Keith Olbermann attack Obama on warantless wiretapping

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
No, against the law as it was written, the changes made to the law came four years after it the procedure started.

That's not true either. The old FISA did not properly address modern virtual discovery, surveillance, or monitoring; and no "laws" existed to limit or restrict the Article II war powers, hence the "grey areas."

And no, i'm not confusing you with someone else, it was a long thread with lots of posts, most notable posters were you, me and Don Vito.

I don't have the time to discuss this any further right now, but i've given you enough info to at least find the thread.

Cheers brother, keep safe.

perhaps, but I would never have conceded that any of the "wiretapping" was "against the law," for the reasons I just described above. The "laws" we did have were not applicable to virtual wiretapping involving virtual communications pathways that may or may not traverse U.S. soil or U.S. systems. FISA 2008 and the recent FISC decisions addressed those things and deemed the ongoing program(s) legal and constitutional.

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, it's confusion on your part. Actions don't have to go to court to be unconstitutional.

Are you that clueless about how the law works, after you so constantly make an issue of accuracy about the legal issues on electronic monitoring?

If a President (or a citizen) does something illegal, and later a law is passed making that act legal without including amnesty for past offenses, they are subject to the old law.

If the old law is not enforced for whatever reason - usually political - it doesn't mean they did not violate the law.

If you want the truth, you look at the facts, and don't replace the facts with an arbitrary standard such as 'the courts ruled it was unconstitutional'.

As for whether the actions were in violation of the law, there is more than enough eveidence, and you can find any number of legal experts who will inform you.

You seem informed about the programs, but not the law, with your nonsense about how the 2008 law changing what's allowed retroactively making their earlier actions legal.

See above. The old laws were not applicable to modern virtual "wiretapping," hence the modernization of said laws through FISC rulings and the passage of FISA 2008.

So, if the old laws were not applicable, and no high court ruled on the issue until recently, it's difficult to proclaim, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the previous actions were "illegal." On top of that, there still has not been any ruling as to the limits of Presidential Article II wartime powers. So, again, even the TSP's legality and constitutionality remain an unknown -- which will likely remain the case until such a time that a court takes up the issue and a proper ruling is passed down.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse
See above. The old laws were not applicable to modern virtual "wiretapping," hence the modernization of said laws through FISC rulings and the passage of FISA 2008.

So, if the old laws were not applicable, and no high court ruled on the issue until recently, it's difficult to proclaim, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the previous actions were "illegal." On top of that, there still has not been any ruling as to the limits of Presidential Article II wartime powers. So, again, even the TSP's legality and constitutionality remain an unknown -- which will likely remain the case until such a time that a court takes up the issue and a proper ruling is passed down.

So, now, you have shifted the standard even further away from looking at the facts, to even not looking at a federal judge's ruling - only a 'high court' will do.

Perhaps you are doing that so as to say the ruling of Federal Judge Taylor's August, 2006 ruling is not enough for any information to be used.

As Glenn Greenwald reported the ruling here:

Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

As you probably know, on appeal, the plaintiffs were ruled not to have standing to sue, because the secrecy laws prevented them from proving they were personally spied on - a nice little catch 22, where the laws against certain spying can't be enforced because the spying is secret.

One of the appeals court judges did rule on the issue of the legality of the spying, and explicitly ruled it illegal, agreeing with the district court.

Greenwald's summary of the appeals court decision is here.

You say the violation is unclear. To quote Greenwald, who cites Jonathon Turley, after the district court ruling, it was clear (my bolding):

The question being decided by NSA cases is, effectively, whether George Bush and his top officials, along with those at the NSA following his orders by eavesdropping without judicial approval, are guilty of felonies. As Professor Turley notes, very few people actually believe the answer to that question is difficult to discern:

While Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales insists that the legal authority for the program is clear and filed a notice of appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, few experts outside of the Bush administration support the program. To the contrary, federal law seems perfectly clear in prohibiting warrantless surveillance.

This has been the most bizarre part of the NSA scandal all along: the President got caught red-handed violating an extremely clear law -- he admitted to engaging in the very behavior which that law says is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine -- and yet official Washington (the political and pundit classes) simply decided to pretend that wasn't the case.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse
See above. The old laws were not applicable to modern virtual "wiretapping," hence the modernization of said laws through FISC rulings and the passage of FISA 2008.

So, if the old laws were not applicable, and no high court ruled on the issue until recently, it's difficult to proclaim, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the previous actions were "illegal." On top of that, there still has not been any ruling as to the limits of Presidential Article II wartime powers. So, again, even the TSP's legality and constitutionality remain an unknown -- which will likely remain the case until such a time that a court takes up the issue and a proper ruling is passed down.

So, now, you have shifted the standard even further away from looking at the facts, to even not looking at a federal judge's ruling - only a 'high court' will do.

Perhaps you are doing that so as to say the ruling of Federal Judge Taylor's August, 2006 ruling is not enough for any information to be used.

As Glenn Greenwald reported the ruling here:

Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

As you probably know, on appeal, the plaintiffs were ruled not to have standing to sue, because the secrecy laws prevented them from proving they were personally spied on - a nice little catch 22, where the laws against certain spying can't be enforced because the spying is secret.

One of the appeals court judges did rule on the issue of the legality of the spying, and explicitly ruled it illegal, agreeing with the district court.

Greenwald's summary of the appeals court decision is here.

You say the violation is unclear. To quote Greenwald, who cites Jonathon Turley, after the district court ruling, it was clear (my bolding):

The question being decided by NSA cases is, effectively, whether George Bush and his top officials, along with those at the NSA following his orders by eavesdropping without judicial approval, are guilty of felonies. As Professor Turley notes, very few people actually believe the answer to that question is difficult to discern:

While Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales insists that the legal authority for the program is clear and filed a notice of appeal with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, few experts outside of the Bush administration support the program. To the contrary, federal law seems perfectly clear in prohibiting warrantless surveillance.

This has been the most bizarre part of the NSA scandal all along: the President got caught red-handed violating an extremely clear law -- he admitted to engaging in the very behavior which that law says is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine -- and yet official Washington (the political and pundit classes) simply decided to pretend that wasn't the case.

As you said, that lower-court ruling, which many people claim was partisan in nature, was quickly overturned on standing by during appeal... and never revisited again.

Imagine that. My points still stand.

Later FISC rulings and the passage of FISA 2008 ensured that the ongoing program(s) -- those that Obama has chosen to continue -- are completely legal and constitutional.

gg.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse
As you said, that lower-court ruling, which many people claim was partisan in nature, was quickly overturned on standing by during appeal... and never revisited again.

Imagine that. My points still stand.

Later FISC rulings and the passage of FISA 2008 ensured that the ongoing program(s) -- those that Obama has chosen to continue -- are completely legal and constitutional.

gg.

It sounds like you did not read the links, which are good for this, but to be clear, the ruling *was not* overturned on any of its finding on the illegality of the activities - the case was dismissed, as you agreed, only on the grounds of the catch-22 lack of standing since they couldn't prove they'd been spied on. The appeals court could have overturned the findings on illegality and violation of the constitution, but did not, and indeed one appeals court justice made a point of re-affirming those findings.

Showing that the evidence is strong for the activities being clearly illegal - but the fact of the secrecy makes it hard for anyone to get standing to challenge it in court.

Your argument is too close to being like saying that being a peeping tom is legal, as long as they can't prove who you peeped on. No, it's not, they just lack evidence to prove it.

I'd say, read the links (and osme of the links they contain) for these points to be reinforced. Greenwald has done a great job covering this.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse
As you said, that lower-court ruling, which many people claim was partisan in nature, was quickly overturned on standing by during appeal... and never revisited again.

Imagine that. My points still stand.

Later FISC rulings and the passage of FISA 2008 ensured that the ongoing program(s) -- those that Obama has chosen to continue -- are completely legal and constitutional.

gg.

It sounds like you did not read the links, which are good for this, but to be clear, the ruling *was not* overturned on any of its finding on the illegality of the activities - the case was dismissed, as you agreed, only on the grounds of the catch-22 lack of standing since they couldn't prove they'd been spied on. The appeals court could have overturned the findings on illegality and violation of the constitution, but did not, and indeed one appeals court justice made a point of re-affirming those findings.

Showing that the evidence is strong for the activities being clearly illegal - but the fact of the secrecy makes it hard for anyone to get standing to challenge it in court.

Your argument is too close to being like saying that being a peeping tom is legal, as long as they can't prove who you peeped on. No, it's not, they just lack evidence to prove it.

I'd say, read the links (and osme of the links they contain) for these points to be reinforced. Greenwald has done a great job covering this.

Nothing you wrote there, or in the articles, contradicts my points above or negates the legality and constitutionality of the "wiretap" program(s) Obama is adopting.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nothing you wrote there, or in the articles, contradicts my points above or negates the legality and constitutionality of the "wiretap" program(s) Obama is adopting.

True enough, since they're about the lawsuit that's about TSP, not the actions put into the 2008 law.

Federal Judges: TSP was a clear violation of the law.

Palehorse: has 'concerns' that it sorta mighta could maybe be viewed as a gray area.

If you would admit that they were clearly illegal, that the Unitary Presidency/Article II defense for them is invalid, and that they're merely hiding behind 'stanidng' and the unwillingness of the Obama Administration to pursue the matter, that would help you correct the above error.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse
Nothing you wrote there, or in the articles, contradicts my points above or negates the legality and constitutionality of the "wiretap" program(s) Obama is adopting.

True enough, since they're about the lawsuit that's about TSP, not the actions put into the 2008 law.

Federal Judges: TSP was a clear violation of the law.

Palehorse: has 'concerns' that it sorta mighta could maybe be viewed as a gray area.

If you would admit that they were clearly illegal, that the Unitary Presidency/Article II defense for them is invalid, and that they're merely hiding behind 'stanidng' and the unwillingness of the Obama Administration to pursue the matter, that would help you correct the above error.

My personal feelings on the TSP were never the subject of my posts. I merely described the "grey area" surrounding its actual legality, since no high court ever ruled on the matter. But, if you must know, I think that the TSP should/would be found unconstitutional if it ever gets reviewed properly. I believe that the Bush Admin overstepped their Article II boundaries on more than one occasion. And, I'm glad the TSP and Bush are both things in the past.

That said, my main problem in this thread has been with those -- the kneejerkers -- who wrongfully believe that Obama is continuing the TSP, or any other such program(s), when that is not the case at all.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2
The facts are when the liberals in here start spewing the vitriolic prose for Obama as they did for Bush, then the facts will be that liberals are holding Obama to the same standard as Bush.

Until that happens, the facts are you're doing the "That's just terrible dear, terrible..." while sipping your tea.

The facts are that, once your Messiah got to see the state of the world as it really exists, he sure didn't rush to "undo" all that the Ebil Bush has done.....quite interesting since Bush was supposedly an incompetent Satan...that the Messiah continues his work...funny that...

Quick, someone write a song about a puppy who's eager to protect the sheep, but doesn't believe in barking...because it disturbs the sheep. Then the puppy gets put on duty, and figures out the wolves are sneaky little bastards, and he can't be everywhere at once...hence needs to bark sometimes, even if it's annoying to the poor sheep. Should be easy for the musically artistic in here....

Chuck

The facts are, Obama is a hell of a lot better than Bush, and the liberals are responding with a mix of praise and criticism that matches how he's doing.

If he were as bad as Bush, we'd abandon him too.

It's you on the right who failed to choose well when you voted for Bush, and who were apologists for him, while you don't give Obama any credit he deserves.

The left is acting as they should, while you get it wrong on both sides.

The problem, Craig, is that you dont see he's NOT different. Same != better.

edit: Well, except for TSP. I guess thats significant.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Fcking morons, this has nothing to do with Bush or Obama but an intel issue that needed revision. Read the other thread for in depth explanations about why both administrations got it right (regarding spying of ONLY Americans who are communicating with other foreign entities AND involving national security) and it has already been ruled on by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to be legal.

No, the "fcking morons" are those who believe that smokescreen because they're more comfortable with their ears tucked between their gulteal cheeks. For more enlightenment about what is actually being monitored, ask whistle blower, Mark Klein, the guy who actually installed the NSA's "Internet vacuum cleaner" in Room 641A of AT&T's Folsom Street headquarters in San Francisco.

Wiretap Whistle-Blower's Account
04.07.06
Former AT&T technician Mark Klein has come forward to support the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T for its alleged complicity in the NSA's electronic surveillance. Here, Wired News publishes Klein's public statement in its entirety.

My background:

For 22 and 1/2 years I worked as an AT&T technician, first in New York and then in California.

What I observed first-hand:

In 2002, when I was working in an AT&T office in San Francisco, the site manager told me to expect a visit from a National Security Agency agent, who was to interview a management-level technician for a special job. The agent came, and by chance I met him and directed him to the appropriate people.

In January 2003, I, along with others, toured the AT&T central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco -- actually three floors of an SBC building. There I saw a new room being built adjacent to the 4ESS switch room where the public's phone calls are routed. I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room. The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room.

In October 2003, the company transferred me to the San Francisco building to oversee the Worldnet Internet room, which included large routers, racks of modems for customers' dial-in services, and other equipment. I was responsible for troubleshooting problems on the fiber optic circuits and installing new circuits.

While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal. I saw this in a design document available to me, entitled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated Dec. 10, 2002. I also saw design documents dated Jan. 13, 2004 and Jan. 24, 2003, which instructed technicians on connecting some of the already in-service circuits to the "splitter" cabinet, which diverts some of the light signal to the secret room. The circuits listed were the Peering Links, which connect Worldnet with other networks and hence the whole country, as well as the rest of the world.

One of the documents listed the equipment installed in the secret room, and this list included a Narus STA 6400, which is a "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". The Narus STA technology is known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets. The company's advertising boasts that its technology "captures comprehensive customer usage data ... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete visibility for all internet applications."

My job required me to connect new circuits to the "splitter" cabinet and get them up and running. While working on a particularly difficult one with a technician back East, I learned that other such "splitter" cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

What is the significance and why is it important to bring these facts to light?

Based on my understanding of the connections and equipment at issue, it appears the NSA is capable of conducting what amounts to vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the internet -- whether that be peoples' e-mail, web surfing or any other data.

Given the public debate about the constitutionality of the Bush administration's spying on U.S. citizens without obtaining a FISA warrant, I think it is critical that this information be brought out into the open, and that the American people be told the truth about the extent of the administration's warrantless surveillance practices, particularly as it relates to the internet.

Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA. And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens.

See my sig.

Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

The article I responded to is mostly regarding TSP, which is no longer in place. Therefore, irrelevant.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

The article I responded to is mostly regarding TSP, which is no longer in place. Therefore, irrelevant.

If it broke the law back then, then it is highly relevant. If there is even a possibility that old policies/actions were illegal, they too are highly relevant.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Nice try, but this article addresses policies that are not in place anymore. In other words, its irrelevant now.

Excuse me? Irrelevant how?

The article I responded to is mostly regarding TSP, which is no longer in place. Therefore, irrelevant.

If it broke the law back then, then it is highly relevant. If there is even a possibility that old policies/actions were illegal, they too are highly relevant.

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing. Fortunately, TSP was put to bed and we have moved forward. So in that sense, its not relevant at all. So far nothing Obama has done has been ruled on, so we cant say for sure. Mostly all we have is a bunch of armchair lawyers (myself included in this case) saying that even the provisions of the change in 2008 are skirting the law. But until its ruled on, we really cant say.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing. Fortunately, TSP was put to bed and we have moved forward. So in that sense, its not relevant at all. So far nothing Obama has done has been ruled on, so we cant say for sure. Mostly all we have is a bunch of armchair lawyers (myself included in this case) saying that even the provisions of the change in 2008 are skirting the law. But until its ruled on, we really cant say.

It's relevant as long as the government is data mining all of the communications of all Americans at Room 641A at AT&T's Folsom Street facility and any other sites. At least, it is as long as we pretend we still have our once great, once honored Constitution.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing. Fortunately, TSP was put to bed and we have moved forward. So in that sense, its not relevant at all. So far nothing Obama has done has been ruled on, so we cant say for sure. Mostly all we have is a bunch of armchair lawyers (myself included in this case) saying that even the provisions of the change in 2008 are skirting the law. But until its ruled on, we really cant say.

It's relevant as long as the government is data mining all of the communications of all Americans at Room 641A at AT&T's Folsom Street facility and any other sites. At least, it is as long as we pretend we still have our once great, once honored Constitution.

It is my understanding that was killed with TSP and EFF's pending xlass action suit. I havent read anything that suggests it still is being done.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It is my understanding that was killed with TSP and EFF's pending xlass action suit. I havent read anything that suggests it still is being done.

Then it's time for a better understanding. Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit continues. It's very much a part of this issue. Quoting from the OP's link:

UPDATE: Even better, Olbermann tonight will have on as a guest Kevin Bankston of EFF, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs suing Bush officials for illegal spying, which means Olbermann intends to cover this issue again tonight. Along with the ACLU and others, EFF has been truly heroic in defending the core constitutional liberties of Americans and serving as a key check on executive abuses. As I noted in Monday's post, this is what Bankston said on Monday after reading the Obama DOJ brief:

1. President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing.

U, yo dojn't understand how crimes work. They're relevant if they happened whether or not if they're continuing. Gov. Blagoiavich didn't get a pass because he stopped selling Obama's Senate seat. He had done it, and it was relevant because it was a crime he had committed.

The government doesn't get to choose to violate the law, and then say it's not relevant if they decide to stop violating the law. They hould get punished for violating the law.

And it's not only relevant if it's 'deemed' illlegal. If it was legal, it's relevant, whether or not some corruption of the justice process happens.

 

[sandorski]

I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It is my understanding that was killed with TSP and EFF's pending xlass action suit. I havent read anything that suggests it still is being done.

Then it's time for a better understanding. Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit continues. It's very much a part of this issue. Quoting from the OP's link:

UPDATE: Even better, Olbermann tonight will have on as a guest Kevin Bankston of EFF, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs suing Bush officials for illegal spying, which means Olbermann intends to cover this issue again tonight. Along with the ACLU and others, EFF has been truly heroic in defending the core constitutional liberties of Americans and serving as a key check on executive abuses. As I noted in Monday's post, this is what Bankston said on Monday after reading the Obama DOJ brief:

1. President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

Uh, thanks Harvey. I knew this already.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

It's only relevant if past actions were deemed illegal, and are continuing.

U, yo dojn't understand how crimes work. They're relevant if they happened whether or not if they're continuing. Gov. Blagoiavich didn't get a pass because he stopped selling Obama's Senate seat. He had done it, and it was relevant because it was a crime he had committed.

The government doesn't get to choose to violate the law, and then say it's not relevant if they decide to stop violating the law. They hould get punished for violating the law.

And it's not only relevant if it's 'deemed' illlegal. If it was legal, it's relevant, whether or not some corruption of the justice process happens.

I understand. Let me try a third time in different words since apperantly my say what I mean words arent doing it. TSP's actions are irrelevant NOW because those rules were changed in 2008.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

You fail at understanding.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

:roll:

Comparing murder, a well-defined crime in the U.S., to the gray areas that exist in the war powers portion of Article II of the Constitution, is flat out f'n ridiculous.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

:roll:

Comparing murder, a well-defined crime in the U.S., to the gray areas that exist in the war powers portion of Article II of the Constitution, is flat out f'n ridiculous.

Look, i can understand why your are defending it but seriously, think about it, where do you draw the line if you don't think it's clear where the line is drawn.

If i remember correctly there have been a large number of court cases where it's been established where the line is drawn, along with guidelines and laws this should be enough for anyone.

Besides, the crime doesn't matter, the point does.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
I murdered a guy last week, but won't get Charged, cause I stopped Murdering.

:roll:

Comparing murder, a well-defined crime in the U.S., to the gray areas that exist in the war powers portion of Article II of the Constitution, is flat out f'n ridiculous.

Look, i can understand why your are defending it but seriously, think about it, where do you draw the line if you don't think it's clear where the line is drawn.

If i remember correctly there have been a large number of court cases where it's been established where the line is drawn, along with guidelines and laws this should be enough for anyone.

Besides, the crime doesn't matter, the point does.

The problem here is that you're wrong about the "large number of court cases where it's been established where the line is drawn." In this case, there was only one case concerning the President's Article II powers to implement the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). That single case was in a district court, and it was dismissed on standing very soon after. Therefore, the "line" has never been drawn clearly at all.

Look, if it were up to me, personally, I'd tell you that I agree with you that the TSP was/is/will always be, unconstitutional. That said, I can't speak for the courts. My opinion on the matter, and yours, don't mean shit, in terms of legality or constitutionality. And, unfortunately, I don't think any court will take up the matter, and define the "line" on Article II powers, anytime soon. That short-lived program, and the potential crimes associated with it, will remain in the "grey areas" until the courts do so...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not sure whether it's liberals standing on principle or just being so hardheaded they refuse to recognize it's possible that Obama sees the very same need that Bush saw regarding the surviellence issue. The main problem that confronts them is if they admit that Obama is right they'll passively acknowledge that Bush was right as well and I highly doubt that goes could be tolerated by any of the more rabid anti-Bush liberals at all. The fact that it's primarily the more rabid, anti-Bush liberals making all the noise about this makes me believe it's more about their own pride and ego than any facts or truth.

So now go ahead and bring on the indignant responses. I'm expecting them.

yeah?

smells like chicken, too.