Legal my ass....

[Msterbeau]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...676&ft=1&f=1001

[Shade Everdark]

I read this earlier today.

Good on her. It's long past time more people in positions of authority started standing up to this administration, in my humble opinion. Especially when the violations are so egregious, in that they could so easily have been avoided.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I read this earlier today.

Good on her.  It's long past time more people in positions of authority started standing up to this administration, in my humble opinion.  Especially when the violations are so egregious, in that they could so easily have been avoided.

Really is difficult to define "secret" and "national security" its a push-pull relationship of the states rights vs personal rights. Always a difficult issue.

I do feel like its fairly clear that this administration has pushed the envelope of "in the interests of national security" too far.

Unfortunately, in the longview i think we will eventually have more and more restrictive government as people are willing to accept less and less "risk" from outside forces. Starting at the begnining of recorded history up until today. Many i think have far to high a standard for "feeling safe" and many assume the only viable entity to make them safe is government. Thus over time we slowing give up personal freedoms for this so-called "safety" :fear

[HipsterDufus]

Really is difficult to define "secret" and "national security"  its a push-pull relationship of  the states rights vs personal rights.  Always a difficult issue.

I do feel like its fairly clear that this administration has pushed the envelope of "in the interests of national security" too far.

Unfortunately, in the longview i think we will eventually have more and more restrictive government as people are willing to accept less and less "risk" from outside forces.  Starting at the begnining of recorded history up until today.  Many i think have far to high a standard for "feeling safe" and  many  assume the only viable entity to make them safe is government.  Thus over time we slowing give up personal freedoms for this so-called "safety"  :fear

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. As our population continues to expand and the American empire continues it's decline, there will be more and more controls placed on our population in order to ensure that those in power stay in power. It's not a question of if, it's a question of how soon...

[Homicidalheathen]

I know. I heard about this yesturday. So glad I live a clean lifestyle....because now they will be able to bust you for anything and everything......

[Blackmail]

I guess Msterbeau hasn't been wathcing any of the analysis on this as it's expected to be overturned. The judge has a history of activism and has a high number of her decisions overturned. What will the thread be called when it is in fact overturned?

[Msterbeau]

    What will the thread be called when it is in fact overturned?

" Marc Still Thinks The Warrentless Wiretapping is Unconstitutional and an Illegal Expansion of Executive Powers."

:grin

[Blackmail]

" Marc Still Thinks The Warrentless Wiretapping is Unconstitutional and an Illegal Expansion of Executive Powers."

:grin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A guy said last night on CNN (forget who) that if they had the same laws in England as they do in the U.S. they may not have foiled the terror plans they broke up last week. Also there has been some discussion about whether Clinton did some illegal spying as well. I really hope this is overturned because it appears from what I've read, that NSA wiretapping does help deter terrorism.

[HipsterDufus]

I know.  I heard about this yesturday.  So glad I live a clean lifestyle....because now they will be able to bust you for anything and everything......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A healthy dose of paranoia goes a long way in our current society. I'm always careful about what my e-mails say, what I say on wireless phones, etc. And I don't even really have much to hide!

[Msterbeau]

A guy said last night on CNN (forget who) that if they had the same laws in England as they do in the U.S. they may not have foiled the terror plans they broke up last week.  Also there has been some discussion about whether Clinton did some illegal spying as well.    I really hope this is overturned because it appears from what I've read, that NSA wiretapping does help deter terrorism.

In the scheme of things I have less of an issue with a few warrentless wiretaps then I have with the way the Bush administartion is claiming more and more powers for the exectutive branch. It's getting to the point of imbalance between the other branches. The whole thing with signing statements that we discussed a bit a while back came up again in the news a couple weeks ago. Bush is using these to effectively ignore legislation he doesn't agree with. Where's the checks and balances there??

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

When did the Republic become an Empire?

Alexander Hamilton - Federalist No. 70 - on Presidential Powers

""is a leading [element] in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is no less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy."

U.S. Supreme Court - Ex Parte Milligan

"the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence."

or as one Justice put it "self-preservation is the first law of any nation."

[BrassFusion]

When did the Republic become an Empire?

Alexander Hamilton - Federalist No. 70 - on Presidential Powers

""is a leading [element] in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is no less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy."

U.S. Supreme Court - Ex Parte Milligan

"the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence."

or as one Justice put it "self-preservation is the first law of any nation."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, what are you using these quotes to assert?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

That our government’s first priority is to preserve the Nation it serves and do to what ever it takes to that end. So says the Constitution and the Supreme Court. During the Civil War many of these same problems we are facing came up and all were found to be Constitutional.

As an example... in a Declared War the President can suspend habeas corpus.

[phee]

That our government’s first priority is to preserve the Nation it serves and do to what ever it takes to that end. So says the Constitution and the Supreme Court. During the Civil War many of these same problems we are facing came up and all were found to be Constitutional.

As an example... in a Declared War the President can suspend habeas corpus.

So you are in defense of these means is what you are saying?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Yes. I thought I was pretty clear.

[phee]

Yes. I thought I was pretty clear.

Okay

[BrassFusion]

That our government’s first priority is to preserve the Nation it serves and do to what ever it takes to that end. So says the Constitution and the Supreme Court. During the Civil War many of these same problems we are facing came up and all were found to be Constitutional.

As an example... in a Declared War the President can suspend habeas corpus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's way naive to think every person in government is only looking out to preserve the nation's safety and values. And this is coming from a generally naive person.

If that were the goal, they'd spend exactly zero dollars drafting bullshit amendments defining a word (marriage) and banning flag burning.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It's Congresses Job to draft Bills and try to get them turned into Laws. If enough people feel a certain way about a given topic and let their congress person know how they feel, it's then that congress person's civic responsibility to draft a bill and see if it can get through Congress.

Also, as our government is setup, the President is given the duty to Protect the Nation from threats both foreign and domestic. Hence that office having control over the Military and Police forces. The only limitation on that power in the Constitution is that the President has to go to Congress and get permission to declare war.

[BrassFusion]

It's Congresses Job to draft Bills and try to get them turned into Laws. If enough people feel a certain way about a given topic and let their congress person know how they feel, it's then that congress person's civic responsibility to draft a bill and see if it can get through Congress.

Also, as our government is setup, the President is given the duty to Protect the Nation from threats both foreign and domestic. Hence that office having control over the Military and Police forces. The only limitation on that power in the Constitution is that the President has to go to Congress and get permission to declare war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some constituents are lunatics, though, and should probably be ignored... if you want to waste money on giving our public servants stupid tasks like trying to push bills that could never and should never pass, it's your money... WAIT! It's my money, too!

And if there were no other limitations on the executive branch in the constitution, how is the judge using the first and fourth amendments to declare warrantless wiretapping illegal? Everything in the constitution is made to limit the government as a whole, not just the president.

and no offense, but is there some reason you're capitalizing things like "Protect the Nation?" that seems kind of Orwellian to me... like, "Love is Hate, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace," that sort of thing.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Some constituents are lunatics, though, and should probably be ignored... if you want to waste money on giving our public servants stupid tasks like trying to push bills that could never and should never pass, it's your money... WAIT! It's my money, too!

And if there were no other limitations on the executive branch in the constitution, how is the judge using the first and fourth amendments to declare warrantless wiretapping illegal? Everything in the constitution is made to limit the government as a whole, not just the president.

and no offense, but is there some reason you're capitalizing things like "Protect the Nation?" that seems kind of Orwellian to me... like, "Love is Hate, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace," that sort of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. It not up to you or any other individual to decide what issues are too "stupid" to put to a vote. It’s called Democracy.

2. Those limitations you speak of apply to everyone. I was speaking of specific limitations that only affect the Presidency and Presidential powers.

3. Because I do. Why are you attacking my "speech" patterns?

[torn asunder]

3. Because I do. Why are you attacking my "speech" patterns?

it wasn't an attack, it was a question... you might find it benefits you more to not assume a defensive posture too hastily! =)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

anything that starts with "No offense intended" is meant to offend.

[phee]

anything that starts with "No offense intended" is meant to offend.

Not really... that is kind of a generalization

[torn asunder]

anything that starts with "No offense intended" is meant to offend.

actually, no - it's called prefacing a comment so as to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. in fact, i quite often will say something to that same effect, due to the ambiguous nature of text communication online. it's only common courtesy!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Ok, let me rephrase my question then.

Why are you dissecting the grammar of my dialog rather than debating the logic and/or factualness of it? Does it somehow bare witness to a flaw?