Democratic Concessions Are Expected on Wiretapping

[First]

Moral of the story is that disclosure of intelligence programs to the legislative branch is a bare minimum prerequisite to a free democractic state intent on following the rule of law. Otherwise the executive can make decisions on a whim, without oversight, whenever he or she wishes. If you're a critical reader, you would have been able to glean from day one that the issue with the NSA program was that it was warrantless, illegal, and set a dangerous precedent. Much like the Libby trial, neoconservatives show their inability to grasp vital gov't intelligence concepts.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Personally I think the Democrats are worthless cowardly scum who fear standing up for the Constitution of the United States because the Republicans will call them names like traitors. They make me puke. They are afraid of being called traitors and so they get called worms and deserve it fully. Why vote for a Democrat when they stand for nothing. Of course you can vote for a Republican because they stand for sh!t.

Pretty much.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You lefties missed the point of this thread.

1. The Democrat leadership is worthless and can not accomplish anything major that they want too.

2. Despite all the bitching, moaning and groaning over the Wiretap program the Democrats aren?t even going to try and stop the program. Which seems to illustrate that all that bitching and moaning was only for political consumption and that when it came time to vote they know as well as the Republicans that some type of program like this needs to be in place.

I'd say the moral of the story is that the politicians we have from either party don't respect the Constitution and need to go.

I'd say they do respect the Constitution because I don't think many of the original authors wrote the Constitution with all the technicalities of global electronic eavesdropping issues in mind. Additionally, even the authors of the Constitution, or at least one or two of them, never imagined that its contents wouldn't occasionally have to be reinterpreted for the time. Obviously, I'm a believer in a living Constitution.

That's the same argument that has been used since the Constitution was written. The founders (who lived in far more dangerous times than we) wished citizens to have certain protections from the government. The danger of the "living" constitution argument is that virtually everyone can make an argument for almost anything. It's the governments responsibility to follow the Constitution just like we citizens have to follow the law.

How about a living speed limit interpretation? I don't think that people who made the laws took into account how wonderfully modern cars can steer and brake, and therefore I am free to disregard it.

If someone doesn't like the Constitution, change it.

It's pretty clear that the founding fathers, as smart as they were, couldn't anticipate technology of cultural changes 200 years later. But rather than a "living" constitution, I think a more reasonable way to deal with new situations is to look at the document for a key to how the framers WOULD deal with modern issues in the context of their founding beliefs. They may not have had phones and email back then, but what they DID have was houses and property...and it's pretty clear how they felt about the privacy of the home. It's not too much of a step to think they would have felt the same way about wiretapping as they did about physical searches.

The constitution spells out some specifics, but more than that, it serves best as a framework for decision making. Arguing the literal wording for specific instances of issues misses a lot of the point, it's pretty clear what the intention of most of the constitution was.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Looks like the gov't can data mine all it wants, but it's the simple things that will prevent or minimize the impact of terrorist attacks. And people wonder why the Congress has a 3% approval rating.

Data/phone mining is feel good medicine but it won't cure a damn thing and its potential for misuse is great. The TelCos are sucking up entire phone and data streams - ""drift-netting"" - for the NSA across the USA.

Hayden can then stand up and with a straight face say, "The gov't is not *drift-netting* domesticly."

If you are not angry you ain't paying attention to what is going on . . .

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Looks like the gov't can data mine all it wants, but it's the simple things that will prevent or minimize the impact of terrorist attacks. And people wonder why the Congress has a 3% approval rating.

Data/phone mining is feel good medicine but it won't cure a damn thing and its potential for misuse is great. The TelCos are sucking up entire phone and data streams - ""drift-netting"" - for the NSA across the USA.

Hayden can then stand up and with a straight face say, "The gov't is not *drift-netting* domesticly."

If you are not angry you ain't paying attention to what is going on . . .

Well since most people get their national security knowledge from watching '24' (or so it seems), I'm not too surprised few people get it.

 

[ProfJohn]

The legislation significantly reduced the role of the foreign intelligence court and broadened the N.S.A.?s ability to listen in on foreign-based communications without a court warrant.

If this is a bill that allows the NSA to listen into phones calls between two people both in foreign countries then I have no problem with the bill at all.

It is possible now that someone in Yemen who picks up the phone and calls Pakistan may see that phone call routed through some office in America. Under the previous law the NSA could not listen into that phone call without the courts permission. The idea of the law passed in August, and amended here, is to allow the NSA the ability to listen into phone calls like that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You lefties missed the point of this thread.

1. The Democrat leadership is worthless and can not accomplish anything major that they want too.

2. Despite all the bitching, moaning and groaning over the Wiretap program the Democrats aren?t even going to try and stop the program. Which seems to illustrate that all that bitching and moaning was only for political consumption and that when it came time to vote they know as well as the Republicans that some type of program like this needs to be in place.

I'd say the moral of the story is that the politicians we have from either party don't respect the Constitution and need to go.

I'd say they do respect the Constitution because I don't think many of the original authors wrote the Constitution with all the technicalities of global electronic eavesdropping issues in mind. Additionally, even the authors of the Constitution, or at least one or two of them, never imagined that its contents wouldn't occasionally have to be reinterpreted for the time. Obviously, I'm a believer in a living Constitution.

That's the same argument that has been used since the Constitution was written. The founders (who lived in far more dangerous times than we) wished citizens to have certain protections from the government. The danger of the "living" constitution argument is that virtually everyone can make an argument for almost anything. It's the governments responsibility to follow the Constitution just like we citizens have to follow the law.

How about a living speed limit interpretation? I don't think that people who made the laws took into account how wonderfully modern cars can steer and brake, and therefore I am free to disregard it.

If someone doesn't like the Constitution, change it.

Speed limits aren't open to interpretation. The Constitution is interpreted and has besn since its inception. Even the Founding Fathers themselves interpreted and reinterpreted portions of it during their own lifetimes.

I'd find it far, far more scary for anyone to change the Constitution than to argue over how what's already there should be interpreted. At least with arguing interpretation the basic concepts always remain.

 

[StageLeft]

The republicans have been a mess. The heroes on their magnificent steeds are no better, and that makes them worse because they promised to be better. This is why I want the republicans to lose the next election, but also the dems. I guess I cannot have both, but I wish it to bring pause to the democratic sycophants who see this pitiful party as their saviours and rest their hopes and dreams on a demonstrably incompetent rabble.

Personally I think the Democrats are worthless cowardly scum who fear standing up for the Constitution of the United States because the Republicans will call them names like traitors. They make me puke. They are afraid of being called traitors and so they get called worms and deserve it fully. Why vote for a Democrat when they stand for nothing. Of course you can vote for a Republican because they stand for sh!t.

You've become more of a misanthrope than I ever want to be, but in that furious hatred comes poignancy and I think you're exactly right. 🙂 I think there was a compliment in there 😱

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You know a chord has been struck when all the usual BDS puffers have chimed in already with nothing but ad homs.

What else is new? :laugh:

With elections coming up the Dems are too afraid to take an anti-anything stance in regard to the WoT so they are pandering once again, their usual MO.

Yep. But with MoveOn looming so large, can they continue that way? Or will they be forced to turn hard to the left?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yep. But with MoveOn looming so large, can they continue that way? Or will they be forced to turn hard to the left?

The Dems will lick their finger and hold it high to see which way the wind is blowing in any particular week before they make any policy statements. But the GOP are no different in that respect. It's just the way of politics.