Gonzales offers legal bases for wire tapping

[Phasad1913]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/...e/gonzales_nsa

This is the most concrete of explanations I have heard so far attemting to provide a legal basis for Bush's wire tapping program. As a student currently studying Criminal Procedure, I agree with the professors at Georgetown Law, and totally disagree with the Atty. General. The main reason I will not longer give any credence to his argument is that he sat up there and said that the standard for acquiring a person's phone conversations is "reasonable basis", and that that standard is the same as that for probable cause. That's just not true. Furthermore, the whole point of Fourth Amendment guarantee's is that an objective magistrate or judge determine what is and is not reasonable, not a police officer in the general course of criminal investigating, and not the Executive in the course of executing his duties as president.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/...e/gonzales_nsa

This is the most concrete of explanations I have heard so far attemting to provide a legal basis for Bush's wire tapping program. As a student currently studying Criminal Procedure, I agree with the professors at Georgetown Law, and totally disagree with the Atty. General. The main reason I will not longer give any credence to his argument is that he sat up there and said that the standard for acquiring a person's phone conversations is "reasonable basis", and that that standard is the same as that for probable cause. That's just not true. Furthermore, the whole point of Fourth Amendment guarantee's is that an objective magistrate or judge determine what is and is not reasonable, not a police officer in the general course of criminal investigating, and not the Executive in the course of executing his duties as president.

Some law professors are so far up the ass of liberal Dems that they cannot approve of anything our President does.

I do not know if this applies to the Georgetown bunch.

I wish we could find out if any voted for Bush, if any are registered Republicans, and if any contributed to either party.

Basically, he's the President in time of war, and intercepting communications from the enemy during war is a pretty good idea.

Some call it "acquiring a person's phone conversations". I call it A-OK if one of the "persons" involved is an enemy with a record of using secret cells inside our country to topple the WTC on 9/11/01, killing 3,000+.

[Optimist Prime]

We're not at war. Not really. They use the term "war" but our country is not in a state of war. If we were in a state of war, a lot would be different. He's just using pretence to do whatever he wants.

[Optimist Prime]

When was war declared? ARe we in a state of war? On Afghanistan? That's over we won. On Iraq? That's over, we won. We still to clean up in both places, but the only person we really need to get is bin Laden. His org will crumble without him and we would've had him by now if the CIA was allowed to do their job.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Some law professors are so far up the ass of liberal Dems that they cannot approve of anything our President does.

And some folks approve of anything he does simply because of his party and office.

It's a good thing, I think, that we have a two party system, checks and balances within the government and a free press to keep track of all of them.

Absolute power does corrupt -- at least that's my opinion.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
And some folks approve of anything he does simply because of his party and office.

It's a good thing, I think, that we have a two party system, checks and balances within the government and a free press to keep track of all of them.

Absolute power does corrupt -- at least that's my opinion.

Name a single American president that you don't believe to have been corrupt, with or without absolute power.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
And some folks approve of anything he does simply because of his party and office.

It's a good thing, I think, that we have a two party system, checks and balances within the government and a free press to keep track of all of them.

Absolute power does corrupt -- at least that's my opinion.

I hope you're not including me in the "approve of anything" group. Bush and the Congress have betrayed conservatives who want smaller govt., reduced spending, and personal responsibility. Compared to the recent Dem candidates, Kerry and Gore, Bush is better.

I do think it's unfortunate, tho, that the libs and Dems have gotten control of the media and many of our campuses (and law schools), and are using that control to (can I say) brainwash our young people.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
We're not at war. Not really. They use the term "war" but our country is not in a state of war. If we were in a state of war, a lot would be different. He's just using pretence to do whatever he wants.

Would probably be a surprise to the dead and wounded to learn this.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Would probably be a surprise to the dead and wounded to learn this.

Wasn't it our President who declared the war over on an aircraft carrier a couple of years ago?

As for brainwashing, the best use of propaganda and control of information flow and the media today is the White House in my semi-learned opinion.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
Basically, he's the President in time of war, and intercepting communications from the enemy during war is a pretty good idea.

Sure it is.... with judical oversight and review - after all wasn't that one of the things the 'Founding Fathers' believed was fundamental to freedom and liberty? Checks and balances, to protect against arbitrary prosecution or denial of rights? to gaurd against tyranny?

Last I checked the Constitution applies to all, you can't pick and choose - and finally I always thought that the government and the President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - not to circumvent it.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Name a single American president that you don't believe to have been corrupt, with or without absolute power.

Oh, maybe Eisenhower.

Your point may be a good one, but it doesn't matter. Those things are past. This problem is present.

I agree with Rob's last comment above, and it's what I worrry about more now than I have since Nixon and, to some extent, Johnson.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Oh, maybe Eisenhower.

Your point may be a good one, but it doesn't matter. Those things are past. This problem is present.

I agree with Rob's last comment above, and it's what I worrry about more now than I have since Nixon and, to some extent, Johnson.

Yeah corruption is a problem in the past and wait...I guess the present...and I'm guessing the future.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Sure it is.... with judical oversight and review - after all wasn't that one of the things the 'Founding Fathers' believed was fundamental to freedom and liberty? Checks and balances, to protect against arbitrary prosecution or denial of rights? to gaurd against tyranny?

Last I checked the Constitution applies to all, you can't pick and choose - and finally I always thought that the government and the President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - not to circumvent it.

Wait it talks about NSA information vaccuming in the constitution? Or is that that Canadian interpretation?

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Wasn't it our President who declared the war over on an aircraft carrier a couple of years ago?

Bush's critics have tried to make a big deal out of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and it was for that ship and for toppling Saddam. Another part of the mission - establishing an Iraq govt. - continues with a lot of good stuff accomplished.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
As for brainwashing, the best use of propaganda and control of information flow and the media today is the White House in my semi-learned opinion.

I love the daily battle of the WH and its conservative supporters vs the lib media. Every week some new earthshaking accusation jumps up in the lib media (eavesdropping, Miers, Libby, Cindy, letters signed by machines, war profits at Haliburton, FBI visiting some lying college student, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and (check earlier N&P threads for the topic of the week).

Every week the fair and balanced media (such as there is: FOX, talk radio, Opinion Journal, AC, and a few newspapers) check out these eruptions, get the facts, and try to present the other side.

So far, the people are getting the info, and are voting more conservatives into office, and the election winners are appointing responsible judges.

The yellers and screamers are not winning, Thank God. Bye bye Cindy (now solving oil problems in Venezuela).

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
So far, the people are getting the info, and are voting more conservatives into office, and the election winners are appointing responsible judges.

"So far" being the operative words here. With even some of his GOP backers questioning some of the things going on at the moment, the mid-term elections will be pretty interesting.

I think it's possible there will be a backlash among we moderates who are a little weary of the conservative and Christian agendas being thrown at us.

I'm pretty damned tired of all the rhetoric, but I'm more afraid of the infringement(s) on personal liberties and expansion of executive power.