 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Bush be Impeached???...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:15 AM You are exactly right, Snagger. Its time to take to the streets. Shut down the country. Go for a general strike. Hit them in the pocketbook. Do you think Bush will listen? Perhaps Congress will. Its worth a try. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Ebbie Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:30 AM Incidentally, last week I was watching a political commentary show on television (don't remember which one but it might have been Washington Week in Review) and there one panelist said that it was a "really dumb thing" for the president to state that he was the one who authorised the spying thing, that since it is a legal issue which may end up in the courts it doesn't give him any wiggle room. What do you want to bet that it was AG Gonzales who advised him that it was permissible under the law for the president to spy without warrant? Gonzales is the one who advised the administration that torture is not torture unless it causes organ failure, and that the Geneva conventions were "rather quaint". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 Dec 05 - 03:57 AM GUEST,A said "check out Executive Order 12949 by William Jefferson Clinton which provides for search and seizure of your domicile without a court order". And this is a democracy ripe for exporting to other countries? Even in the darkest days of Greek politics (during the "Colonels' Junta") this was not possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:01 AM Grecko, I don't agree with the EO myself. At least you can ascertain what it means, unlike some others here. Donuel, you do agree those comments were said about Clinton, be they right, wrong or indifferent. Ebbie, I am simply trying to get comments on the two aforementioned Executive Orders, whether I agree with them or not. B, why not address the questions rather than bash the poster? There cannot be any impeachment. GWB is simply following what has been establish by other Presidents before him. I am not attacking bobert, simply trying to wring an answer from him on something he originated. I shall not attempt to defend myself as I see no reason to. That cannot be said of some others here. I never said I am a Bush golfing buddy. I just believe that some fairness is due everyone where the truth is concerned. Little Hawk, good post. (the long one) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:15 AM I've provided you with an answer, A... The problem is that you don't like the answer... It comes down to the fundamental question of disobeying the "laws"... Clinton didn't disobey the "law" in his executive order... He used the language "pursuant to..." ... There's a vast difference between "pursuant to" and just thinking to one's self "Ahhhh, screw that law. Laws for for other folks!!!" That in essence is the answer that you can't or won't accept and I fully understand fully why you won't ot can't accept it... If you do then yer boy is in some purdy serious trouble; the likes that make the Monika Lewinsky affair look more like a jay walking charge... Yes, I agree with those who feel that impeachement won't be brought aginst Bush because the political numbers aren't there in Congress and because the politcal will isn't there after all the in-fighting that Bush "the uniter" has brought our country with his over-use of wedge issues BUT undee other circumstances if a president stood before the country and boasted of breaking the law he or she would be impeached... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:35 AM Will Jr. ever obey the credo death before dishonor, will he fall on his sword to sidestep disgrace and impeachment? naah He must never be martyred. If there ever was a time to allow the treasonous acts within the highest office in the land to be exposed it is now. Disgrace is not enough. Hell how disgracful was it when Reagan died and his widow screamed that she did not want this moron to utter a single word at her husband's funeral? How disgracful was it when he stammered and mumbled so badly at his press conference he walked out in silence - TWICE ? How disgraced was he when langored on vacation before 9-11 and during Katrina? How disgrace was he when he froze (or simply waited as planned) in the Florida grade school while planes attacked? How disgraced was he when he bolted to his Nebraska bunker instead of retutning to Washington DC through 9-13? No, he deserves more than dishonor. Dishonor is a walk in the park for him. There needs to be something more lasting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:39 AM bobert, bobert, bobert! I was simply going to reply with a HUH! However, please tell me how GWB broke the law by following exactly the same EO established by Jimmy Carter which was also followed by all the Presidents after him.. A correction on your part - WJC did the domicile search thingy w/o a warrant, not electronic surveillance w/o a warrant as you are saying. I thought Carter was pretty much a 'do nothing Prez" but I give him props on that move. Don't think I can say that about the other EO. It was not specific enough. I am not a total fan of GW. However, I want fairness for all be it GW, WJC or your boy Spiro. Once again, GWB did not establish anything new. He simply followed a precedent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Donuel Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:46 AM W has not only broken the law, his defense is that he intends to go on breaking the law. The FISA federal judge is so disgusted he resigned today in protest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:48 AM One more time amd then I am off on a ski trip; WHAT LAW DID HE BREAK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:07 AM Whopper: George W. Bush The president crosses his fingers behind his back. ByTimothy Noah Posted Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005, at 2:19 AM ET jjj Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. —President Bush, at a Q and A in Buffalo, N.Y., April 20, 2004. Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts? A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent. We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect. —President Bush, at a press conference Nov. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of phone conversations inside the United States without seeking court orders. Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act." In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to say the second part. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: jeffp Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:10 AM EO 12949 requires the Attorney General and other designees to make the certifications required in the appropriate sections of FISA. These require the AG to certify that the premises are under control of foreigners, not American citizens. That is the difference between EO 12949 and GW's actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:23 AM Wow! Jeffp, show me where you found that! Seriously, I did not know that. According to legal interpretation, EO 12949 did just that to FISA when the EO was signed. You may have come up with a different approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:27 AM Have a nice trip, A...break a leg, as they say in show business. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:32 AM Off to try out for the Alpine Olympics - not really - don't think they are ready for a guy in his 60's trying for the downhill or giant slalom. I shall return to look for the law so many here think was broken. Later |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:44 AM GUEST,A, You really get first prize for the dumbest defence ever. So Bush is innocent because other presidents have done the same kind of thing before, is he? If you were accused of murder, I don't think your lawyer would advise you to protest your innocence on the basis that others had committed murder in the past. On the other hand, I suppose doing that might just get you off on grounds of insanity (grin). Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:48 AM I think it would be a GREAT idea for the democrats to try to impeach Bush for ilegal wiretapping. GO FOR IT. There is nothing I would rather see- well maybe Barbra Streisand hanging her own clothes up on an clothes line outside or Ramsey Clark being hung for treason- but we can only dream. Speaking of dreaming, lets get back to the Bush impeachment. Last time I thought about this (the Clinton impeachment) I think you need 2/3 of the vote in the Senate to convict for impeachment. That means you need 67 senators to vote for impeachment. (I know that some mudcatters are graduates of new math in our schools and may note be able to make that calculation) The current Senate mix is 55 republicants, 44 closet socialists, and 1 confirmed socialist. With 18 seats to defend in 2006 and 3 retirees, it doesn't look good at picking up a lot of seats. Therefore all you need is about 20 republican senators to vote for impeachment. No problem. Piece of cake. By the way- any of you catch the 60 minutes piece that ran a few years ago about the Clinton administration using wiretaps on people without any court orders or congress approval. Bob Barr was interviewed and supported your position. If you missed the 60 minutes piece, maybe you caught the Jenie Goralik letter defending the use of wiretaps without court permission. Very strong letter. She went on to say that it was important for national security and that you didn't even need probable cause. Can you imagine that. The assistant attorney general defends the use of wiretaps without court orders and without probable cause. She is probably the worst attorney general/assistant since Gonzales who is the worst attorney general sinse Ashcroft who is the worst attorney general since Reno- no quite frankly- reno was the worst attorney general of all time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:59 AM Larry K, agree with you on Reno. And Streisand and Clark for that matter. Maybe just censure for old Ramsey since Alzheimers may be a concern. Don T, thanks for the award but I must return it. I am not defending anyone in anyway, shape or form! I simply am asking for what law that so many here say GWB has broken with regard to wiretapping. It is not how I feel, or you for that matter. Tell me what law was broken, okay? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:12 PM The law, as has been pointed out a number of times, is the FISA act which requires warrants when using wiretaps on American citizens. If you enjoy living in a country where the rights of individuals are at the pleasure of the The critical point here is that due process is being set aside by the spurious plea of "necessity". This seems perfectly reasonable to those who have no sense of the difference between the United States and countries which espouse fascism explicitly rather than covertly, as under the current regime. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: jeffp Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:19 PM The Executive Order FISA Google is your friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Ramsey Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:26 PM I don't care what he has done, I will defend him. Ramsey C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,A Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:36 PM Jeff, wrong Executive Order. That was the one by WJC which allows search and seizure in your domicile w/o a warrant. That gives me pause. Amos, We may not disagree on what way to live. That has not been my question which seems to be a central area of avoidence. You are incorrect in your analysis of FISA when you chose to disregard the Executive Order. The EO, right, wrong or indifferent does away with the requirement for warrants. The EO is short and to the point. Please read it again. No defense from me for anyone. All I ask for is "what law did GWB break?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,a Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:37 PM airport shuttle here. see ya in a couple days |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,fiddler434 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:43 PM I cringe whenever HE speaks. Just when you think it can't get any worse, another example of abuse of power surfaces. The reason the administration didn't want to get a court order is because we would find out they are using it aganist Bush's political enemies, such as war protestors and peta. I am a member of the Democratic women's group here, they may be tapping my phone!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: jeffp Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:20 PM EO 12949 was one of the Executive Orders you referenced in your post of 12/20 9:18PM. The other one was EO 12139, which merely authorizes the AG to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section." (emphasis added) In other words, it requires the AG to stay within FISA. It goes on to state, "Any electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order." and "Any monitoring which constitutes electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order." (emphasis added in both cases) The entire text of EO 12139 is available at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm. Do you actually read this stuff before you cite it? Or do you not expect others to? Neither EO says what you claim they do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 21 Dec 05 - 01:36 PM I still think we are in the beginning of this but here is some food for thought: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed I'm not sure what to think at this point except to beware of dropbears bearing presents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:46 PM Bush is the greatest Presidential disaster in the history of the USA. The sonuvabitch should be drawn and quartered, never mind impeached. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: George Papavergis Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:28 PM Impeached? IMPEACHED? That's nothing to an arsehole like him. He should be IMCUCUMBERED or even better IMWATERMELONED! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:35 PM Well, he's already been IMPEARED hasn't he? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:43 PM Well, I'm sorry that A ain't 'round to respond to this but... ...hey, sure, Clinton signed an Executive Order allowing for situations whereby the Attorney General could "certify" a wiretap in lew of a court order... Did I like this EO??? Heck no but it was made public... It wasn't like Amercian citizens, if they were interetsed, couldn't read it and know what it meant... Yeah, A would have us believe that whjat Bush has done is nothing more than what Clinton did??? Wrong, A!!! What Bush did was give carte blanche authority to almost anyone at the NSA to innitiate intercepts and wiretaps... That's a long way from authorizing a cabinet level appointment to "certify" a wiretap or intercept.... A long way indeed... Now You, A, have asked what law was broken... Well, I would argue that in giving an entire agency carte blanche power to spy on Am,ericans violates both the 4th amendment as well as the Clinton revised spirit6 of the National Intellegence Surveilance Act and thus... ... an empeachable offense... Yeah, just as Congress di to Bill Clinton for a much lesser offense, I can't see any reason why Bush shouldn't be tried Senate of the US Congress.... You, and other would certainly like to poopoo this but it ain't all that poopooable... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:22 PM Bush WILL be impeached. He will never finish this term. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Once Famous Date: 21 Dec 05 - 09:57 PM Bush being impeached is a joke. It is a Republican controlled congress. The whiners here like bobert, donuel, and especially Amos are not lawyers and neither am I. Spiuting and ranting and whining, everyday as usual and nothing they say has any impact at all. You are in denial that we are at war with an enemy who wants us dead. What part of that do you need explained to you? How stupid can you possibly be? BTW, Bush's approval ratings are on the rise again. Makes your day, huh? Makes mine because I know how you feel about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:22 PM Still more folks who think he's doing a lousy job, Martin.... But, beyond that, there are samrtly fought battles and wars and dumbly fought ones... Bush has tired to micromanage Iraq... The generalos told him before invaduing Iraq that he didn't have enought boots on the ground but Bush thought he knew better... Now he's having to say things like, "Well, we've made some mistakes in Iraq." Hmmmmmmm? Sho nuff has... But what bothers me is that this man uis so aerrogant that he thinks that he and a bunch of other chickenhawks can make any intellegent decisions within their little chickenhawk circle... This is why I really don't like this guys style... It's like if he exposes himself to other opionuions then he's going to have to actually, ahhhh, think??? ("Hey, no one ever said I was going to have to think!!@!!( So, now to WIT: Here we have a guy who has isolated himself from the real world with this tiny little circle of advisors and he's wondering why he keeps messing up????? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:59 PM Bush's approval ratings have not gone up. Probably Rove at it again with propaganda. The situation hasn't changed any so there is nothing to account for this rise. Then you look at how much it rose: 4%. Hell, there's a 3% margin of error! IOW, this "rise" is conveniently blurry. It's a planted story (Whaaat? No way!) designed to stop Bush's tailSPIN. And it comes just as news of domestic spying surfaces. Coincidence, no doubt. And any who do give him higher marks for no reason at all obviously haven't received their heating bill yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:03 PM About this spying thing. Is this the first time any president has done it? If any previous presidents did the same thing why weren't they up for impeachment? Clinton did it and Carter did it but they have a D in fromt of their name whish gives them a free pass. No passes for R's though. Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats. Why? I hate to burden the peabrains of the dynamic duo anarchists Boobert and Anus with facts but: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm "February 9, 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 - - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section............" http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm "EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EO 1213923 May 1979 By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section. 1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information........" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:05 PM >>Azizi, because the attorney general said he did not do anything wrong. Last I checked that was the top lawyer in the land.<< The attorney-general doesn't determine if Bush broke the law in a congressional investigation. Congress does. And they're not looking at Dubby too favorably right now. Bush has attempted to screw Congress so often in order to cover his own ass that even the pubs are ticked off at him and calling for more investigations. He's going down. He's singlehandedly ruining the Republican party even if it does serve them right for ever giving him the nomination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:07 PM >>Clinton did it and Carter did it but they have a D in fromt of their name whish gives them a free pass. No passes for R's though. Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats.<< You remind me of losers who whine that the refs lost the game for them on bad calls. It's all the refs' fault because they have it in for us. Boo-hoo. Either say something intelligent or don't bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:09 PM Yes, Old Guy...but Bush is the one in office NOW. It's too late to impeach Clinton and Carter, because the horse is no longer in the barn. ;-) So naturally, it is Bush whom this thread is about. It's just your bad luck that he happens to be a Republican. I detest the Democrats too, you know. You have 2 parties down there in the USA that no one in his right mind should vote for again, ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Bobert Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:14 PM Ahhhh, problem is with yer thinking, Old Guy, is that both the EO's signed by Carter and Clinton weren't kept in secret... Big danged difference, pal... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:47 AM His ignorance is surpassed only by his arrogance. ...and the Republicans are the majority in Congress so expect more to come. Sounds like the Senate might be awake, however. Is there any hope? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Teribus Date: 22 Dec 05 - 04:50 AM While Executive Orders have been introduced, I would like to address a question of Bobert's that he, incorrectly, states has gone long unanswered. This question relates to his suggestion that rather than going to war to effect regime change, the US should have assassinated Saddam Hussein. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that this would not work for the following reasons: Practically: The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency (NO), or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (YES) Legally: It would be illegal there is an Executive Order in place prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of government/heads of state by US service personnel or by US intelligence/security operatives. Reference: President Gerald R. Ford's Executive Order 11905, relating to United States Foreign Intelligence Activities, dated 18th February, 1976. In Section 5 - Restrictions on Intelligence Activities (g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination. OK Bobert question answered???? Acknowledgement even that an answer has been provided????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kendall Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:12 AM YES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: kendall Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:30 AM What law did he break? The 4th amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Paco Rabanne Date: 22 Dec 05 - 10:31 AM Mr Bush IS a peach! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,rarelamb Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:46 AM 'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Amos Date: 22 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM Precedents in crime do not make them any less criminal, ding-dong. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Dec 05 - 12:15 PM Ah, rarelamb's link leads to the Gorelick Myth. "DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick's July 14, 1994 testimony that "the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under FISA. It's not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton's backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore." from http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=914257&ct=1742133 (inludes links to the original documents and sources) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 22 Dec 05 - 01:33 PM I see people in this thread sacrificing their own integrity for the sheer pleasure of thinking they are bashing GWB. Is it that important to you? And when you follow this path, can't you see where you are acting like fools? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: GUEST,G Date: 22 Dec 05 - 01:47 PM Tia, the quote you show is not from the National Review or Byron York. I subscribe to th electronic version of NR and what you have shown as a possible quote from the NR is in reality the opinion of someone who read the article. Rather goes in lockstep with my previous comment. Go to Nationalreview.com and read Byron Yorks article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: dianavan Date: 22 Dec 05 - 01:55 PM teribus says, "The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency (NO), or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (YES)" This sounds a bit like the regime down Texas way. For the same reason, it is probably useless to assassinate or impeach Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Bush be Impeached???... From: Peace Date: 22 Dec 05 - 02:06 PM I think some folks are living in a split-level reality. Go ahead and impeach Clinton and Carter. HOWEVER, impeach Bush while you're on a roll. He is acting AGAINST the American Constitution--and that means he is acting AGAINST the American people. If you don't get anything else through yer head before this year ends, get THAT through it. |