Impeachment is mandatory
May. 11th, 2006 10:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdPresident
Bush
Unclaimed Territory should be read here, particularly with regards to commentary in The Federalist nr. 47. Specifically:
By proclaiming the power to ignore Congressional law and to do whatever it wants in the area of national security, it is seizing the powers of the legislative branch. But by blocking courts from ruling on the multiple claims of illegality which have been made against it, the administration is essentially seizing the judicial power as well. It becomes the creator, the executor, and the interpreter of the law. And with that, the powers of all three branches become consolidated in The President, the single greatest nightmare of the founders.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 06:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 06:51 am (UTC)Resistance is futile. You will be impeached.
:)
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 07:29 am (UTC)Once again we have a top secret program that is targeted against our enemies (And may very well have been successful in stopping their attacks) being made public by people who mean this country harm. Remember there is still a declared war on.
And again, what law was broken? I admit I am less than pleased about it, but I'm not sure any laws were broken. We are dealing with an enemy that has agents in this country, and sadly we have a lot of people in this country who are more than willing to help our enemies because they're stupid.
People do seem to forget the things that FDR or Lincoln did during their wars. Most of which was a lot worse than this.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 07:58 am (UTC)This scares me more than anything, it's not a war because the president says so, it's a war if war is declared against a nation, not against a faceless group of people that includes anybody that the government sees fit.
Too many things that aren't are being targetet as terrorism simply to exercise the usefull powers that gives.
You can imprison people, but not the idea in their heads, you can only try to make them think differently, you can't win a guerrilla war, which is what terrorism essentially is.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 01:12 pm (UTC)1. NSA has been conducting warrantless phone-taps on calls between people in the US and people outside it. This story was broken by the NY Times last December (though they knew about it before the 2004 elections, but went along with a White House request to keep mum).
2. NSA has been constructing a massive database of phone call info, containing information about all calls, foreign and domestic, placed through AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon. This story was broken by USA Today just a few days ago.
The CNN story Solarbird linked to was about an investigation into program #1. You seem to be talking about program #2.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 04:16 pm (UTC)The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1802(a)(1)(B): "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that [...] there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 07:08 pm (UTC)The wire tappings were of suspected enemies of the USA talking to people inside the USA. Not of people inside the USA talking to each other. That falls very much within the jurisdiction of 'gathering intelligence' that the President is allowed.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 08:13 pm (UTC)The Supreme Court held, in United States v US District Court (1972), that government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. Specifically, that "The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate."
And why do you put "gathering intelligence" in quotes? That phrase doesn't appear anywhere within the text of the Constitution.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 02:40 am (UTC)http://www.nysun.com/article/32651 has the details.
And that case applied to survellience of 'domestic groups' not foreign ones.
I'll admit that I'm not crazy about what's going on, however it is within the scope and letter of the law, and we are still at war, even if some people don't wish to recognize it because they wish to turn a blind eye to Islamic Terrorism. When it all ends (and it will, I just hope we win it) then we need to be sure to then be vigilant to make sure the government goes back into its box. It has everytime in the past because there is usually a backlash against the behaviors that had to take place during the war.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 05:44 am (UTC)But the FISA law already establishes legal means other than a court order for intercepting or tapping communications. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the Bush administration used those legal means. And you haven’t been arguing that the Bush administration kept within the bounds established by FISA, you’ve been arguing that they have the right to break FISA.
Also, the author of the editorial was being a bit dishonest. The section of CALEA he was quoting (Section 103(a)) is addressing the capabilities that communications providers have to make sure that their systems can provide, not the legal conditions under which they can be used. CALEA in general just requires that communications providers make sure that they have equipment and procedures in place to comply with the requests when they are made; it doesn’t establish any new conditions under which any formerly-illegal requests become legal.
And, again, the editorial addresses program #2, while I was talking about program #1.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 05:53 am (UTC)You won't find that in the Constitution because it isn't in there.
The Congress can not write any law that takes away Presidential powers or authority, because that is unconstitutional.
Congress has ultimate control over money, period. If Congress passes a law saying you won't do this, then, if it takes money to do it, you won't do it. The President has decided to ignore and/or "override" that with signing statements many times. I believe this to be fundamentally against the letter and spirit of the Constutition.
Indeed, the argument you're making is a variant of that of the "unitary" executive, and I assure you that the authors of the Federalist papers disagreed with your ideas in this case; c.f. the link I posted fourth, with the separate paragraph. Where you will find agreement is in the Anti-Federalist papers, and they presented the possibility of this kind of amalgamation of power in the executive as a reason to oppose adoption of the Constitution as written.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:10 am (UTC)Clinton engaged in blatent domestic spying against political enemies and got caught numerous times. Justice stifled all investigations and everyone said it was fine. Oh well, so maybe Bush is taking a page from that playbook? At least he hasn't had a Friday night massacre like Clinton and Nixon did, though Clinton's made Nixon look like a piker and everyone ignored it.
At least Republican's haven't started filing false charges against democrats to get them out of office, and aren't going around shooting up democratic party headquarters. What goes around comes around you know.
What it all comes down to, he won't be impeached, he hasn't done anything to rise to the level of impeachment and if they try to impeach him the 06 elections will see the congress go 90 percent Republican.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:30 am (UTC)Is that all you have to fall back on when Bush and his Administration is exposed for the liars and cheats they are?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 02:57 pm (UTC)Fair enough; I was taking a cheap shot, and I retract it.
In 92 they passed a law that pretty much allows the whole phone records thing, no one thought it was a bad thing then, why now?
Oh, I was lobbying against all sorts of expansionist crap in the 1990s. Don't try to put me in that box, it won't work.
Clinton engaged in blatent domestic spying against political enemies and got caught numerous times. Justice stifled all investigations and everyone said it was fine.
No we didn't.
What it all comes down to, he won't be impeached
Oh, I'm sure he won't. I actually think it would be good for the Republican party for them to do it, but I don't think it'll happen.
he hasn't done anything to rise to the level of impeachment and if they try to impeach him the 06 elections will see the congress go 90 percent Republican.
Um, if "they" try to impeach him, it'll be the Republicans doing it. Remember, it's been a Republican-controlled Congress since 1994.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:27 pm (UTC)This is why whenever anyone wants to push any kind of law that curtails freedom or expands government I always try to point out that one day they're not going to be in power, the other side will, and how will they like it then? As we can see currently, they're not liking it at all but I want to rub their noses in the fact that they were fine with it when -their- side did it.
As for the Congress, well the Republicans have the majority, (same in the Senate) but the Democrats still control it more than the Republicans do (again, same in the senate) and that's because the Republicans 1) refuse to act like the WON the election 2) have no balls and 3) got away from their conservative base (which is what got them the Congress in the first place!). If they'd go back to cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reducing government things would be great. This is why they might lose it in 06, and why Hillary is almost guarenteed to get elected President: The Republicans are ignoring their base and acting like Democrats. If they don't start getting tough on illegal immigration, I'm voting straight Libertarian.
And if McCain runs I'M VOTING FOR HILLARY. And you can take that to the bank.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 09:30 pm (UTC)If, on the other hand, you don’t think it’s a problem, then you shouldn’t have thought it was a problem when Clinton signed the law in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 02:04 pm (UTC)Even assuming the rest of your post, I would gently remind you that just because you think their actions are doing the country harm doesn't mean that they believe that they are doing the country harm. It's just possible that they believe that the greater potential harm to the country comes from the erosion of civil liberties in a time of crisis that, as defined by the current administration, will never end. You may disagree with the substance of that belief, but it's not a frivolous view, and to those holding this views the disclosure amounts to patriotism.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 03:25 pm (UTC)Helping the enemy in time of war is not patriotic. Thinking so is rather bizarre, and completely illogical.
As for the suspension of civil liberties, look at every war we've been in, the same happened in each one. What good is having civil liberties if you lose the war? Do you think the enemy will come along and restore them? No, they'll subjugate us and instill their own laws. Some of which call for the immediate execution of a lot of us. None of these programs to date has violated the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They're not looking to prosecute Citizens, they're trying to find military targets (terrorists).
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 04:41 pm (UTC)I know this is probably going to be a waste of the couple minutes it takes to write this, but hey - gotta say it anyway.
Since you seem to know so much about everything, or you think you do, I have a question I'd like you to answer for me:
What country are we in a war with right now?
It's not Iraq. We're over there helping them rebuild and recover from the rule of Saddam Hussein. We're helping them rebuild their infrastructure and just have to deal with some insurgents trying to come in and mess around with all that.
It's not Afghanistan. We went in there to deal with the Taliban.
It's not Iran. We're just threatening them if they proceed with their nuclear development.
It's not South Korea, either. Do we even take them seriously right now, or are we so caught up in the Middle East they're just a few countries down the list?
This "War on Terror?" It isn't a declaration of war against any specific country. No, it's basically a gung-ho way of saying we're going after terrorism wherever it exists. It's called what it is because we've become so used to terms like the "War on Drugs," the "War on Crime," etc. We're even dealing with a bit of a "War on Gays" right now, too. Chances are, if there's a topic - obesity, schools, gas-guzzling vehicles, what have you - there's a "War on" something, somewhere.
Sure, sure, I know stopping terrorism is important. I'm down with that. I want it done away with. But, we are not in a traditional war like Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. This is a different battlefield.
It's also a much broader one, one a lot of people like you like to use as an excuse to call people traitors when they try to inform the general public about things the Bush Administration is up to. You like to run around and say those people are being treasonous, that they're helping the enemy.
That's a nice attempt to carry on the "treasonous liberals trying to ruin everything the good conservatives are doing for this country" crap that's so prevalent today. It doesn't work on as many people as it once did, though - or have you missed how negatively the Bush Administration is seen now? Oops, I guess that's another feather in the hat of the liberal media and all the other evil leftists out there, trying to aid the enemy. Of course that's exactly what it is. How silly of me.
There are others who say those people are the true patriots here, because they refuse to let TPTB bully them into being silent and letting them get away with everything they're trying to do to take full control of the three branches of government here.
How long is this so-called "War on Terror" going to last? Do you really think, even if we're ultimately successful in the Middle East, that there will be a time when our government can safely say "There is no more terrorism, this war is over!"
Doubt it. Things have been set up so we'll be in a "war" as long as the Administration needs us to be. We'll see more and more civil liberties coming under fire, and we can count on people like you to be here to tell us to live with it or you're traitors to the cause.
Nice propaganda, Banner.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 07:14 pm (UTC)Try opening your eyes for once instead of swallowing all the crap you're being fed.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 02:46 am (UTC)Thanks, I needed the chuckle.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-12 09:45 pm (UTC)This flat assertion is one that a number of people from both major political parties would disagree with as a matter of Constitutional Law.
Leaving that aside, there are so many issues here that it is hard to imagine that they will be settled in a LJ thread. A few thoughts:
The balance of civil liberties vs. security is a serious one, and goes back to the founding of the Republic. Franklin's quote about those who surrender liberty for security deserving neither comes to mind. Lincoln suspended Habaeus Corpus in the Civil War. Roosevelt interned the Japanese. Both (especially the latter) ultimately shamed the country, and added little if anything to the prosecution of the war effort. The thought that my grandchildren will be paying reparations to those who may be wrongly interred in Guantanamo doesn't cheer me up much.
Why am I more worried about losing liberty in this "war" than in others? Because depending on how you define a "War on Terror", it never ends. A war between nation-states has a beginning and an ending. Even excesses taken in such a war sunset naturally. We should guard our liberties all the more vigilantly in a situation where there is no prospect of getting them back.
But what they believe in this case doesn't matter it's really more about what the law says and during a time of war giving up national security secrets is a hanging offense. It's called treason. And please don't tell me that they're being patrotic, because they're not.
I don't believe in the disclosure of National Security Secrets, and support the prosecution of people those who do disclose them. If a person's conscience calls upon them to do something, they should be willing to pay the price, and gladly, for that act of conscience. It may be that a trial by jury frees that person, as an act of jury nullification. That's one reason for the right of trial by jury in the first place. We like nullification when John Peter Zenger is walking after tweaking the Crown; we hate it when a jury believes that the Administration is over-reacting to a person following their conscience.
As a corollary to this, the Administration's secrecy bent leads them into this land, because if EVERYTHING is a "National Security Secret", then disclosure of truly dangerous secrets get lumped in with disclosure of (for example) a program that is illegal and ill-conceived in it's conception. In some circumstances the latter disclosure is called whistleblowing.
Helping the enemy in time of war is not patriotic. Thinking so is rather bizarre, and completely illogical.
Every idiot politician and pundit right now seems to be hollering that their opponent is "helping the enemy." Sometimes I suspect that they are all right, which isn't greatly encouraging. Neo-cons and Al Quaeda seem at times to share a similar enthusiasm for a clash of civilizations. Somewhat naively, I tend to think that the vast majority of politicians, pundits, and people in this country are on the same side, or at least seeking the same ends. This includes people whose views I strongly disagree with. Where we differ is how best to achieve those ends.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 02:49 am (UTC)How do I know this?
Simple, if they had cared about the country, rather than running right to the newspapers and spreading it all about they would have approached a couple of members of Congress, and asked -them- to investigate it. Congress could have provided the check and balance necessary in our country, While at the same time keeping the issue secret and not comprimising National Security, unless they found it was wrong and illegal and not in the best interest of the people of the United States.
That's what -I- would have done, and what I like to believe any really patriotic person would have done. There are a good many Democrats in Office who would have investigated this seriously, and kept their mouths shut unless they had proof of lawbreaking.
As for the War, well it's really not against terror, it's against Islam, and it isn't going to end until either Islam reforms like other religions did to become less violent, Islam is wiped out, or we become muslim.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:53 am (UTC)We all know how perfectly that worked during the Crusades. Ayep.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:13 pm (UTC)They're the ones driving this, they defined the situation. Those are the only outcomes that will put an end to this war. Islam is a religion of conquest and war, always has been. A reformation would be nice, but I'm not expecting to see one.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 04:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:41 pm (UTC)Considering the way Islam treats women, non-muslims, practices slavery, limits freedom of speach, executes homosexuals and kills people just for the hell of it, I'm surprised that YOU as a Liberal won't admit that either. Or support it. We can sit here and argue until the cows come home, but we both know we'll never do more than use words. If one of us was a muslim however, the other would be worried about being killed, Because Islam teaches that it's okay to do that to those who criticize Islam, and nearly ALL Musliims either practice it or support it.
If the Democratic Party came out tomorrow and recognized the fact that this is a war against Islam and that were going to fight Islam I'd vote the straight ticket all the way down. I've seen what Islam does to people, it turns them into animals. You think Christian Fundies are bad? Try the Islamic ones, they'll kill you.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:49 pm (UTC)And no, not all conservatives will admit this is a war on Islam. You're one of the first I've EVER seen come right out and say it, and I've seen a lot. Most have tried to hide it behind the guise of needing to stamp out terrorism in all forms, doing a pretty poor job of hiding it in the process as it's not just radical muslims who are responsible for terror in the world.
Anyhow, I'd rather they just be honest about it and say it like you did.
Either way, this has been viewed as a holy war for quite a while, especially in the Middle East.
Religion sucks.
But, I could show you a number of muslims who are against what the people in the Middle East are about.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 09:58 pm (UTC)Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers?
I know, it sounds like a sports team. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers for short, or Tamil New Tigers when they were founded in 1972, were the most aggressive group of suicide bombers in the world up until the the Bush administration converted Iraq into a terrorist training camp. As of May 2000, the Tigers were responsible for five times as many suicide attacks as all other terrorist groups put together. They invented the suicide vest in 1991 — the Palestinians got the idea from the Tamil Tigers.
And they’re not Muslims. They’re revolutionary Marxists from a Hindu culture, seeking independence for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka from the Sinhala Buddhists.
American Conservative had an interview last year with Robert Pape, of the University of Chicago, who’s assembled a database of every known suicide attack since 1980, and published a book about the phenomenon called Dying to Win. His conclusion is that “overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.” He does think religion is involved, in that suicide-terrorism is more likely when the occupiers and occupied are of different religions.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 05:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:00 am (UTC)Just wait till Hillary gets elected, then the fur is really going to fly.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:32 am (UTC)That dog sure as hell doesn't hunt.
That's WEAK.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 02:52 pm (UTC)Presumably you missed the impeachment proceedings. Also, please don't make presumptions about what I was and was not saying. Admittedly, the specific charges they brought him up on were, well, largely stupid and pointless, which was particularly irritating when, in fact, there was a reasonable charge: abuse of power. I supported impeachment on those grounds, though I did not think it was as mandatory as it is in this case.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-13 07:18 pm (UTC)