Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: Legal question
Old 12-19-2005, 07:20 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Work 4 Beer
Congress is really the only check for behavior such as this (of course, the courts could refuse to allow illegally gained wiretap evidence if Bush got around to prosecuting those he was listening in on.)
Courts are not needed if you're an "enemy combatant." Jose Padilla could tell you all about that...but I think he's still in a brig.
__________________

__________________
eridanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: Legal question
Old 12-19-2005, 07:47 PM   #22
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Saw a little of GWB on the tube (he's been getting a lot of
"face time"). DW said, "What an ass!" or WTTE................
My response? "Yeah, but he is better than the alternative."
I can't imagine anything ever changing my opinion on that,
but I keep my options open.

JG
__________________

__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-19-2005, 10:14 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,083
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerEd
>>Why have impeachment hearing not been scheduled?
Republican president, republican senate, republican house...thats why.
I use iwon to get some of my news and they have a daily survey.

Today the survey was on the this very topic. It appears that those that took the survey aren't too concerned about bush's big brother's prying eyes. Only 27% were really concerned. I guess real patriotic ameericanns need not be worried.


According to a story published last week, the National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropped on people inside the United States by monitoring international e-mails and phone calls following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks – without a warrant authorizing the surveillance. President Bush defended the surveillance as necessary and legal during a news conference today. (AP)

Are you concerned that the NSA may have secretly eavesdropped on people within the United States since 2002?

27% - Yes - very concerned
19% - Yes - somewhat concerned
23% - No - not very concerned
29% - No - not concerned at all
2% - I'm not sure
__________________
I look to the present moment because that's where I live my life.
MJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-19-2005, 11:28 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go
To remind the conveniently forgetful:

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.* Dec 16 1998

From the ultra-right-wing site of CNN.

For those too lazy to click through to the CNN site because it may disquite their hyperpartisan fantasy world, this is also a quote:

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

and this . . .

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

don't forget this . . .

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.


Keep in mind that someone can be wrong without being a liar.* Even Bill Clinton.* *
There's no question that a lot of people could not believe that a President of the United States would actually lie about WMDs in order to fight an unjustified war that would send thousands of young Americans to their deaths. And if there is any doubt, many political leaders will choose to be supportive of their President who they believe is making a difficult decision.

I realize that your comment is completely accurate Yrs to Go. You simply pointed out that azanon seemed to have insight that Bill Clinton did not have at the time. I agree with you. azanon did seem to understand the depths this administration would sink to more than Bill Clinton did at the time of the unjustifed invasion.
__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-19-2005, 11:32 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRGALT2U
Saw a little of GWB on the tube (he's been getting a lot of
"face time").* DW said, "What an ass!" or WTTE................
My response?* "Yeah, but he is better than the alternative."
I can't imagine anything ever changing my opinion on that,
but I keep my options open.

JG
There have been discussions about IQ and intelligence on this board in the past. A lot of people have expressed doubt about some of the IQ claims. As someone who has studied IQ and intelligence in some detail, I do not doubt any of the claims. I understand that high IQ scores do not keep someone from having poor real-world analytical skills or being a fool.
__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 05:50 AM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ
I use* iwon* to get some of my news and they have a daily survey.

Today the survey was on the this very topic. It appears that those that took the survey aren't too concerned about bush's big brother's prying eyes. Only 27% were really concerned. I guess real patriotic ameericanns need not be worried.


According to a story published last week, the National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropped on people inside the United States by monitoring international e-mails and phone calls following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks – without a warrant authorizing the surveillance. President Bush defended the surveillance as necessary and legal during a news conference today. (AP)

Are you concerned that the NSA may have secretly eavesdropped on people within the United States since 2002?

27% - Yes - very concerned
19% - Yes - somewhat concerned
23% - No - not very concerned
29% - No - not concerned at all
2% - I'm not sure
I am not all that concerned, but I don't really approve
(of the increase in "eavesdropping", etc). Rather, I take a longer term view.
Whether we have GWB or someone else, and even if 9/11 never
happened, this sort of intrusive "law enforement/investigation"
would still increase steadily. IOW, even with no 9/11, the march
to an Orwellian world would go on. The juxtaposition of GWB
and 9/11 just pushed this forward a bit more rapidly. You will see
stuff in the future that will make the NSA eavesdropping look
like a tempest in a teapot.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 07:15 AM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by eridanus
Courts are not needed if you're an "enemy combatant." Jose Padilla could tell you all about that...but I think he's still in a brig.
But in the absence on any oversight whatsoever, how do you know who they are spying on and for what purpose? Its not that onerous to go to a secret court within 72 hours of having done a wiretap. So why the hell did the administration choose not to do so? I can think of two reasons, neither particularly comforting: 1) they are completely power-mad and don't think they need to consult anyone or even obey the law or 2) they know they are doing something illegal and don't want to be caught.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 09:13 AM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,505
Re: Legal question

Look, i saw the pictures Colin Powell put on TV that were supposed to be WMD storage facilities;* basically you could see the top of a large building and that was it.* *We were showed nothing at all that even began to be conclusive evidence that they had WMD.* If we had harder evidence that they had WMDs, then we should have been shown it.* If it would have given a location away, then at least show us this hard evidence after the fact.

The real fact is they never had any conclusive evidence Iraq had WMD.* They are liars, no if's and's or buts about it.* *It was clear the UN wasnt going to bless our desire to attack Iraq, so they added all the WMD and terriorist harboring BS to suggest we had no choice.

Later on (I dont have the quote but i can paraphrase), Bush responded to the accusations saying "Aren't we better off now?".* *Folks thats just another way of saying, in his mind, Bush is basically saying he knew it was all BS and justifies it by being under the belief that the ends justifies the means.* * "Aren't we better off now?" is making that argument, in so many words.

I believe the ends does not always justify the means and it certainly didnt in the case.* The means was to lie to each and everyone of you, and kill young 18-21 year old boys with their future ahead of them, and why some of you are not deeply offended confuses me to no end. I got sick to my stomach seeing that 22 year old with metal leg on TV Monday night all due to lying and deceit. I see the word "shame" being thrown around a lot. Shame on you, Bush.

Did Clinton ever attack Iraq? We all wanted Saddam out of power, including Clinton and me, its just some of us wanted to use an ethical solution to do it.

Azanon
__________________
azanon is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 09:25 AM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by azanon
why some of you are not deeply offended confuses me to no end.*

Azanon
Well, I AM offended. With you there! However, I find all
politics/politicians pretty offensive generally. With me, it is usually
only the degree of contempt I hold that distinguishes one from the other.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 09:31 AM   #30
Recycles dryer sheets
dusk_to_dawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 163
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by azanon

Did Clinton ever attack Iraq?* We all wanted Saddam out of power, including Clinton and me, its just some of us wanted to use an ethical solution to do it.

Azanon
Uh, yeah, he did, 12/16/1998

From CNN
<<Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. >>
__________________
The way I see it, you got two choices. You either gotta get busy livin'...or get busy dyin'.
dusk_to_dawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 09:37 AM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,505
Re: Legal question

Excuse me... let me rephrase.

Did Clinton ever invade Iraq?*

Just about every (modern) president has air striked someone during their tenure.* Big deal.

....

What JG?* you don't make any sense sometimes.

....

If some of you actually believe them on the WMD story, i have some snake oil i'd like to sell you. I'm also selling tickets to hunt snipe here in Arkansas.
__________________
azanon is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 09:54 AM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by azanon
Just about every (modern) president has air striked someone during their tenure.* Big deal.

....

What JG?* you don't make any sense sometimes.

....

If some of you actually believe them on the WMD story, i have some snake oil i'd like to sell you.* I'm also selling tickets to hunt snipe here in Arkansas.
Azanon, my good friend, I was agreeing with you. That is probably why
you got confused. I just took the opportunity to restate my disgust
with almost all things political. And, I don't believe them on the WMD either. OTOH, it's just politics as usual.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 10:03 AM   #33
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRGALT2U
Azanon, my good friend, I was agreeing with you.* That is probably why
you got confused.* I just took the opportunity to restate my disgust
with almost all things political.* And, I don't believe them on the WMD either.* OTOH, it's just politics as usual.*

JG
Oops, I see what I did. "With you there." could have meant
"offended" with you. Sorry azanon. What I menat to say was that I was
with you on that issue. Yep, I could have been more clear but
I'm typing and posting pretty quickly. Now, I must depart for a time
as (contrary to some opinions here) I do have a life.

Elvis has left the building....................

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 11:47 AM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,505
Re: Legal question

Yeah, i wasnt offended, i was asking for clarification. I wasn't sure what you meant by "Well, I AM offended. With you there!" I see what you're saying now.

I only made 150 on the last IQ test i took JG, so you might have to dumb it down a bit for me =p.
__________________
azanon is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-20-2005, 12:33 PM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Brat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,914
Re: Legal question

The real issue is the power of the Office of the President, ANY President.* Think back to your personal 'worst Prez', would you want that person the exercise power unchecked by either the Judicary or Congress?

This is an IMPORTANT issue not limited to my/your opinion of the current occupant of the office.*
__________________
Duck bjorn.
Brat is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-21-2005, 02:41 AM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 524
Re: Legal question

Iraq, WMD, torture, the leak, and now spying on Americans. He's lost a lot of credibility. They think they're above the law. Have you ever seen Barney on a leach? Re-read Amendment IV.
__________________
JB is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-21-2005, 05:35 PM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB
Iraq, WMD, torture, the leak, and now spying on Americans.* He's lost a lot of credibility.* They think they're above the law.* Have you ever seen Barney on a leach?* Re-read Amendment IV.

He certainly has lost credibility . . . you forgot to mention Katrina.

But it strikes me that at the bottom of all this are serious questions that deserve a serious discussion. It's too bad we're not getting one. Instead everyone is playing political 'gotcha' when we should be talking about how you can balance the near impossible security problems posed by terrorism while simultaneously protecting civil rights. Lost in the rush to hang Bush are important questions:

On "torture", what exactly is the allowable amount of "stress" a prisoner can be subjected to if it is believed that they have information that could prevent a terrorist attack?

On "civilian combatants", what do you do with people who are believed to be conspiring to commit a terrorist act but have not yet broken any law or if revealing the evidence against that individual would jeopardize other intelligence operations? Do you wait until 3,000 or more people are dead and then round up 'those responsible'?

On "spying on Americans", is it appropriate to have the NSA monitor the communications of suspected terrorists? Given the potential urgency in each of these situations is it also appropriate to have a mechanism where, in certain instances, the monitoring can start with the judicial review to follow? In the specific instance that currently has everyone hyperventilating, the administration did consult Congress as well as a panel of judges. All of which are now Shocked! Shocked! that this was going on.

Each of these is tough questions that have no good answers. It is a shame we aren’t having an intelligent debate about any of this.

With respect to "the leak" isn't it funny how no one is clamoring for a special investigation into who leaked a covert operation that actually has national security implications.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-21-2005, 05:47 PM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by . . . Yrs to Go


Each of these is tough questions that have no good answers.* It is a shame we aren’t having an intelligent debate about any of this.

Agree! "Tough questions". If you are waiting for an
"intelligent debate", I fear you are doomed to disappointment.

JG
__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-21-2005, 05:48 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Brat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,914
Re: Legal question

Quote:
In the specific instance that currently has everyone hyperventilating, the administration did consult Congress as well as a panel of judges. *All of which are now Shocked! Shocked! that this was going on.
That is not my understanding of what happened. *Some members of Congress were INFORMED, NOT CONSULTED. *This is the first time I have heard that a panel of judges was consulted. *There is a panel of judges who hear NSA wiretap requests, the reason for the dust-up is that they did not take advantage of that panel. *The law gives them, as I recall, a free pass on the first 48 or 72 hours so there is no reason why a wiretap can't be in progress while they are preparing to file a request with the panel.

The members of Congress who were informed were prohibited from discussing this with anyone. *Frankly, I don't see why they honored the 'prohibitation' as the Executive Branck actions were unlawful.
__________________
Duck bjorn.
Brat is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: Legal question
Old 12-21-2005, 06:24 PM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,875
Re: Legal question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brat


The members of Congress who were informed were prohibited from discussing this with anyone. *Frankly, I don't see why they honored the 'prohibitation' as the Executive Branck actions were unlawful.
"Informed" members of Congress is an oxymoron.

JG
__________________

__________________
MRGALT2U is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need Funny Fake Legal Disclaimer MikeD Other topics 8 05-24-2007 05:52 PM
Prepaid legal services? cute fuzzy bunny Other topics 12 03-05-2007 12:34 AM
How to answer questions. ???With a question or assignment????? dex Forum Admin 2 02-25-2007 08:56 AM
HornyManatee.com Legal Issues TromboneAl Other topics 1 12-07-2006 11:39 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.