mainsail Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Everyone wants dangerous and guilty people to be locked up or executed. I don't think anyone disputes that. What we question are the methods that were used and the abandonment of the very principals that we are fighting for. If America abandons Habeas Corpus and the rule of law then who won the war on terror? This is the exact same false and trivial line you were spouting off when Gitmo first opened. You pretend to have learned precisely nothing from the long debate over this issue because you have no integrity. Here's another national security issue that you and other lying leftists pretend to be incapable of learning anything about: Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping Andy McCarthy National Review Online January 15' date=' 2008 The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review â?? the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance â?? has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. The power exists, the court is expected to reaffirm, even when the communications of American citizens are involved. The ruling, which was classified when made back in December, may be disclosed publicly as early as today. As the Times says (or, shall I say, concedes through gritted teeth?): "In validating the governmentâ??s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administrationâ??s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping." Yeah, it may. It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power â?? accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law â?? the Constitution â?? by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true. President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program â?? carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight â?? always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review. I have argued in favor of the program's legality, here on NRO and elsewhere, more times than I can count. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here). By the way, Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who is having his confirmation hearing today, attacked the Bush administration in a speech six months ago for having, among other allegations, "approved secret electronic surveillance against American citizens," a strategy Holder said was among the â??needlessly abusive and unlawful practicesâ? that showed we in the United States had â??lost our way with regard to [our'] commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law.â? Link Hmmm interesting RY. First, I never participated in any discussions when Gitmo was opened, and second I was talking about Habeas Corpus not surveillance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Everyone wants dangerous and guilty people to be locked up or executed. I don't think anyone disputes that. What we question are the methods that were used and the abandonment of the very principals that we are fighting for. If America abandons Habeas Corpus and the rule of law then who won the war on terror? This is the exact same false and trivial line you were spouting off when Gitmo first opened. You pretend to have learned precisely nothing from the long debate over this issue because you have no integrity. Here's another national security issue that you and other lying leftists pretend to be incapable of learning anything about: Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping Andy McCarthy National Review Online January 15' date=' 2008 The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review â?? the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance â?? has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. The power exists, the court is expected to reaffirm, even when the communications of American citizens are involved. The ruling, which was classified when made back in December, may be disclosed publicly as early as today. As the Times says (or, shall I say, concedes through gritted teeth?): "In validating the governmentâ??s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administrationâ??s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping." Yeah, it may. It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power â?? accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law â?? the Constitution â?? by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true. President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program â?? carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight â?? always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review. I have argued in favor of the program's legality, here on NRO and elsewhere, more times than I can count. (See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here). By the way, Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who is having his confirmation hearing today, attacked the Bush administration in a speech six months ago for having, among other allegations, "approved secret electronic surveillance against American citizens," a strategy Holder said was among the â??needlessly abusive and unlawful practicesâ? that showed we in the United States had â??lost our way with regard to [our'] commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law.â? Link Hmmm interesting RY. First, I never participated in any discussions when Gitmo was opened, and second I was talking about Habeas Corpus not surveillance. rogie doesn't believe in Habeas Corpus, that is a LEFTIST belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 ...I was talking about Habeas Corpus not surveillance. I said "another issue" and I was talking about a pattern of behavior. Learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 ...I was talking about Habeas Corpus not surveillance. I said "another issue" and I was talking about a pattern of behavior. Learn to read. rogie doesn't believe in Habeas Corpus, that is a LEFTIST belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 How is gitmo's existence any difference then what the USSR had in Siberia during the Cold War? I am sometimes slightly curious as to how stupid you actually are and how much this is an act. Slightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 rogie, what I said was "rogie, if the people don't want gitmo, should gitmo disappear under our form of government? How is gitmo's existence any difference then what the USSR had in Siberia during the Cold War? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 How is gitmo's existence any difference then what the USSR had in Siberia during the Cold War? I am sometimes slightly curious as to how stupid you actually are and how much this is an act. Slightly. Those that were sent to Siberia by the USSR' date=' where they given trials? Where they all guilty? Those that were sent to [strike']Siberia[/strike]Gitmo by the USSR, where they given trials? Where they all guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mainsail Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 ...I was talking about Habeas Corpus not surveillance. I said "another issue" and I was talking about a pattern of behavior. Learn to read. "Pattern of Behavior"??? Now you sound like my Mother. "Learn to Read"?? Maybe you should take your own advice since you changed the subject. But since you changed the subject... the surveillance that people object to is spying on Americans within America, not overseas communications. If you are ok with spying on Americans without a warrant then you must think that all government employees and politicians involved with this are honest and would never do this for personal, financial or political purposes. Now that your group is not in power anymore then you would be ok with the new group of employees and politicians taking power spying on you since you espouse beliefs they may deem "Un-American" in their interpretation? Well I am not ok with that RY whether they are spying on you or me or anyone else who is not a threat to national security. I do not have enough trust in government employees to have that much latitude. Get a warrant! It's not that hard if there is probable cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALHOLK Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 How is gitmo's existence any difference then what the USSR had in Siberia during the Cold War? They don't speak Russian at Gitmo.? ALHOLK P.S. It's probably colder in Siberia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 "Pattern of Behavior"??? Now you sound like my Mother. She may have been right about some stuff. ... the surveillance that people object to is spying on Americans within America, not overseas communications. False. The communications at issue here are those that originate overseas from sources suspected of being terrorists. Get a warrant! It's not that hard if there is probable cause. In the ruling being publicised today the court has found that the U.S. Constitution does not require a warrant for these interceptions, just as the Bush Administration has been saying all along, and just as every previous administration has held. Learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.