversight might figure into that strategy.
 
Biker said:
Am I off base?
Click to expand...
Is your kickstand down?

NineseveN said:
At some point, there will be a democratic president. Might not be 2008, might not be the next term or the term after that, but it will happen...
Click to expand...
;)

NineseveN said:
... it's not hard to presume how secret, warrantless wiretaps without oversight might figure into that strategy....
Click to expand...
Grasping at straws?

Let me tell you something you already know; the GOP, more than any other political party, knows all too well that among their core and base supporters, the most prevalent characteristic among them all is strong support for the Second Amendment. After Al Gore's loss in 2000, I would say that DNC knows this just as well. My opinion: It would be political suicide to engage in what you are speculating, for any politician, of any party.
 
My opinion: It would be political suicide to engage in what you are speculating, for any politician, of any party.
Click to expand...

I wish I shared your opinion, CD, but I don't. At the pace change occurs in our society today, I don't think a chain of unforseen events unfolding that would lead to a reactionary liberal regime abusing the powers the Bush administration has garnered for the executive branch in order to criminalize gun ownership.

I don't know how old you are, but I assume you must be at least my age, and must be old enough to remember Watergate. At the very least you seem to know enough about history to be aware of the dramatic changes in the U.S. political climate that occured between 1973, when Nixon triumphantly began his second term after defeating McGovern in a landslide victory, and 1977, when Jimmy Carter moved into the Oval Office. In just four years the entire political landscape had been turned upside down. Actions that would have been unthinkable in 1973 were commonplace by 1977.

I predict we are in for that sort of sea change again. I see the end result of the hamfisted way the Bush administration has run this country leading to a reactionary swing to the political left. I fully expect at least a few high-level indictments of key Bush administration officials and perhaps even an impeachment hearing if the sea change begins early enough to put Democrats in power in Congress next fall. I predict this because the administration is handling each new crisis in the same arrogant, high-handed manner that created these situations in the first place.

Personally I would like to see Bush take a play from the Reagan play book: admit it made mistakes, apologize, promise to correct those mistakes, and then move on. It worked for Reagan. Unfortunately our current president is a far cry from Ronald Reagan.
 
Why have all this wiretapping when Osama is living in San Francisco anyway he walked across the border like everyone else. Then he went to a place where only he would have guns.:neener:
 
I would completely and totally support a Democratic president ordering the NSA to do wiretaps on people speaking by phone with known Al Qaeda operatives overseas.

That's what's at issue here.

I think Gonzalez is a statist pig. I don't want to have a beer with him, and I think he was a crappy choice for AG (though far better than Janet Reno). But so what? This is not ABOUT Alberto Gonzalez. This is about the NSA doing what the NSA is SUPPOSED to do with our tax money, in the very context in which it is supposed to be doing it.
 
To say that the "warrantless wiretapping" is illegal under FISA is to say that FISA supercedes Article 2 of the Constitution as to the Prez being the CinC. He's supposed to wiretap enemies in a time of war. Al Qaida sure ain't our friend. bush doesn't even need those Congresional resolutions which have blessed the power he already has under Article 2.

All this Congressional fussing and feuding is nothing but the Outs trying to mess up the Ins in the unending battle to see who wins out in the numbers game and thereby controls federal spending. It has zilch to do with law or Constitution or Iraq or Al Qaida. Strictly about efforts to regain power. The Democrats, right now, are merely using this particular "wiretap" thing to make the Administration and the Republicans look bad, hoping to make gains in the next election. If there's no blowback, they'll seize some other event in a week or three and set up more whoop-tee-do.
 
Art Eatman said:
To say that the "warrantless wiretapping" is illegal under FISA is to say that FISA supercedes Article 2 of the Constitution as to the Prez being the CinC. He's supposed to wiretap enemies in a time of war. Al Qaida sure ain't our friend. bush doesn't even need those Congresional resolutions which have blessed the power he already has under Article 2.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges, Art.

Leaving aside my argument that, rhetoric be damned, we are not at war because the Congress has not declared a war, let's focus on the CinC stuff. Commander-in-Chief ... of what? OF THE MILITARY. You are ex-military, I believe, so you must have had that chain of command stuff burned into your brain during basic training just as I did. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

But ... the NSA is not part of the armed forces, it is not part of the Department of Defense. The NSA is a civilian agency that falls under the purview of the Executive Branch. UCMJ does not apply. War powers do not apply, at least not in any way speaking to the President as CinC.

The NSA is administrative/executive, not military. CinC simply doesn't have anything to do with this. Beyond the military, the President is not the "Commander in Chief," he is the "Chief Executive." There's a huge difference.
 
Art Eatman said:
To say that the "warrantless wiretapping" is illegal under FISA is to say that FISA supercedes Article 2 of the Constitution as to the Prez being the CinC. He's supposed to wiretap enemies in a time of war. Al Qaida sure ain't our friend. bush doesn't even need those Congresional resolutions which have blessed the power he already has under Article 2.

All this Congressional fussing and feuding is nothing but the Outs trying to mess up the Ins in the unending battle to see who wins out in the numbers game and thereby controls federal spending. It has zilch to do with law or Constitution or Iraq or Al Qaida. Strictly about efforts to regain power. The Democrats, right now, are merely using this particular "wiretap" thing to make the Administration and the Republicans look bad, hoping to make gains in the next election. If there's no blowback, they'll seize some other event in a week or three and set up more whoop-tee-do.
Click to expand...
Yep, whether I like it or not, what GWB is doing is withing the scope of his Constitutionally granted powers. I guess that is just one more instance that libertarianism is not completely in line with the US Constitution. The difference between a document meant to work in the real world of and a platform not meant to exist outside the ivory tower.

Gotta remember: the US Constitution is not a suicide pact.
 
Hawkmoon said:
But ... the NSA is not part of the armed forces, it is not part of the Department of Defense. The NSA is a civilian agency that falls under the purview of the Executive Branch. UCMJ does not apply. War powers do not apply, at least not in any way speaking to the President as CinC.
Click to expand...

Uh... the NSA IS part of the Armed Forces and it IS a part of the Department of Defense - that is why the director of the NSA is a General. The NSA is the successor to the Armed Forces Security Agency. Many of the NSA members ARE military and the UCMJ does apply to them. The argument that the NSA is not part of the military simply has no basis in reality.

I think a better point is that while the President certainly has the authority to conduct foreign intelligence under Article 2 of the Constitution, that right does not trump the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Americans talking to people who we reasonably believe to be foreign agents or terrorists is one thing. A fishing expedition where anyone talking to foreigners has their conversations monitored on the off chance they end up talking to a terrorist or foreign agent sounds like a pretty severe 4th Amendment violation to me.
 
Re: the "at war" stuff.

We're "at war" with terrorists like we're "at war" with poverty and drugs.

War ain't been declared. I think the founders had a more concrete definition of the word than we're using.
 
Lobotomy Boy -- #76
In this scenario, are you still willing to support a program of warrantless wiretapping?
Click to expand...

Yes, although I don't agree that "warrantless wiretapping" is an accurate description of radio intercepts of international signals carrying phone conversations and email.

I think the crux of this matter was summed up early on.

Malone LaVeigh -- #46
I wouldn'y expect privacy if I set up a soapbox on Main Street and started ranting, but I would be very disturbed to hear that the government was recording me and preserving the recordings until such a time as someone in this or some future administration wants to use it. Just because I exercise my free speech, doesn't mean I want to give the government the power to use it against me.
Click to expand...

You see, I wouldn't be disturbed (except from the point of view of a tax payer because of the huge expense). Let's suppose you said something in public and a reporter quoted you in the newspaper (or even misquoted you). 10 or 20 years later someone could get that newspaper out of the library and use it against you. That's the same thing, and it could have happened 200 years ago.

If you're not saying anything you're ashamed of, then you've got nothing to worry about. Is anyone protesting the history THR keeps of all our old posts? Is anyone worrying about someone data-mining through our old threads to use our words against us? If you're not worried about any of us knowing what you said, then why is it so scary to imagine the government knowing?
 
YES, I still support the wire taps. I'll worry about future administrations when they get in office.
In the meantime, I applaud President Bush for doing the right things and not letting polls or Congress keep him from doing them.

Jerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Warrantless Wiretapping Program Brought Under FISA Court
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
gm
G
C
  • Locked
Gonzales supports the AWB
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
5K
longeyes
L
T
  • Locked
pass the tinfoil and BOHICA
Replies
7
Views
584
Lobotomy Boy
L
X
  • Locked
Bush calls for easier wiretap rules
2 3
Replies
56
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
W
  • Locked
AG nominee supports assault weapons ban
Replies
10
Views
578
Ironbarr
I
Back
Top