Al Gore: Impeach Bush

[I think not]

WC

The administration has been cryptic about their "spying", they should release the information required in order to ascertain if indeed it was illegal. They can out it to rest very easily and shut everyone up, why don't they do that?

 

[Curiosity]

ITN

Lost me on that one ... the very nature of international spying is that it must be kept top secret and out of the realm of public opinion and/or viewing.

Terrorism is a nasty business..... spying on the perceived enemy and/or innocent bystanders is also nasty business.

If we all knew how it was accomplished (if it was) and how it could be accomplished in the future, we would be disclosing many top secrets which would cost the agencies involved untold amounts of "less than plentiful" money. No doubt there are other nations involved as well as links to this network. You think it is okay for the U.S. to disclose their right to secrecy as well? To satisfy the howlers who haven't shown proof there is spying going on.... the innuendo is rich and thick as maple syrup.

For the legislative naysayers who are out their hooting "Tell us where the diamonds are buried...." makes as much sense and they don't seem to get it. It's a secret if it exists at all.

In my uninvolved and uneducated opinion: I believe there is some spying and wiretapping going on. And I don't care because I am not in the business of "hiding" things from my government - I am going through naturalization now and I think they probably know the name of my dentist or if not, they would be able to obtain it within a day or so. :roll:

 

[I think not]

WC

Federal law enforcement officials may tap telephone lines only after showing "probable cause" of unlawful activity and obtaining a court order. This unlawful activity must involve certain specified felony violations. The court order must limit the surveillance to communications related to the unlawful activity and to a specific period of time, usually 30 days. (Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2516)

Nasty business or not, we're still a country of laws, unless the President decides otherwise? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Curiosity]

ITN

No I am not saying we are a nation of law breakers. You are quoting for civil law enforcement, which has nothing to do with international spy operations - no doubt going on all the time without the knowledge of the public.

Spying can go on unless someone is actively and overtly charged because of wire-tapping or spying. That is what "spying" is.

What about the code breakers in WWII? Where they breaking some kind of personal laws???

Most of the information gleaned is probably garbage material anyway.

Clinton threw away much valuable information about binLaden and could have possibly prevented 9/11 from happening by the country upping its alert system regarding middle eastern people coming into the U.S. for purposes of terrorism. Matter of fact Clinton pretty much destroyed the intel during his residency separating the FBI and CIA from shared information. Now that should have been called up as causing imminent danger to the country. I see you are ignoring the Clintonian avoidance behavior well.

You are equating civil law enforcement people with military and international and presidential spy operations. To disclose their work would put the country at great risk....just to safisfy the ACLU and some angry legislators ???

Not in my book. Let them howl. As long as the work continues to proceed - if there is any nefarious "spying" going on at all and I am pretty certain there is, involving not ony the USA but other countries as well.

I repeat the US is at war. If you don't like it protest as loud as you wish and make it known that you believe it to be wrong and unconstitutional. I'll help you make the sign you can carry!

That is what is so great about democracy.

 

[Jay]

"In 1980 the Carter administration argued in the Truong case that the government could conduct domestic, warrantless wiretaps of conversations between a U.S. and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing on U.S. military intelligence to the North Vietnamese. The Supreme Court agreed."


Doesn't that spell it out plainly?

 

[Jay]

I'll help you make the sign you can carry!

I doubt he will need your help....He tells me he did very well in arts and crafts class.

 

[I think not]

WC

I am referring to domestic "wiretapping" and other spying. The President hasn't declared martial law which would temporarily put on hold all laws. Until he does that, civil law will prevail.

And yes I will speak out against it, and I do. I will not bow down under the premise I have done nothing wrong, so what is to fear? I fear the precedence it sets. I say no thanks.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Al Gore: Impeach Bush

"In 1980 the Carter administration argued in the Truong case that the government could conduct domestic, warrantless wiretaps of conversations between a U.S. and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing on U.S. military intelligence to the North Vietnamese. The Supreme Court agreed."


Doesn't that spell it out plainly?

Yes, it tells me Bush didn't bother taking up the issue to the Supreme Court, that's plain enough, thanks

 

[Jay]

Does he have to?

 

[jimmoyer]

Bush's major mistake was not getting unity on the
matter of the right mix of security and liberty.

He's a believer in protecting the nation and has
little patience for those who question him.

He's just going to have to relent enough to have
a little more patience by becoming a true leader
to get the kind of coalition that believes in the
right mix of security and liberty.

Even the perception of having gone too far will undo
anything good he has accomplished.

The ideas presented here are why some leaders
get away with it and others don't.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Al Gore: Impeach Bush

Does he have to?

What he has to do, is shut everybody up that he isn't breaking the law, to date he hasn't done that, other than being secretive about it. He doesn't have to necessarily go on a marketing campaign, he can invite those with doubts in the Senate, and show them behind closed doors whats going on, I would personally feel more at ease if there were a consensus from Congress rather than taking the Presidents word for it.

 

[Jay]

But from a legal point of view, it doesn't appear as if he is breaking the law. I think that's the real point here.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Al Gore: Impeach Bush

But from a legal point of view, it doesn't appear as if he is breaking the law. I think that's the real point here.

Legal verbage is misleading, and I don't pretend to profess in civil law. The issue here is, if the President of the United States, a defender of the the United States Constitution and United States Laws is breaking any of them. That's the issue, that's what the office of the Presidency is there to do, first and foremost.

EDIT: To add:

In the United States, the oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

If he can't do that, fuck him

 

[Jay]

Hmmm, I will have to do more reading on the subject....

 

[I think not]

I edited my post to save you the trouble.

 

[Curiosity]

ITN

Jim Moyer brought a thought to my empty head.... he used the word "perception" of doing wrong.

Did it occur to you at any time it is "perception" which is being howled about not the facts.

Where has he violated any laws?

Have you seen the violations written out in detail for a court to consider him as impeachable? Have charges been filed?

Of course not, because in so doing, the safety and security of the United States would be violated - another "promise" the president must make in order to carry out his job.

He's been treed by the howlers. If we should operate on suspicion and perception....we would all become mad within a presidency or two. Carrying guns to protect ourselves would be the order of the day and forums such as this would be where we get all our instructions and information.

The alternative would be protection against this mad "perception" and stay the course with the guy who does have the answers because the majority of the people have put their trust in him - and that is good enough for me.

So...if I am proven wrong in my trust.... I will be in the Andes somewhere ... hiding in this mist. 8)

 

[I think not]

ITN

Jim Moyer brought a thought to my empty head.... he used the word "perception" of doing wrong.

Did it occur to you at any time it is "perception" which is being howled about not the facts.

Yes, it has. So now I will use the cry of the right if I may. If he has nothing to hide, what does he fear by not coming forth and proving everyone wrong? Personally, I would love to see him prove everyone wrong, even though I don't like his policies, I will take some comfort from the fact he is defending the ideology of Americans, the United States Constitution.

It may be a piece of paper, but the ideas conveyed on that piece of paper is what unites Americans. It has kept Germans, Canadians, French, Australians, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Black, White, Purple and anyone else who has decided to live in the US being treated as an equal.

So forgive me if I seem a little protective of our Constitution, it is by that, which is a constant reminder, that we need to improve our democracy, as the betterment of it, never ends.

 

[Curiosity]

But but ITN

They want the "unanswerable" from George Bush the Younger...

These howlers want denial or confirmation - either of which will tip his most confidential information to the world.

It has to be the highest stake poker game in the world and you and I are the currency.

What kind of cardboard do you want? White or Red or Blue or ???

What color and font and size lettering?

 

[I think not]

No, they are playing politics, a phrase His Excellency King George the Second likes to use. So prove them wrong Mr Bush and show them they are playing politics, Americans are watching.

 

[Jay]

If he has nothing to hide, what does he fear by not coming forth and proving everyone wrong?

Of course not, because in so doing, the safety and security of the United States would be violated - another "promise" the president must make in order to carry out his job.