Welcome to PatsFans.com

Former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee talks about NSA

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInMaine, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It is testimony such as this that will make the Senate look like buffoons if they are intent on challenging the President on NSA wiretaps.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007848



    IMO, the President does have the Consitutional authority to conduct these wiretaps under Executive Power as has been previosly defined by the Courts. However, in the public debate that will take place in the Senate, public opinion will be won over more by testimony of people such as Ms. Toensing than by the technical questions concerning the scope of the Presidents powers. In many ways, the art of successful debate hinges on the ability to simplify arguments to a point where the public can understand. This is precisely why the President will prevail.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2006
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,459
    Likes Received:
    229
    Ratings:
    +358 / 15 / -12

    There is a minority of legal opinion that the President does have the Constitutional power to do pretty much whatever he pleases, but really the history of our nation has been to oppose unlimited powers. The column seems a bit disingenuous, since the author says that FISA is not adapted to the technological age, but why bother to change FISA since Congress will just turn any changes into a political football. That's pretty much unproven, especially in light of the bipartisan support for most of the post 9/11 measures. The article also leaves out what I read elsewhere--the administration can ask the FISA court for some latitude and flexibility.

    The real issue here is that we don't trust this administration to use its authority only to monitor terrorists. There's evidence that they've also monitored peace groups and political groups. That's what dictatorships do. Torture, kidnappings, wiretaps, lack of due process -- that's the America for the paranoid cowards of the right, but that's not an America worth dying for. We have to stand up and fight for our principles and our Constitution. I'd rather another terrorist act on American soil, then the end to our freedom.
     
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,695
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +825 / 2 / -9

    It is all a bunch of Crap, the sore losing liberal looney democrats have grabbed onto this for one reaasn and one reason only, "POLITICS" they are using it as a "weapon" to beat up Bush.

    If Kerry were the President and he "wiretapped" these phony jealous rats would be giving him a standing ovation.

    The Liberal Democrats are playing politics with your families lives.
    B astards.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2006
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    When you say "under Executive Power as has been previosly defined by the Courts." where, exactly, do you mean it's been defined by the courts? I'm not challenging you so much as wondering if there's precedent from a case that I'm not aware of. The closest precedent "for" the President's actions seem to be the recent case dealing with the President's rights to hold combatants, which is materially very different from this case, and the WWII-era case dealing with the interrment of Japanese-Americans, which is also different from this case.
     
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,459
    Likes Received:
    229
    Ratings:
    +358 / 15 / -12

    Harry, the wiretap issue is hardly a clearcut issue in favor of the Democrats or liberals. There are many people who, like you, are so paranoid that they would rather have a dictator who can ignore the Constitution, then have a system with checks and balances. On the other hand, there are many people across the political spectrum who are deeply concerned at the wiretapping because it is eroding the power of Congress and according the President powers more customary to kings. You are the one who is playing politics, pathetically using the same fear tactics that Bush uses. Unfortunately for you, though, there are principled people who think that fighting for America means fighting to protect freedom at home.
     
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Yadda yadda yadda, more words that sound like the rantings of a crazy old man. I'm getting tired of picking out credible arguments (which you make) out of all the paranoid-sounding forum theater you usually post. Can't you make a point without sounding nuts? More Ronald Reagan, less Bill O'Reilly.
     
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,695
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +825 / 2 / -9

    You all can bleat, whimper, slobber, wail, sob and moan all you want when it all dies down the fact is the President no matter who he may be has the right to do what Bush did in a time of war also congress gave Bush powers to do this after 9/11.

    If George Washington had "wires" he would have wiretapped, all Presidents do it and have done it AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT LONG AFTER WE ARE GONE.
    People will be killing each other forever, and they will listen to each other forever to try and find out if they can kill them before them kills they. When you are at war you like to know what your enemy plans on doing to you, "don't you"? :rocker:

    [GET BUSH-GET BUSH-GET BUSH]
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2006
  8. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Everything you're saying makes sense, except that the War On Terror is a perpetual war. It won't be won in any of our lifetimes. So does that mean that we have to give up privacy forever?

    If that's the case, how do we prevent abuses? Surely somebody down the road is going to use this power to spy on Americans for less-than-honorable purposes (like blackmailing political opponents). It probably won't be Bush, but somebody will abuse their discretion.

    I thought the point of FISA was to allow the President flexibility while providing for some checks and balances. If the President has unilateral authority to bypass FISA, who will check on the President's power? Congress can't do it because, usually, wiretap orders will be classified and not turned over to congress. So, really, what do you suggest is the solution?
     
  9. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It is hard to argue that FISA, being such an easy course of acquiring a warrant against international terrorism, is too strict to serve the executive. If you wanted to make that argument, the first question would obviously be "well why hasn't the republican majority in Congress changed the law to allow the executive greater power?"


    This opinion piece is another example of blaming the minority party for ther GOPs failures, or at the very least, attempting to revise the history of FISA to make it seem like its some huge hurdle for the NSA. Its not.

    The pro-unregulated wiretapping camp has no true conservatives in it. Merely reactionaries and neo-cons. And they will look like buffons when the testimony of the FISA court judge, who resigned as a result of this scandal, speaks before the Senate.
     
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I have some comments on this, but I want to wait until Harry Boy answers my last question (I don't want to side-track the conversation).
     
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,695
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +825 / 2 / -9

    I assume the question that you want answered is "what do I suggest is the solution" a very simple question to answer, DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT AMERICA AND ITS PEOPLE FROM EVER BEING ATTACKED ON AMERICAN SOIL AGAIN.
    If it should cause some abuse by a blackmailer or some women that is cheating on her husband, "so be it", the safety of the American people from "Nuclear Attack" is far more important than Joe Shmoe having the local cops listening to his "drug deals"

    Your right, these Fanatical Muslim Terrorists will be at war with us long after we are all gone and for as long as we have to fihgt them we should also be "LISTENING TO THEM"
     
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,459
    Likes Received:
    229
    Ratings:
    +358 / 15 / -12

    Harry, do you define protection as arresting and spying on you without a warrant? Do you define protection as torturing you to get information or imprisoning you in secret prisons? Is that what you mean by protect? If so, then I suppose you feel that Fidel Castro is a great protector. You feel safe because you figure you have no association with terrorists. But, just imagine if Clinton was as loony as Bush and tried to apply Bush's dictatorial policies against righties after the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Also, Harry, you don't really think that terrorists are so dumb as to assume their communications aren't being wiretapped (legally or otherwise)? I read that Al Qaida no longer uses cell phones (except to remotely blow up bombs) because they know that their phones are being tapped.

    Also, I notice you're concerned with saving lives on American soil. Is it because you're here, you don't think it's important to talk about saving American lives on foreign soil? A very selfish and anti-soldier attitude, but no surprise there.
     
  13. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Oh great, another whiney liberal troop killer heard from.

    We should send Murtha, Pelosi, and Uncle Teddy with this Franlin WIMP to the terrorists and see how they like it.

    The GREAT and HOLY PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH (Sent down from Heaven bu the SWEET BABY JESUS) would kick this SORE LOSER BENNY FRANLIN's A SS !

    THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!
    THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING!
     
  15. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    :bricks:


    Hey, isn't the NSA a part of the US military?
     
  16. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Excellent question, Patters. I'd really like to see Harry Boy answer it.

    Imagine that. What if every Christian in America had a permenant night-hours curfew after the Oklahoma City Bombing. According to what you've been sayinbg, Harry Boy, it would be OK as long as the President said it was necessary.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>