- May 22, 2004
- 2,179
- 0
- 0
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/01/gore_president_.html
He hits it right on the head IMO
He hits it right on the head IMO
Gore,s speech
- Thread starter oldman420
- Start date
WoooHoooo, does he ever blast Bush, and rightfully so!! I just hope the handwriting is on the wall for Bush.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
i wouldn't be so sure about that, i don't see how his own party could impeach him without hurting themselves and the democrats don't seem to be taking advantage of the situation. in 2008 i could see a mccain/guiliani ticket getteting the republican another 4 years.
Get real, Organized Chaos. By the time 2008 rolls around, the country will be so sick of the Neocons that anybody who ever supported them won't have a prayer at getting into the Whitehouse... That means McCain and Guiliani.
Well, that's if the Bushies haven't started WW3, declared Martial Law and suspended elections...
Well, that's if the Bushies haven't started WW3, declared Martial Law and suspended elections...
I agree, I liked McCain starting with the 2000 primaries, then Rove slandered him and Bush got the nomination. Roll ahead to 2004 and McCain was supporting Bush, I lost all respect for McCain at that point. Same with Powell, but then he went to work for Bush and IMHO is now tainted goods .... the list goes on. Bush's touch will mean the death of alot of political careers.
Btw, yes, it was a good speech. In 2000 Gore came off as inexperienced, but in the last 5 years he seems to have matured quite a bit (politically speaking), not sure if he ever plans on running again.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
I looked up this issue because it would be concerning if president Bush is acting illegally. Quite definitely he should not even if it is in the interest of the country. The argument that had been advanced that authorization to wage war gave the president the necessary power seeed very week. But other argments seem quite good, and now I think the position that wiretapping is legal looks pretty strong, but I am by no means competent to understand all the legal issues.
John Schmidt of the Chicago Tribune:
In the Supreme Court?s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president?s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that ?All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority.?
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ?agent of a foreign power,? which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law?s procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ?FISA could not encroach on the president?s constitutional power.?
John Schmidt of the Chicago Tribune:
In the Supreme Court?s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president?s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that ?All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority.?
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ?agent of a foreign power,? which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law?s procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ?FISA could not encroach on the president?s constitutional power.?
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If it wasnt for Gore, we wouldnt have Anandtech......
Come on, the whole internet misquote has been beat to death just because no one had any real dirt on Gore (other than his wife). Rush still quotes it to this day if that tells you anything.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
I think it's just because we've been reading his words more than listening to them. Gore has a bad stage presence. He's not exactly a spring chicken and he's been around enough that I think he was already about as mature as a politician as he's ever gonna get back in 2000.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
You mean its legal for the President to have a call originating in America and terminating in a foriegn country be wiretapped??
That cant be...The Democratic Party wouldnt lie to us.......
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Enlighten us please.
You seem to have made up you mind, please share in detail why you think so, I myself am happy to see what the courts decide (since I'm not a lawyer).
Of course even if everything is perfectly legal, the administration should have acted to eliminate any doubt by presenting a clear legal argument immediately. It should have had it already prepared in case the question came up. Instead there is some confusion and that is not good for confidence in the law.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
It has nothing to do with "enlightening" you, it just has to do with political positioning, just like it always is.
This tapping stuff has been going on in one form or another for decades. There was a program in the 60's, which evolved again in the 70's Cant remember the names of them right off though.
The latest incarnation of these wiretaps was Carnivore. Remember that? Where was the political outcry in the 60's? How about the 70's? 80's? 90's? What about the stuff under Clinton? Didnt see much hussle and bussle about Carivore.
But NOW people care. That really pisses me off. The politicans dont care until they can use it as a political weapon. But if its not in their best interest to bring it up....mums the word.
That PISSES me off, badly. They should have cracked down on this decades ago.
And further more, Gore is a lying son of a bitch to even bring up any Constitutional infrignements. Piss off with that crap. Why dont the Dem;s give a damn about the 2nd? Oh no, cant have guns, gotta take those off the streets. Doing that isnt a Constitutional infringement, nope not at all. So what we have is politicians screaming "Constitutional Infringement!" only when it can benefit their agenda. Ok, so we now pick and choose which Rights the people are allowed to have? Last time I checked, the our founding documents laid our our rights, ALL of our rights, and were not set up so we can pick and choose which ones the politicians think we need.
Which brings me back to my point.
Goddamn hypocritical politicians. :|
Nice try at dodging the issue. The issue is ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS wiretaps. SO tear apart former VP Gores speech if you can. Documentation will be accepted.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter