stevendedalus stevendedalus

JU Conservatives Uptight over Domestic Espionage

▼

JU Conservatives Uptight over Domestic Espionage

from JoeUser Forums

The site overwhelmingly is on the side of Bush’s approach to spying at home. Echoing fear-mongers across the nation on the spy issue, there is little room for debate. If we don’t go along with the manner in which the CIA and NSA gather evidence the following is shouted out:

            Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]

            Blocking this espionage would undercut the war on terror. [I thought the war on terror was in Iraq and we’re not apparently doing too well even there listening in on insurgents]

            Listening in is essential to our national security, according to Bush. He doesn’t even bother to add the end justifies the means. [I thought the development of democracy in the Middle East was the essence of the war on terrorism]

            Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]

            Opposing monitoring at a fearful time when vigilance should be at a high level of alert is irresponsible. [Like letting sharp-pointed scissors and not checking cargo on airplanes, huh]

            Terrorists don’t play by the rules, so why should we?[the high and mighty should stoop to their miserable level]

            Senators are more concerned over civil rights than saving lives and weaken defense.[You said that I didn’t]

            The president is the only elected official sworn to protect citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.[therefore the right to violate the law]

politics
21,901 views 82 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Either he has broken the law, Col, or he hasn't. An investigation will take care of that, but the bounds themselves are already decided, thanks. If a court decides he overstepped them, fine, but the Senate has already spoken and they don't need to sit around and reinterpret the laws they have already passed out of political vendetta.

You feel comfortable wasting tax payer dollars keeping Bush's name in the press, making daisy-chain subcommities, etc., reinventing checks and balances, but in reality this is in the hands of the judiciary now, or it should be. If they interpret Bush's actions as illegal, and that they merit investigation, then pass it back over to the executive and let law enforcement take care of it.

People like you want to turn it into a Legislative feeding frenzy just for propaganda's sake.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, Col, you see no difference between spying on political opponents and wiretapping civil rights activists, and tapping phone numbers found on computers on raids Al Qaeda hideouts in other countries?
To an extent you are right: there is definitely a big difference, but it only takes one sleaze ball to violate the spirit of tracking down terrorists by not resisting the temptation to blackmail those in the political arena. You may trust Bush, but Cheney and his bunch should not be. Granted, there will always be inadvertent intrusion on innocent private citizens, but there must be impartial oversight of abuse.
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

I did not say that. WHAT I SAID is Congress needs to understand WHAT Bush has been doing and then decide HOW FAR THE President will be allowed to go. That was what the 1978 law was about and Bush has admitted he is ignoring the requirements of that law!

The Bush administration's position is that the executive is not bound by the 1978 law but rather that the constitution grants the executive branch broad powers in time of war.  You may not agree with it but Bush's position is that the 1978 law is basically unconstitutional. 

Congress also enacted the war powers act in the early 70s and every President since then has asserted that they would not abide by that "law" as they believe it infringes on executive authority.

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am for preventing another tragic terrorist attack if at all possible. We need to figure out how we can do that without all privacy being lost.
How's this for a start? A non or bipartisan agency that answers to a commission consisting of a member from each of the three branches. It would be free to do surveillance targeted by substantially honest suspicion; when it turns out to be unconvincing all records of inadvertency are destroyed.  

at what point will you finally agree this administration is convinced it's a law unto itself?
You might just as well beat a fist into a brick wall: the admission will never transpire. Just because the world sees the administration's glaring mistakes, its vision is poor; the admininstration is infallible!

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
steve: sure, but then a lot of governmental powers can be abused. We can either spend all our time trying to make unabusable powers, or punish abuses when we find them.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
How's this for a start? A non or bipartisan agency that answers to a commission consisting of a member from each of the three branches. It would be free to do surveillance targeted by substantially honest suspicion; when it turns out to be unconvincing all records of inadvertency are destroyed.

The NSA is an executive branch agency that falls under the purview of the Department of Defense. It reports to the Director of National Intelligence, a Presidential appointee.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Draginol

Your post #55 hits the nail on the head.

The Bush administration's position is that the executive is not bound by the 1978 law but rather that the constitution grants the executive branch broad powers in time of war. You may not agree with it but Bush's position is that the 1978 law is basically unconstitutional.

The President does not under our Constitution have the authority to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. That is the responsibility of the Courts. Bush and Cheney are abusing the power granted to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. This MUST STOP!
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The President does not under our Constitution have the authority to decide if a law is Constitutional or not. That is the responsibility of the Courts. Bush and Cheney are abusing the power granted to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. This MUST STOP!"


That's the col in a nutshell. The courts must decide, but since it is Bush I already know what the outcome should be, so THIS MUST STOP...

why bother with courts at all? Let's just give the Col a crown and move somewhere else.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have the person who would like the Crown wrong. That is GWB. Your reply is another example of when a fact you do not like is presented (The court not the president judge if laws are constitutional) you attack the person rather then address the issue.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
steve: sure, but then a lot of governmental powers can be abused. We can either spend all our time trying to make unabusable powers, or punish abuses when we find them.
The labor we expend for being a democracy--try like hell to make better laws.

why bother with courts at all?
Precisely GW's stance!
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
The NSA is an executive branch agency that falls under the purview of the Department of Defense. It reports to the Director of National Intelligence, a Presidential appointee.
Is that a solution--an appointed position and an agency run by cronies? I doubt it. The whole damnable executive branch, regardless of party, needs to be free of cronyism.

every President since then has asserted that they would not abide by that "law" as they believe it infringes on executive authority.
But precedent in arrogance does not make it right.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
No system will be "free" of cronyism. Without the ability to appoint & fire at will, including putting people who are more or less aligned with your philosophy in place, we'd have nothing but an even larger and more unmanageable civil service than we already have. I would argue that the vast unappointed masses of government employees are the main reason the executive branch has such a hard time "doing" anything meaningful.

A "crony" is simply someone appointed by your opponent.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

This President has appointed people that are "unqualified cronies". That is different then appointing a "crony" that has the experience and education required for the job.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Correction: A person appointed by someone you oppose is an "unqualified crony". A person appointed by someone you favor is a "qualified" crony.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
If a terrorist in Afghanistan is calling someone in the US, I want my government knowing about it.


I personally don't, But I sincerely believe it falls under the "International/interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8) AS LONG AS Congress was notified (as both Bush AND several of the key leaders say they WERE). After all, you can't regulate commerce without oversight, and we live in a world where much international/interstate commerce takes place over phones or the internet. The question arises, then, whether the notification of a few key members of Congress was sufficient or whether it should have been taken before both houses, and if the latter, then the culpability is there, but it lies on the members of CONGRESS, NOT the President.

I still think it kinda sucks, but I'm becoming more convinced it wasn't illegal...at least as far as the President's actions were concerned.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

Not true I had no opinion about Brown and the others in FEMA. They were simply unqualified people Bush gave jobs as a political favor.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

Not true I had no opinion about Brown and the others in FEMA. They were simply unqualified people Bush gave jobs as a political favor.


And just how did you find out they were unqualified? Just an fyi col.You can't tell a person is unqualified if they lie on their resume. Care of Time magazine.


When President Bush nominated Michael Brown to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2003, Brown's boss at the time, Joe Allbaugh, declared, "the President couldn't have chosen a better man to help...prepare and protect the nation." But how well was he prepared for the job? Since Hurricane Katrina, the FEMA director has come under heavy criticism for his performance and scrutiny of his background. Now, an investigation by TIME has found discrepancies in his online legal profile and official bio, including a description of Brown released by the White House at the time of his nomination in 2001 to the job as deputy chief of FEMA. On Friday, Brown, who became director of FEMA in 2003, was relieved of his duties handling the Katrina response and was replaced in that role by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen.

Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight." The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant. He was a student at Central State University," recalls former city manager Bill Dashner. "Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now and again I'd ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt."
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can't tell a person is unqualified if they lie on their resume.


That's the most laughable thing I've read all day!

I hire many people every year not based on what their resume says, but on my investigation into their background. There's also this technique known as behavioral interviewing that helps you determine how a person will perform based on what they did in similar siutations in their past.

Correction: A person appointed by someone you oppose is an "unqualified crony". A person appointed by someone you favor is a "qualified" crony.


Come one Daiwa, you know what the difference is.

Brown = Crony, Rumsfeld = Not Crony, Powell = Not Crony

While there may be many (myself included) who are not fans of certain appointees (Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc), most would never refer to these people as cronies, even though they were appointed by the opposing party.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brown's only considered a crony because he muffed his chance. If the Katrina response had gone well, people would have a different attitude about him. The charge of cronyism is too facile and I agree with you that most people wouldn't consider Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, et al, cronies, but I wasn't responding to "most people" - rather to a specific one, who considers all Bush appointees (except Paul O'Neill) cronies.

Brown was technically unqualified, but had apparently performed well with previous FEMA responses to Florida hurricanes. What many are unwilling to recognize is that there was noone qualified for or prepared for the flooding of the city. The first line of responsibility was with the City of New Orleans, then the county, then the state. None of them were up to the task. There are an awful lot of folks very grateful to Brown for being such a mensch and thereby drawing all the fire while they busily CYA'd.

On a related note, I was flipping channels earlier this evening and caught a brief bit of the Katrina Congressional hearings. I was dumbfounded as I listened to a lawyer for some group seriously argue that the possibility of the levees having been intentionally blown up should be investigated. America, what a country.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are asking me to believe the Office of the President can not check the references and background of the people being considered for key positions, you have lost your mind.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not asking you a thing, Gene, & not defending Brown or the process by which he was appointed. Just trying to point out the mindlessness of the cronyism charge. Someone's only a crony if they fail to meet expectations, regardless of their resume or prior experience. If they get the job done, noone accuses them a being a crony. So the onus is really on Brown, not Bush. All Presidents appoint "cronies" and no President can bat a thousand.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

including putting people who are more or less aligned with your philosophy in place, we'd have nothing but an even larger and more unmanageable civil service than we already have.
Clinton and Gore reduced the bureaucracy.

A "crony" is simply someone appointed by your opponent.
I said, either party.

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
but I'm becoming more convinced it wasn't illegal...at least as far as the President's actions were concerned.
A trade off: let the president do whatever he wants while the right desists from reopening Roe v Wade--who needs the court--no more oversight. Screw it all.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa

Do YOU think the White House did their job when looking into Brown's Background?

The clip of Bush standing next to Brown saying " you have done a Hell of a Job Brownie" after Katrina is a classic and shows me Bush does not know much of anything!
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
The clip of Bush standing next to Brown saying " you have done a Hell of a Job Brownie" after Katrina is a classic and shows me Bush does not know much of anything


Ahhhhh, here we go yet "again"! Jump on board, the col's bash-Bush bus is leaving! I suppose that "you" believe that you could have done a better job? Sort of like Kerry's "I'd have fought a smarter war"?