Who's watching over who's watching over you?

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmm, well it is interesting to note that Obama supports the program, supported retroactive immunity for the telcos, and from what I can tell, has no planned changes for the NSA's orders. While I'm not automatically agreeing with everything Obama supports, and I still have reservations about the program, perhaps with some level of oversight, it might actually preserve our civil liberties? I don't know, but unless some court case magically wends its way up to the SCOTUS, I don't foresee any changes happening.

so it was pure evil and downright TREASON when bush did it... but now that obama is doing the same its maybe not so bad?

I'm not sure that was the message he meant to deliver, but it's the one I heard as well... Care to clarify Dealmonkey? How does Obama's continuation of the programs somehow make them different or lead you to different conclusions than when Bush did the same?

Well, at least the laws have been changed and updated to make the program legal. When Bush started the program, and for many years following, the program existed in legal limbo ... some would argue the program was downright illegal ... which tends to be my opinion on the subject.

So you get it now? Obama, even if he continues the program, does so under the law.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmm, well it is interesting to note that Obama supports the program, supported retroactive immunity for the telcos, and from what I can tell, has no planned changes for the NSA's orders. While I'm not automatically agreeing with everything Obama supports, and I still have reservations about the program, perhaps with some level of oversight, it might actually preserve our civil liberties? I don't know, but unless some court case magically wends its way up to the SCOTUS, I don't foresee any changes happening.

so it was pure evil and downright TREASON when bush did it... but now that obama is doing the same its maybe not so bad?

I'm not sure that was the message he meant to deliver, but it's the one I heard as well... Care to clarify Dealmonkey? How does Obama's continuation of the programs somehow make them different or lead you to different conclusions than when Bush did the same?

Well, at least the laws have been changed and updated to make the program legal. When Bush started the program, and for many years following, the program existed in legal limbo ... some would argue the program was downright illegal ... which tends to be my opinion on the subject.

So you get it now? Obama, even if he continues the program, does so under the law.

Laws often don't get changed until the limits of the law are flaunted. Besides that, it was a decision that has to be made very quickly. It's no secret how slow the process of legislative change is and there simply wasn't time, initially, to slog through all the partisan haggling that would have gone on. Obama has the luxury now of backing off a bit to make sure any such programs comply with the law. However, if this country is attacked again, under his administration, just watch how quickly that will change. Then the partisans will be having the same arguments, but offensive and defensive sides will be swapped.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: taltamir

I can't imagine how you can be so SURE that there weren't any serious misuses of the program?

I can't, that is why it has been a great fear of mine, but the whole point is that now we have whistleblowers who worked there and are telling us what happened... and THEY are not saying it was abused, only that it COULD be abused (in the future?).

It's entirely possible that your definition of "abuse" is too lenient.

Tice mentions quite a few things, for example, that the NSA also pulled data that was mined from credit card and other financial records so it could be cross-referenced with targets of monitoring. He said information of tens of thousands of U.S. citizens is now in digital databases warehoused at the NSA. Is that legal? Tice admits he doesn't know the extent of the monitoring that targeted U.S. journalists, however we know that the Bush administration pulled the phone records of the NY Times journalist who was partly responsible for blowing the lid off this story to begin with. Was that legal? We know that the NSA monitors even the content of each call, or electronic communication, because they can flag items based on keywords. Is that considered "meta data" too? I seriously doubt it.

And perhaps this is the tip of the iceberg? Perhaps there are other whistle-blowers waiting to come forward? Perhaps other interesting facts will come to light?

Honestly, there's just too much uncertainty about the program, about who was targeted, and without some unraveling of both the secrecy that shrouds everything that goes on at both the NSA as well as the former Bush Administration, we just can't know anything for certain.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Hmmmm, well it is interesting to note that Obama supports the program, supported retroactive immunity for the telcos, and from what I can tell, has no planned changes for the NSA's orders. While I'm not automatically agreeing with everything Obama supports, and I still have reservations about the program, perhaps with some level of oversight, it might actually preserve our civil liberties? I don't know, but unless some court case magically wends its way up to the SCOTUS, I don't foresee any changes happening.

so it was pure evil and downright TREASON when bush did it... but now that obama is doing the same its maybe not so bad?

I'm not sure that was the message he meant to deliver, but it's the one I heard as well... Care to clarify Dealmonkey? How does Obama's continuation of the programs somehow make them different or lead you to different conclusions than when Bush did the same?

Well, at least the laws have been changed and updated to make the program legal. When Bush started the program, and for many years following, the program existed in legal limbo ... some would argue the program was downright illegal ... which tends to be my opinion on the subject.

So you get it now? Obama, even if he continues the program, does so under the law.

Laws often don't get changed until the limits of the law are flaunted. Besides that, it was a decision that has to be made very quickly. It's no secret how slow the process of legislative change is and there simply wasn't time, initially, to slog through all the partisan haggling that would have gone on. Obama has the luxury now of backing off a bit to make sure any such programs comply with the law. However, if this country is attacked again, under his administration, just watch how quickly that will change. Then the partisans will be having the same arguments, but offensive and defensive sides will be swapped.

It hardly matters why the laws were flaunted, just that they are. While a decision to disregard the law(s), as part of a "split decision" made immediately after 9/11 might almost be understandable, the program went on and on for years and years following that. Why no effort to try and update the laws? Clearly, you can't blame years of possible illegal activity on a split decision made in haste?

And I won't even bother to address speculation on what MAY happen in the future.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Obama, merely pointing out that his continuation of the NSA program occurs under the law, something which the previous administration may have trouble claiming.

IMO, that's a HUGE difference.

 

[taltamir]

if its wrong it is wrong, if it is right it is right... changing the law does not magically stop making it wrong...
Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: taltamir
if its wrong it is wrong, if it is right it is right... changing the law does not magically stop making it wrong...
Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

So, let me give you a hypothetical: Let's say five years ago, you steal some music by downloading from a P2P network, in direct violation of U.S. Copyright laws at that time. Since you violated the law, we can throw the book at you and haul your ass to court and assign financial and criminal penalties under the law. Now, fast forward 5 years to the present day. New copyright laws have made it legal to download music from the Internet, and you do so, confident that what you're doing is clearly allowable under present law.

See the difference? In the past, we bust your punk ass for violating the law. If you tried the same exact thing during present day, under new laws, we couldn't touch you (legally) even if we wanted to.

It's actually somewhat surprising that I'd need to explain how this works.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: taltamir
if its wrong it is wrong, if it is right it is right... changing the law does not magically stop making it wrong...
Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

And don't get me wrong, on principal, I still disagree with the surveillance of innocent Americans both home and abroad. I've stated I have reservations about it, and my posts have been consistent in that regard.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It hardly matters why the laws were flaunted, just that they are. While a decision to disregard the law(s), as part of a "split decision" made immediately after 9/11 might almost be understandable, the program went on and on for years and years following that. Why no effort to try and update the laws? Clearly, you can't blame years of possible illegal activity on a split decision made in haste?

And I won't even bother to address speculation on what MAY happen in the future.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Obama, merely pointing out that his continuation of the NSA program occurs under the law, something which the previous administration may have trouble claiming.

IMO, that's a HUGE difference.

The only way to know if there truly is any difference would be to place Obama under the identical circumstances that Bush had to face. Fortunately, for Obama, he won't have to do that because he can operate with some hindsight on the matter.

History may also demonstrate that Bush really didn't trample all over our rights and liberties as his opposition so loved to claim. It's too early to tell yet though because at this point it's still nearly impossible to separate the facts from the partisan din.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: taltamir
if its wrong it is wrong, if it is right it is right... changing the law does not magically stop making it wrong...
Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

So, let me give you a hypothetical: Let's say five years ago, you steal some music by downloading from a P2P network, in direct violation of U.S. Copyright laws at that time. Since you violated the law, we can throw the book at you and haul your ass to court and assign financial and criminal penalties under the law. Now, fast forward 5 years to the present day. New copyright laws have made it legal to download music from the Internet, and you do so, confident that what you're doing is clearly allowable under present law.

See the difference? In the past, we bust your punk ass for violating the law. If you tried the same exact thing during present day, under new laws, we couldn't touch you (legally) even if we wanted to.

It's actually somewhat surprising that I'd need to explain how this works.

I want to clarify something here too - part of my disagreement with the handling of this program under the Bush Administration - is due to their (IMO) disregard for the rule of law. The other part of my objection - is due to the targeting of US citizens home and abroad. So you can see how changing the law, changes part of my objection, at least with regards to the current program and its compliance with the laws of the land.

 

[DealMonkey]

I found this bit from Wired.com's ongoing coverage of interest:

Now privacy advocates are hopeful that President Obama will be more forthcoming with information. But for the quickest and most honest account of Bush's illegal policies, they say don't look to the incoming president. Watch instead for the hidden army of would-be whistle-blowers who've been waiting for Inauguration Day to open the spigot on the truth.

"I'd bet there are a lot of career employees in the intelligence agencies who'll be glad to see Obama take the oath so they can finally speak out against all this illegal spying and get back to their real mission," says Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's Washington D.C. legislative director.

New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh already has a slew of sources waiting to spill the Bush administration's darkest secrets, he said in an interview last month. "You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on January 20. [They say,] 'You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.'"

http://www.wired.com/politics/.../2008/11/obama_wiretap

It seems that Tice is only the tip of the iceberg with regards to whistle blowers from the NSA and other spy orgs. Only a few days into the Obama Administration, it's only bound to get more interesting . . .

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: taltamir
if its wrong it is wrong, if it is right it is right... changing the law does not magically stop making it wrong...
Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

So, let me give you a hypothetical: Let's say five years ago, you steal some music by downloading from a P2P network, in direct violation of U.S. Copyright laws at that time. Since you violated the law, we can throw the book at you and haul your ass to court and assign financial and criminal penalties under the law. Now, fast forward 5 years to the present day. New copyright laws have made it legal to download music from the Internet, and you do so, confident that what you're doing is clearly allowable under present law.

See the difference? In the past, we bust your punk ass for violating the law. If you tried the same exact thing during present day, under new laws, we couldn't touch you (legally) even if we wanted to.

It's actually somewhat surprising that I'd need to explain how this works.

I want to clarify something here too - part of my disagreement with the handling of this program under the Bush Administration - is due to their (IMO) disregard for the rule of law. The other part of my objection - is due to the targeting of US citizens home and abroad. So you can see how changing the law, changes part of my objection, at least with regards to the current program and its compliance with the laws of the land.

And in the past and in the present it was and still is perfectly RIGHT for me to do so... Changing the law did not change the wrongness... It just changed weather or not i'd be punished for it.

Secondly... changing the law? what sort of bullshit is this? they did not amend the constitution to allow unwarranted search and seizure, and the constitution trumps federal law which drumps state constitutions which trumps state laws which trumps city laws...

Some states still have on the books that "a negro and white shall not be allowed to marry", but the constitution trumps those laws. So any attempt to enforce such state laws is illigal, and will remain so unless the constitution is amended.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It hardly matters why the laws were flaunted, just that they are. While a decision to disregard the law(s), as part of a "split decision" made immediately after 9/11 might almost be understandable, the program went on and on for years and years following that. Why no effort to try and update the laws? Clearly, you can't blame years of possible illegal activity on a split decision made in haste?

And I won't even bother to address speculation on what MAY happen in the future.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Obama, merely pointing out that his continuation of the NSA program occurs under the law, something which the previous administration may have trouble claiming.

IMO, that's a HUGE difference.

The only way to know if there truly is any difference would be to place Obama under the identical circumstances that Bush had to face. Fortunately, for Obama, he won't have to do that because he can operate with some hindsight on the matter.

History may also demonstrate that Bush really didn't trample all over our rights and liberties as his opposition so loved to claim. It's too early to tell yet though because at this point it's still nearly impossible to separate the facts from the partisan din.

So it's all the same to you, because you speculate that hypothetically, they may have both made the same decision given the same circumstances?

It's not hindsight that Obama is operating under, it's the clear rule of law that allows this program to continue lawfully. How can you not recognize that clear and distinct difference?

While Bush's prior behavior may be ruled lawful, assuming a case actually gets before a judge that is permitted to hear it, we may never know, we may never get a clear legal judgment, and so all you have to support this premise are the gray-area legal arguments made by the same Administration who decided to simply disregard the laws and do what they wanted.

There is a degree of risk in operating in a legal gray area. Bush & Co. decided to take that risk. Obama doesn't have to. Not necessarily due to any decision or effort on his part, it merely is what it is.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: taltamir
if its wrong it is wrong, if it is right it is right... changing the law does not magically stop making it wrong...
Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

So, let me give you a hypothetical: Let's say five years ago, you steal some music by downloading from a P2P network, in direct violation of U.S. Copyright laws at that time. Since you violated the law, we can throw the book at you and haul your ass to court and assign financial and criminal penalties under the law. Now, fast forward 5 years to the present day. New copyright laws have made it legal to download music from the Internet, and you do so, confident that what you're doing is clearly allowable under present law.

See the difference? In the past, we bust your punk ass for violating the law. If you tried the same exact thing during present day, under new laws, we couldn't touch you (legally) even if we wanted to.

It's actually somewhat surprising that I'd need to explain how this works.

I want to clarify something here too - part of my disagreement with the handling of this program under the Bush Administration - is due to their (IMO) disregard for the rule of law. The other part of my objection - is due to the targeting of US citizens home and abroad. So you can see how changing the law, changes part of my objection, at least with regards to the current program and its compliance with the laws of the land.

And in the past and in the present it was and still is perfectly RIGHT for me to do so... Changing the law did not change the wrongness... It just changed weather or not i'd be punished for it.

Secondly... changing the law? what sort of bullshit is this? they did not amend the constitution to allow unwarranted search and seizure, and the constitution trumps federal law which drumps state constitutions which trumps state laws which trumps city laws...

Some states still have on the books that "a negro and white shall not be allowed to marry", but the constitution trumps those laws. So any attempt to enforce such state laws is illigal, and will remain so unless the constitution is amended.

Tell that to gay couples in California who want to marry but cannot because of Proposition 8.

Fact is, laws get passed all the time that violate the letter and intent of the US (and/or individual state's) Constitution, however until the law itself (or the action itself) is reviewed by the judicial, those laws stand. Until the constitutional muster is either passed or not passed, the laws go on the books and everyone attempts to uphold them. The problem with the warrant-less wiretapping by the NSA, is that the myriad of cases filed against the government aren't able to get far enough through the court system to get a judgment either way. So, as you can see, we're still in legal limbo with regards to the prior administration's actions.

But I see your point about it being wrong on principal regardless of the underlying laws and whether they permit it or not. And as I've said, I still have reservations about the program on principal.

 

[taltamir]

Tell that to gay couples in California who want to marry but cannot because of Proposition 8.

I AM! do you have trouble comprehending simple english? their plight being right or wrong is not affected by the laws making it legal or illigal.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It hardly matters why the laws were flaunted, just that they are. While a decision to disregard the law(s), as part of a "split decision" made immediately after 9/11 might almost be understandable, the program went on and on for years and years following that. Why no effort to try and update the laws? Clearly, you can't blame years of possible illegal activity on a split decision made in haste?

And I won't even bother to address speculation on what MAY happen in the future.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Obama, merely pointing out that his continuation of the NSA program occurs under the law, something which the previous administration may have trouble claiming.

IMO, that's a HUGE difference.

The only way to know if there truly is any difference would be to place Obama under the identical circumstances that Bush had to face. Fortunately, for Obama, he won't have to do that because he can operate with some hindsight on the matter.

History may also demonstrate that Bush really didn't trample all over our rights and liberties as his opposition so loved to claim. It's too early to tell yet though because at this point it's still nearly impossible to separate the facts from the partisan din.

So it's all the same to you, because you speculate that hypothetically, they may have both made the same decision given the same circumstances?

It's not hindsight that Obama is operating under, it's the clear rule of law that allows this program to continue lawfully. How can you not recognize that clear and distinct difference?

While Bush's prior behavior may be ruled lawful, assuming a case actually gets before a judge that is permitted to hear it, we may never know, we may never get a clear legal judgment, and so all you have to support this premise are the gray-area legal arguments made by the same Administration who decided to simply disregard the laws and do what they wanted.

There is a degree of risk in operating in a legal gray area. Bush & Co. decided to take that risk. Obama doesn't have to. Not necessarily due to any decision or effort on his part, it merely is what it is.

What I'm saying is that you're attempting to equate the two when the circumstances are not equal. Obama can pull away from the fringes of those gray areas now because circumstances have changed. Great. He also knows how to function within those gray areas precisely because the Bush admin already slirted the fringes of the law and have defined what is stepping over the line and what isn't.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Tell that to gay couples in California who want to marry but cannot because of Proposition 8.

I AM! do you have trouble comprehending simple english? their plight being right or wrong is not affected by the laws making it legal or illigal.

Something can be both (A) wrong on principal, and (B) wrong (or a better description, "illegal") under the law. My problem with Bush's warant-less wiretapping via the NSA is a result of BOTH A and B.

Do you get it yet?

 

[taltamir]

yet you say that when obama passes an unconstitutional law allowing him to do the same thing (which, btw, bush did, calling it the patriot act), then it is morally right on both A and B?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: taltamir
yet you say that when obama passes an unconstitutional law allowing him to do the same thing (which, btw, bush did, calling it the patriot act), then it is morally right on both A and B?

Well first of all, Obama didn't pass it all on his own, you give him far too much credit. I've already said that I object to the NSA's program on principal, however I don't exist in a binary world either, where everything is black or white, right or wrong. In a previous post, you made the analogy:

Thats like saying it was OK to lynch blacks when the laws allowed it... or that it was perfectly OK to be a nazi when the laws of germany made attacks on jews legal.

First of all, there is an upside to the NSA program - that we may actually catch terrorists and shut them down before another attack - and there is a downside, in that innocent Americans may be surveilled as a result. There's hardly an upside to a black guy getting lynched, nor is there much of an upside to jews getting thrown into concentration camps by the Nazis. So, as you can see, things can be differing degrees of "wrong."

Hopefully, you agree.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
We know that the NSA monitors even the content of each call, or electronic communication, because they can flag items based on keywords. Is that considered "meta data" too? I seriously doubt it.

That's absolutely false.

As Dave described above, modern "metadata" is simply the digital equivelant of the basic information given for any phone call made on an older analog system. That is:

1. When?
2. From where?
3. To where?

Anything beyond these basic variables is considered "content" that is NOT "monitored" unless a FISC warrant is obtained, or the parties are deemed "Non-US Persons." Then, and only then, can any of the "content" be legally parsed for "keywords" or further "monitored."

These are the legal limitations and guidelines set forth in the FISA Modernization Act of 2008 -- which, as it turns out, are themselves a reflection of the Bush Administration's own "gray area" policies between 2001-2007. (with a few noted exceptions -- ie. the TSP -- also clearly described by Dave above). Thankfully, the former DNI was able to make the changes official before he left office...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
We know that the NSA monitors even the content of each call, or electronic communication, because they can flag items based on keywords. Is that considered "meta data" too? I seriously doubt it.

That's absolutely false.

As Dave described above, modern "metadata" is simply the digital equivelant of the basic information given for any phone call made on an older analog system. That is:

1. When?
2. From where?
3. To where?

Anything beyond these basic variables is considered "content" that is NOT "monitored" unless a FISC warrant is obtained, or the parties are deemed "Non-US Persons." Then, and only then, can any of the "content" be legally parsed for "keywords" or further "monitored."

These are the legal limitations and guidelines set forth in the FISA Modernization Act of 2008 -- which, as it turns out, are themselves a reflection of the Bush Administration's own "gray area" policies between 2001-2007. (with a few noted exceptions -- ie. the TSP -- also clearly described by Dave above). Thankfully, the former DNI was able to make the changes official before he left office...

I understand that, however Tice is claiming the conversations can and have been pulled or flagged based on a keyword. This clearly goes beyond meta data in my opinion, and if true, could be one of the 'illegal' activities Tice is talking about.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What I'm saying is that you're attempting to equate the two when the circumstances are not equal. Obama can pull away from the fringes of those gray areas now because circumstances have changed. Great. He also knows how to function within those gray areas precisely because the Bush admin already slirted the fringes of the law and have defined what is stepping over the line and what isn't.

In a nation of laws, the law defines "what is stepping over the line and what isn't." NO adminstration has the right or the power to RE-define it. Any question about the legality of their actions is for the courts to decide. In the case of the Bushwhacko traitors, that process should begin immediately.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What I'm saying is that you're attempting to equate the two when the circumstances are not equal. Obama can pull away from the fringes of those gray areas now because circumstances have changed. Great. He also knows how to function within those gray areas precisely because the Bush admin already slirted the fringes of the law and have defined what is stepping over the line and what isn't.

In a nation of laws, the law defines "what is stepping over the line and what isn't." NO adminstration has the right or the power to RE-define it. Any question about the legality of their actions is for the courts to decide. In the case of the Bushwhacko traitors, that process should begin immediately.

But it won't and you will hear nary a word from Obama about it either.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What I'm saying is that you're attempting to equate the two when the circumstances are not equal. Obama can pull away from the fringes of those gray areas now because circumstances have changed. Great. He also knows how to function within those gray areas precisely because the Bush admin already slirted the fringes of the law and have defined what is stepping over the line and what isn't.

In a nation of laws, the law defines "what is stepping over the line and what isn't." NO adminstration has the right or the power to RE-define it. Any question about the legality of their actions is for the courts to decide. In the case of the Bushwhacko traitors, that process should begin immediately.

But it won't and you will hear nary a word from Obama about it either.

Perhaps, but it seems the Congressional Dems aren't so silent on the issue:

Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials
The House speaker suggests to "FOX News Sunday" that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions of Bush administration officials, saying they may not "have a right to ignore" them.

[...]

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...inistration-officials/

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What I'm saying is that you're attempting to equate the two when the circumstances are not equal. Obama can pull away from the fringes of those gray areas now because circumstances have changed. Great. He also knows how to function within those gray areas precisely because the Bush admin already slirted the fringes of the law and have defined what is stepping over the line and what isn't.

In a nation of laws, the law defines "what is stepping over the line and what isn't." NO adminstration has the right or the power to RE-define it. Any question about the legality of their actions is for the courts to decide. In the case of the Bushwhacko traitors, that process should begin immediately.

The courts define what is stepping over the line and what isn't, not the law. If the laws defined it we wouldn't need courts in the first place. If Bush broke some laws then go ahead and put him on trial. I wouldn't get my hopes up on that happening though, despite those like Pelosi attempting to appease their wingnut fringe and feed their fantasies of someone from the Bush admin being duckwalked. They've been trying for years. Remember, all you guys got for Fitzmas was a Scooter.

 

[taltamir]

mmm, the democrats took over the schools and shut the door behind them... now they are planning to shut the door behind them on the government... great idea, lets make it illigal to be conservative by putting all of the former administration on trial... are you not the least bit concerned here?