Legal question

[brewer12345]

Martha or any other lawyers that would care to comment:

The president has publicly admitted to spying on Merkin citizens using the NSA. As I understand it, this is a black and white transgression of law. Why have impeachment hearing not been scheduled? If, hypothetically, a sitting president's party controlled congress and steadfastly refused to begin proceedings, would there be any legal remedy, or could the president murder at will and tell the public to go pound sand?

 

[Martha]

Black and white? Nothing is ever black and white.

The NSA activities are claimed to be justified in a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president.

 

[brewer12345]

Do you find that line of argument convincing?

I would like to think that the protection of our civil rights should merit more than an opinion of some flunky lawyer, but as is so often the case lately, I am expecting to be disappointed on this score.

 

[Martha]

No I don't. I think that the guy who wrote the memo is the same guy that wrote the torture memo.

 

[farmerEd]

>>Why have impeachment hearing not been scheduled?

Republican president, republican senate, republican house...thats why.

 

[retire@40]

Martha or any other lawyers that would care to comment:

The president has publicly admitted to spying on Merkin citizens using the NSA.  As I understand it, this is a black and white transgression of law.  Why have impeachment hearing not been scheduled?  If, hypothetically, a sitting president's party controlled congress and steadfastly refused to begin proceedings, would there be any legal remedy, or could the president murder at will and tell the public to go pound sand?

I think you're jumping to conclusions. It is legally possible for the NSA to spy on Americans.

 

[brewer12345]

I think you're jumping to conclusions.  It is legally possible for the NSA to spy on Americans.

Of course. But what was done sounds an awful lot like it was NOT legally done. I have to say that I am not that far from learning all the words to "Oh Canada".

 

[REWahoo]

I have to say that I am not that far from learning all the words to "Oh Canada".

Thinking of moving to Canada, eh? Check with Alex Baldwin if you need some assistance...

 

[BigMoneyJim]

It's "O Canada". By the way, there are some elections in November. 1/3 of the Senate and all of the House I think.

 

[azanon]

The thing i keep wondering is, How many major screwups is he going to say "I'm completely responsible for"  (ie.  Katrinia response, attacking Iraq with bad intelligence*, etc) and not relieve himself of duty.   This really confuses me.   

Someone needs to tell him when you fail miserably at your job, you're supposed to step aside and let someone else do it.  Why didnt he take the hint from the FEMA director stepping aside?  That's what you're supposed to do on major blunders, lol.

* I have never believed he had bad intelligence. I think he knew exactly what they did and did not had, and attacked under false pretense. I never believed they had WMD, and I never believed they harbored international terrorists.

 

[work4beer]

If, hypothetically, a sitting president's party controlled congress and steadfastly refused to begin proceedings, would there be any legal remedy, or could the president murder at will and tell the public to go pound sand?

Impeachment is a non-justiciable political question. The Supremes will not stand in. Certainly not on this wiretapping thing; Congress has to do it. 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.)

Could an independent counsel (or the current one investigating Plamegate, Fitzgerald) start investigating? Maybe. But only real check on the President is either a) public pressure forces resignation after said indepedent prosecutor unearths/forces the unearthing of serious dirt, a la Nixon) or b) impeachment.

Congress can do other things, and they hold the purse strings, but you won't see this resolved in the courts anymore than, say, the War Powers Act.

 

[JPatrick]

If we could get a redo on the definition of "Americans" we probably wouldn't need to spy on them

 

[kat]

Last I heard, the Senate Judiciary Committee -- Senator Specter -- wants to hold hearings.

 

[sgeeeee]

>>Why have impeachment hearing not been scheduled?

Republican president, republican senate, republican house...thats why.

And don't forget a majority of the voting public who are GWB appologists.  I think a lot of people who voted for the coke-snorting, draft-dodging, manipulative, ultra wealthy elitist don't want to admit he's a disaster.   (Whew.  It's hard to get all that derogatory information into one sentence.)  Rather than stand up against the world's largest ever budget deficit, an unjustified and costly war, torture and war crimes, or serious violations of civil liberties, they just stick to their Republican dogma.  They don't want to admit they were wrong.  If there were some outrage from the voters, even a Republican House might decide it was smart to start procedings.  But with massive complacency, why take action and bring attention to it?

 

[Gone4Good]

*I never believed they had WMD.

Then I guess you are smarter than Bill Clinton who thought they did.

 

[farmerEd]

Then I guess you are smarter than Bill Clinton who thought they did.

There we have it...I wondered how long it would take on the thread before Bill Clinton was blamed for GWB invading Iraq in search of non-existent WMD's.

 

[REWahoo]

Anyone on the forum want to take a wager on how many posts this thread will go before the N*zi reference comes up? And no, this one doesn't count...

 

[Gone4Good]

There we have it...I wondered how long it would take on the thread before Bill Clinton was blamed for GWB invading Iraq in search of non-existent WMD's.

Huh?

I don't really understand how you can misconstrue "Then I guess you are smarter than Bill Clinton who though [Iraq had WMD]" to mean "Bill Clinton is responsible for invading Iraq."

 

[sgeeeee]

There we have it...I wondered how long it would take on the thread before Bill Clinton was blamed for GWB invading Iraq in search of non-existent WMD's.

I've been observing the political debate in this country long enough that I can explain this.  First, I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton is the root of all evil in the world.  Any act by any Republican can be rationalized simply by attacking Bill Clinton.  Sometimes for really big crimes it helps to attack Hillary too.  Small indiscretions by Republicans can be rationalized with a simple negative comment about Democrats or the Democratic Party.  Anyone making comments or observations about Republican indiscretions or misbehavior is obviously a liberal, Bill Clinton lover; and since Bill is the root of all evil, that also makes them devil worshipers.  Of course devil worshipers are freaks and nothing they say is valid or needs to be considered.  

 

[Gone4Good]

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.

 

[eridanus]

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.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

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

 

[MJ]

>>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

 

[sgeeeee]

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]

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.