Gore,s speech

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Umm, "syping" nonsense? Man, people in Germany said the EXACT SAME KINDS OF THINGS... they had to learn the hard way... Good thing we teach history in schools!

Yeah, nonsense is exactly what it is. If you have a problem with the President protecting this country from terrorists, please state so and explain why.
...

It's interesting that you phrase it this way...but it brings up an interesting question, where is the line? As long as the President is "protecting the country from terrorists" (or claims he is, how would you know the difference?), is anything acceptable? Or is there a line somewhere, where even protecting the country from terrorists isn't worth the price?

I only ask because, shockingly enough, you guys always seem to present the argument as "but Bush is protecting the country!". Fair enough, but surely even for guys like you, there is a limit to how far you think Bush should go in protecting us from terrorism. The only real difference is where we all think that line is...

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Even the Quasi-Partisan David Broder is taking Gore's side on this.

Op/Ed Piece

<WashPost>

Former vice president Al Gore has turned himself into a one-man grand jury, ready to indict the Bush administration for any number of crimes against the Constitution. Whether you agree with Gore's conclusions or not, the speech that the 2000 Democratic nominee for president gave this week in Washington was as comprehensive a rundown of George W. Bush's ventures to the limits of executive authority as anyone could hope to find.

Gore is hardly an objective observer. Having outpolled Bush in the popular vote only to see his apparent victory taken from him by a divided Supreme Court, Gore cannot be expected to be dispassionate about the way Bush is operating as president. His speech is just an indictment. The proof of the charges can come only in congressional hearings and, ultimately, in the courts.

But even after discounting for political motivations, it seems to me that Gore has done a service by laying out the case as clearly and copiously as he has done. His overall charge is that Bush has systematically broken the laws and bent the Constitution by his actions in the areas of national security and domestic anti-terrorism. He is not the first to make that complaint. My e-mail has included many messages from people who have leaped far ahead of the evidence and concluded that Bush should be impeached and removed from office for actions they deem illegal.

Gore stops well short of that point and contents himself with citing the cases that cause many others concern. The first -- and to my mind weakest -- instance is the claim that Bush took the nation to war on the basis of false intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But there is no clear evidence as yet that Bush willfully concocted or knowingly distorted the intelligence he received about Saddam Hussein's military programs. Interpretations of that intelligence varied within the government, but the Clinton administration, of which Gore was an important part, came to the same conclusions that Bush did -- and so did other governments in the Western alliance.

It is a reach to attempt to make a crime of a policy misjudgment.

But the other cases Gore cited are more troubling. The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, for which only low-level military personnel have been punished, traces back through higher and untouched levels of command to the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House, all of which failed in their duties to ensure that the occupation forces were adhering to recognized international standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Similarly, the administration's resistance to setting and enforcing clear prohibitions on torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism raises legitimate questions about its willingness to adhere to the rule of law. From the first days after Sept. 11, Bush has appeared to believe that he is essentially unconstrained. His oddly equivocal recent signing statement on John McCain's legislation banning such tactics seemed to say he could ignore the plain terms of the law.

If Judge Samuel Alito is right that no one is above the law, then Bush's supposition deserves to be challenged.

Gore's final example -- on which he has lots of company among legal scholars -- is the contention that Bush broke the law in ordering the National Security Agency to monitor domestic phone calls without a warrant from the court Congress had created to supervise all such wiretapping. If -- as the Justice Department and the White House insist -- the president can flout that law, then it is hard to imagine what power he cannot assert.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter has summoned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to a hearing on the warrantless wiretap issue, and that hearing should be the occasion for a broad exploration of the willingness of this administration to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws.

The committee should keep the attorney general on the witness stand as long as it takes -- as long as it spent examining the qualifications of Judge Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, if it comes to that. The stakes for the country are that high.

Gore is certainly right about one thing. When he challenged the members of Congress to "start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be," he was issuing a call of conscience that goes well beyond any partisan criticism.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You can't prove that they have only tapped terrorists. That is why people are arguing about this!!

And you (nor your liberal friends) cannot prove otherwise. So isn't this all this just a ridiculous debate?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You can't prove that they have only tapped terrorists. That is why people are arguing about this!!

And you (nor your liberal friends) cannot prove otherwise. So isn't this all this just a ridiculous debate?

We could if the Bush administration would just do something differently for a change......

That "thing" is to actually RELEASE THE FREAKING INFORMATION!!!!
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
It's interesting that you phrase it this way...but it brings up an interesting question, where is the line? As long as the President is "protecting the country from terrorists" (or claims he is, how would you know the difference?), is anything acceptable? Or is there a line somewhere, where even protecting the country from terrorists isn't worth the price?

We've always had to balance, in this country, our civil liberties against national security. Obviously, post-9/11, that balance has tilted further towards the latter. But there has always had to be a balance, and there always will be. For me, personally, there is no "magic line" to be crossed. I believe the President, as mandated by the Constitution, has absolute authority to protect this country from terrorists, by whatever means necessary.

I only ask because, shockingly enough, you guys always seem to present the argument as "but Bush is protecting the country!". Fair enough, but surely even for guys like you, there is a limit to how far you think Bush should go in protecting us from terrorism. The only real difference is where we all think that line is...

The bolded statement is true, for the most part. But there's too many (many of them here) who refuse to acknowledge that we are at war, that the President has certain authority as derived from the Constitution (It is fair to debate what and how much, but not the fact that some authority does exist), or even (sadly) that terrorism is a threat. If you don't see and recognize that threat, there is no "magic line" to be crossed.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
We could if the Bush administration would just do something differently for a change......

That "thing" is to actually RELEASE THE FREAKING INFORMATION!!!!

Well, at least you finally admit that you have no factual basis for your arguments.

Secondly, are you advocating that we ought to release every detail on every single thing that is done in the line of National Security?
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
We could if the Bush administration would just do something differently for a change......

That "thing" is to actually RELEASE THE FREAKING INFORMATION!!!!

Well, at least you finally admit that you have no factual basis for your arguments.

Secondly, are you advocating that we ought to release every detail on every single thing that is done in the line of National Security?
fallacious conservative argument alert!

you just committed another slippery slope fallacy. And your leading questions are insufferable. That doesn't win you an argument, it just makes you look like you are full of hot air.

however

Since you have already admitted that you have no factual basis for your arguments as well then your penance will ONLY be to recite 100 hail mary's whilst crawling on your knees to church this sunday.

thank you. :)


 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
We could if the Bush administration would just do something differently for a change......

That "thing" is to actually RELEASE THE FREAKING INFORMATION!!!!

Well, at least you finally admit that you have no factual basis for your arguments.

Secondly, are you advocating that we ought to release every detail on every single thing that is done in the line of National Security?
fallacious conservative argument alert!

you just committed another slippery slope fallacy. And your leading questions are insufferable. That doesn't win you an argument, it just makes you look like you are full of hot air.

Thanks for the helping hand OB.

Pabby knows that you just caught him in his own trap. He is right in saying that I/we have no evidence as to the exent of Bush's snooping authorization. But he doesn't have d*ck either but still spouts off his defense of everything Bush nonetheless.

I will play along and answer your question though Pabby.

Am I advocating that we ought to release every detail on every single thing that is done in the line of National Security? Emphatically......YES!!

There are oversight committees and parameters that are set up for these very reasons and cases. I am advocating that Bush actually follow his 42 predecessors and actually utilize them.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You can't prove that they have only tapped terrorists. That is why people are arguing about this!!

And you (nor your liberal friends) cannot prove otherwise. So isn't this all this just a ridiculous debate?

Gee, why is it I have a problem trusting this asshat we call President? Oh yeah, see my sig for the answer. I can tell he is lying because his mouth is moving. :laugh:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You can't prove that they have only tapped terrorists. That is why people are arguing about this!!

And you (nor your liberal friends) cannot prove otherwise. So isn't this all this just a ridiculous debate?
BULLSH8! Bush already said he did, and rather than acknowledging the FISA act, he blatantly claimed he didn't have to obey the law. :|
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
There are oversight committees and parameters that are set up for these very reasons and cases. I am advocating that Bush actually follow his 42 predecessors and actually utilize them.

Right. So you've got evidence, I assume, showing where the 42 predecessors have divuleged each and every detail of each and every program vis-a-vi National Security?

I won't hold my breath waiting for your evidence.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSH8! Bush already said he did, and rather than acknowledging the FISA act, he blatantly claimed he didn't have to obey the law. :|

Once again Harvey comes in with more lies.

So now FISA determines who is and isn't a terrorist?

You've ran out of places to stretch... and the haystack is gone.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSH8! Bush already said he did, and rather than acknowledging the FISA act, he blatantly claimed he didn't have to obey the law. :|

Once again Harvey comes in with more lies.

So now FISA determines who is and isn't a terrorist?

You've ran out of places to stretch... and the haystack is gone.
how is what Harvey said a lie?

 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSH8! Bush already said he did, and rather than acknowledging the FISA act, he blatantly claimed he didn't have to obey the law. :|

Once again Harvey comes in with more lies.

So now FISA determines who is and isn't a terrorist?

You've ran out of places to stretch... and the haystack is gone.

how is what Harvey said a lie?

Well the President did admit it and I for one don't trust the Presidents word one iota. So it must be a lie!
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Harvey
BULLSH8! Bush already said he did, and rather than acknowledging the FISA act, he blatantly claimed he didn't have to obey the law. :|

Once again Harvey comes in with more lies.

So now FISA determines who is and isn't a terrorist?

You've ran out of places to stretch... and the haystack is gone.

how is what Harvey said a lie?

Well the President did admit it and I for one don't trust the Presidents word one iota. So it must be a lie!
aaggccckk@ you are confusing me!!!

oh I get it now :eek:

:p
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
It's interesting that you phrase it this way...but it brings up an interesting question, where is the line? As long as the President is "protecting the country from terrorists" (or claims he is, how would you know the difference?), is anything acceptable? Or is there a line somewhere, where even protecting the country from terrorists isn't worth the price?

We've always had to balance, in this country, our civil liberties against national security. Obviously, post-9/11, that balance has tilted further towards the latter. But there has always had to be a balance, and there always will be. For me, personally, there is no "magic line" to be crossed. I believe the President, as mandated by the Constitution, has absolute authority to protect this country from terrorists, by whatever means necessary.
I personally think we've tilted away from liberty, but I'm less convinced we've become any more secure as a result. There is of course a trade-off, but it's not a balance. More of one does not mean less of the other, I think it's possible to do both. As for Presidential authority, don't you think it's a little dangerous to give a President total authority under any circumstances? Don't think of it as just applying to Bush, this will almost certainly set the standard for the next several presidents...imagine that power in the hands of the person you most wouldn't want to have it. I'm not sure democracy is a good enough system to trust the President enough to give him absolute power.
I only ask because, shockingly enough, you guys always seem to present the argument as "but Bush is protecting the country!". Fair enough, but surely even for guys like you, there is a limit to how far you think Bush should go in protecting us from terrorism. The only real difference is where we all think that line is...

The bolded statement is true, for the most part. But there's too many (many of them here) who refuse to acknowledge that we are at war, that the President has certain authority as derived from the Constitution (It is fair to debate what and how much, but not the fact that some authority does exist), or even (sadly) that terrorism is a threat. If you don't see and recognize that threat, there is no "magic line" to be crossed.

I agree, some people simply don't believe that terrorism is a threat. That being said, I think too many (again, many of them here) people refuse to acknowledge that there are concerns OTHER than the war on terror, that even if a measure might be an effective way to fight terrorism, there may be other reasons we wouldn't want to do it.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Pabster
Once again Harvey comes in with more lies.
Lies? Which lies? Are you saying I lied when I said Bush admitted ordering the spying without warrants or that Bush lied when he said he did it?
Official: Bush authorized spying multiple times
Senior intelligence officer says president personally gave NSA permission


Updated: 9:20 p.m. ET Dec. 16, 2005

NEW YORK - President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for a congressional inquiry into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.

?There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,? declared Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He promised hearings early next year.
Story continues below ? advertisement

Bush on Friday refused to discuss whether he had authorized such domestic spying without obtaining warrants from a court, saying that to comment would tie his hands in fighting terrorists.

In a broad defense of the program put forward hours later, however, a senior intelligence official told The Associated Press that the eavesdropping was narrowly designed to go after possible terrorist threats in the United States.

The official said that since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorization.

Risk to the country
At each review, government officials have provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

?Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this,? he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence operation.

?The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources ? let me underscore this now ? consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens,? the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

Senior officials asserted that that the president would do everything in his power to protect the American people while safeguarding civil liberties.

?I will make this point,? Bush said in an interview with ?The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.? ?That whatever I do to protect the American people ? and I have an obligation to do so ? that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people.?

Senators want more information
The surveillance, disclosed in Friday?s New York Times, is said to allow the agency to monitor international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States. But the paper said the agency would still seek warrants to snoop on purely domestic communications ? for example, Americans? calls between New York and California.

?I want to know precisely what they did,? said Specter. ?How NSA utilized their technical equipment, whose conversations they overheard, how many conversations they overheard, what they did with the material, what purported justification there was.?

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he wanted to know exactly what is going on before deciding whether an investigation is called for. ?Theoretically, I obviously wouldn?t like it,? he said of the program.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, ?This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American.?

Times: Cheney told of program
Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card went to the Capitol Friday to meet with congressional leaders and the top members of the intelligence committees, who are often briefed on spy agencies? most classified programs. The Times said they had been previously told of the program. Members and their aides would not discuss the subject of the closed sessions Friday.

The intelligence official would not provide details on the operations or examples of success stories. He said senior national security officials are trying to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

?We didn?t know who they were until it was too late,? the official said.

Some intelligence experts who believe in broad presidential power argued that Bush would have the authority to order searches without warrants under the Constitution.

In a case unrelated to NSA eavesdropping in this country, the administration has argued that the president has vast authority to order intelligence surveillance without warrants ?of foreign powers or their agents.?
Story continues below ? advertisement

?Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority,? the Justice Department said in a 2002 legal filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Other intelligence veterans found difficulty with the program in light of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed after the intelligence community came under fire for spying on Americans. That law gives government ? with approval from a secretive U.S. court ? the authority to conduct covert wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies.

No comment from NSA
In a written statement, NSA spokesman Don Weber said the agency would not provide any information on the reported surveillance program. ?We do not discuss actual or alleged operational issues,? he said.

Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former NSA general counsel, said it was troubling that such a change would have been made by executive order, even if it turns out to be within the law.

Parker, who has no direct knowledge of the program, said the effect could be corrosive. ?There are programs that do push the edge, and would be appropriate, but will be thrown out,? she said.

Prior to 9/11, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance activities to foreign embassies and missions ? and obtained court orders for such investigations. Much of its work was overseas, where thousands of people with suspected terrorist ties or other valuable intelligence may be monitored.

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
So, I didn't lie. That only leaves two possibilities. Either Bush lied when he said he did it, or YOU are the liar for calling me a liar. :laugh:
So now FISA determines who is and isn't a terrorist?
No, asshat. The FISA court is in place to approve warrants based on the evidence presented to the judge. It's the safety net to prevent maniacs in power from spying on innocent citizens without any justifiable cause.

It's a very thin shell of protection. Your fscking führer, George Adolf Bushler, can go to the FISA court up to 15 days after he actually authorizes such searches, but he's so unsure of his legal standing that he's just claiming dictatorial power to do it without even that last vestigial thread of Constitutional protection. :| :| :|
You've ran out of places to stretch... and the haystack is gone.
Excuse you, but WTF are you talking about? You're always out of touch with the facts. Now, you've lost all touch with reality. :roll:
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
"At War", Pabster?

That whole song and dance pretty well sums up the problem- the "War" is a phony.

Within that context, the claim of war powers on the part of the President is utterly specious. War can only exist between two or more nations, or within a nation, as in a civil war. Al Qaeda simply lacks the strength and the numbers to justify the war claim, plain and simple. The danger level from that organization and all others like it is overblown, trumped up, exaggerated- quite deliberately, so as to claim "war powers".

If we were at War, the govt wouldn't be cutting taxes, they'd be raising them. If we were at War, we wouldn't have "detainees", we'd have prisoners of War... If we were at War, the perpetrators of the Plame leak would be in prison today. If we were at War, there would be a Draft... If we were at War, we'd have a clearly defined enemy, rather than a nebulous boogeyman named "Terrar!"