Conservatives Fight Illegal Bush Action

No matter "what" Specter says. he is NO repuplican or a conservative. Those of us who live here know better. At best he is a stinking RINO!

Hey now, I'm not opposed to hearings on the matter. All I am saying is that calls for impeachment are premature. And claims that it was illegal are also premature. Please let the hearings begin. Despite the posturing and grandstanding on both sides of the aisle, much will be revealed in hearings and investigation, young Grasshopper.

And yes, Arlen Specter is a tool.

All this says is that two Senators are calling for hearings into the matter. Where's the contraversy in that? I'm all for hearings myself. Hearings will put the question up for discussion and a decision will be made, once and for all.

The thing of it is, both of these opportunists have known about the wiretaps for a long time. They could have called for hearings then, without even breaking the security laws protecting ongoing operations. But they didn't. So what changed between now and then? The ONLY difference is, now that it's out in the press, their is press and face time with cameras to be had.

Still the bigger crime here is the leak of classified information. Are you for investigations into that?

oh and btw, just because someone has an "R" after their name, does NOT mean they are Conservatives.

Intersting, when stories like theses come out, they are ignored later when libral critics claim that all Republicans are lock stepping drones or sheeple.

All I am saying is that calls for impeachment are premature. - singrdave

I don't believe this to be an impeachable offense unless it serves as a contributing element or cap to a pattern of abuse of power.

And claims that it was illegal are also premature.

We both agree this will be settled within the hearings unless the hearings become bogged down in people playing politics instead of dealing with the issue at hand.


Still the bigger crime here is the leak of classified information. Are you for investigations into that? - ParaTed2k

No, I am not for investigating who leaked the 'classified' information. Whomever the leak was should be commended for their patriotism.

Furthermore, shifting the focus from the issue (the executive order itself, the legalities of it and it's impact upon our democracy, etc.) to the leak is a disservice to the American people and a distraction from the actual problem.

All this says is that two Senators are calling for hearings into the matter. - Parated2k

'This' being...what? One of the numerous links provided? Two? All? What is being shown here is that many Republicans are expressing concern over this issue - as they should. Hopefully it is not simply lip service as you imply (though that is very possible).

oh and btw, just because someone has an "R" after their name, does NOT mean they are Conservatives.

I'm very much aware of that, just out of curiousity, who in the legislative branch would you deem 'conservative', ParaTed2k?

Intersting, when stories like theses come out, they are ignored later when libral critics claim that all Republicans are lock stepping drones or sheeple.

I think the GOP has been a bit 'in lock step' with the Bush Administration agenda but that deep freeze has begun to thaw following post-election euphoria.

My biggest belief in the GOP utilizing in-party debate and operating non-collectively involves the annual debate regarding the anti-abortion / pro-life 'plank'. Democrats don't engage in this debate as an annual habit (annually being each Presidential election without a GOP candidate already in-House).

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

Hardly suggestive of an open mind, def. I kind of doubt that was the objective, covert or otherwise, using the war as "cover" as your statement implies.

No, I am not for investigating who leaked the 'classified' information. Whomever the leak was should be commended for their patriotism.

So the charges against Libby should be dropped in your opinion? I believe a re-reading of Fitzgerald's press conference statement would be in order. Unless you are indeed in favor of selective enforcement of the law - "outcome-based" enforcement, to use your term.

instead of the 'close ranks around our captain' thinking that so often permeates from today's Washington.

Like the Democrats have been doing since 2000?

Spector is a political chameleon and not worthy of use to support you argument, def. Graham, on the other hand, is a solid guy deserving of respect and I believe his concerns are legit and sincere. I also believe the legality of the surveillance remains undetermined. There are respected legal minds on both sides of the issue, it appears. You, on the other hand, have charged, tried and convicted Bush already.

Cheers,
Daiwa

No, I am not for investigating who leaked the 'classified' information. Whomever the leak was should be commended for their patriotism. Furthermore, shifting the focus from the issue (the executive order itself, the legalities of it and it's impact upon our democracy, etc.) to the leak is a disservice to the American people and a distraction from the actual problem

That is the difference between you and me Deference. I do think there should be an investigation into whether or not Prs. Bush overstepped his authority (since no one should be beyond oversight).

I also know that it costs lives when people put politics ahead of national security. There are legal channels that the traitor could have used to challenge the wiretaps. Channels that would have been able to investigate the authority of the president to do so without jeopardizing national security. Whoever the traitor was may have known about this for years, but said nothing. Then it went to the press, putting lives and ongoing intel operations at risk.

You would really congratulate a traitor, merely because you hate Prs. Bush so bad? Having been in situations where secrecy kept me alive, would you be equally excited to have seen that secret exposed? How deep is your hate, and how do you live like that?

Hardly suggestive of an open mind, def. I kind of doubt that was the objective, covert or otherwise, using the war as "cover" as your statement implies.

I think I'm seen as somewhat open-minded on many things here, Daiwa. I know in my heart of hearts, untried by the public, that there are some things I'm not 'open minded' about - uncompromising adherence to the original Bill of Rights being one of them (oh, yeah, and I support that 'twenty dollars' thing).

What seems to be escaping many individuals is that regardless of the intent of the many authoritarian laws, secret laws, and clandestine executive orders is that the affect has deprived American citizens of the gift of certain liberties granted us by the signers of the Constitution. To bring us closer to the arms of big brother comes the cost of individual autonomy (defined by the limitations of those liberties).


So the charges against Libby should be dropped in your opinion? I believe a re-reading of Fitzgerald's press conference statement would be in order. Unless you are indeed in favor of selective enforcement of the law - "outcome-based" enforcement, to use your term.

Apples and Oranges. 'The Leak' serves the American citizen the ability to peak through an otherwise non-transparent and civil liberty depriving action committed by goverment officials. If the Libby incident follows the same course, then I support it.

"Outcome-based" enforcement is the term used by Sen. Graham. I support his assertation in the context of which it is used.


Spector is a political chameleon and not worthy of use to support you argument, def.

Okay.

He was among a total of eight Republican legislators who vehemently gave voice to this issue thus he was mentioned. Note that I attributed no quote to him or bothered finding a link prominently displaying his royal anti-JU-ness.



I also believe the legality of the surveillance remains undetermined.

Sure. Depending upon which view you take; the original law supposedly violated or the new administration rhetoric. I agree it will be sorted out during the hearings which I support but hold my breath by...

You, on the other hand, have charged, tried and convicted Bush already.

Hardly. Refer yourself to post #6, first reply line.

If you would care for an explicit remark you can refer to Bakerstreet's thread, Link

, post #69 where I make reference to an even earlier post stating that Pres. Bush isn't the issue in this case.

End Daiwa Response
-------------------

That is the difference between you and me Deference. I do think there should be an investigation into whether or not Prs. Bush overstepped his authority (since no one should be beyond oversight).

I support the hearing(s). I also think there should be as much investigation and debate about this issue as possible - I don't believe the issue is whether or not President Bush 'overstepped his authority'. The hearings will either grant him that he did or didn't. The fact that we are having to debate this and hammer this out now tells me that there is a question as to whether or not he did. I err on the side of caution. How 'bout you?

I also know that it costs lives when people put politics ahead of national security.

We've put 'lives in jeopardy' for years before this type of action, guess what - I LIKED IT BETTER. How's that for the difference between me and you? You want a bigger government - I want it smaller.

You would really congratulate a traitor, merely because you hate Prs. Bush so bad?

You think of a whistleblower as dangerous to the current agenda, I think of it as heroic and true (patriotic even) to our original American way. Some people like a cock in their ass, other's don't, nothing wrong with it either way, it's just...y'know, there's some traditional matters to contemplate.



How deep is your hate, and how do you live like that?


The Bee Gees were a great band....

"How deep is your love, how deep is your love, I really want to know..."

Seriously, please, brand me an irrelevent 'Bush Basher'. Please. That way you can simply totally write me off and never pay any attention to anything I say.

Gotta' love labels, gotta' love short-circuited thinking.

Come on. Let's not play that game.

I guess we all agree that telling the press about secret information is a No No . That includes the actions of Bush as well as outing our CIA Agents by Rove and Libby.

Deference:

What seems to be escaping many individuals is that regardless of the intent of the many authoritarian laws, secret laws, and clandestine executive orders is that the affect has deprived American citizens of the gift of certain liberties granted us by the signers of the Constitution. To bring us closer to the arms of big brother comes the cost of individual autonomy (defined by the limitations of those liberties).

No one here is questioning that the rights of Americans should be stomped on. However, when a person (American or otherwise) decides to conduct their war against the U.S (combat or electronic), why would they be afforded any more rights than they would doing the same thing outside our borders? The U.S. Constitution is the basis of our nation, but it is not a weapon to be used against us.

Colon Bin Gangrene:

I guess we all agree that telling the press about secret information is a No No . That includes the actions of Bush as well as outing our CIA Agents by Rove and Libby.

{{{Yawn}}}} Not even the special prosecutor, and two years has been able to show enough evidence that Plame was covert to bring up charges against anyone. However, I'm glad there was an investigation. So far all it has shown is that Plame and Wilson look pretty stupid.

You think of a whistleblower as dangerous to the current agenda, I think of it as heroic and true (patriotic even) to our original American way. Some people like a cock in their ass, other's don't, nothing wrong with it either way, it's just...y'know, there's some traditional matters to contemplate.

YES, if that "whistleblower" reveals ongoing operations as a means of playing politics. I say again, this traitor could have challenged the wiretaps without exposing the operations, but they chose the COWARD'S way out and ran to the press. I wonder what the traitor's 30 pieces of silver was?

The difference between you and me is, you only want hearings when it suits your purpose. You couldn't care less about national security. I'm glad that traitor wasn't there to flab his or her lips when I was avoiding the cross hairs.

Seriously, please, brand me an irrelevent 'Bush Basher'. Please. That way you can simply totally write me off and never pay any attention to anything I say.

Actually Deference, I don't think of you as irrelevant, but then again I can't remember if you've ever said you support anything Prs. Bush has done.

Colon Bin Gangrene is the only "irrelevant Bush Basher" I know of here at JU. Most others seem to be willing to admit that Prs. Bush has done some good.

Apples and Oranges.

Hardly. Either the law was broken or it wasn't. If Libby ideed leaked Plame's name and that turns out to have been a crime, then whoever leaked this classified information is just as guilty.

Hardly. Refer yourself to post #6, first reply line.

Doesn't exactly jive with this (or the title of your article):

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

Cheers,
Daiwa

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

If Prs. Bush has a secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties, he'd better hurry. He's moving way to slow to be able to enjoy the totalitarianism he's after. ;~D

I somehow doubt he's going through "all this trouble" to help the next president enjoy the fruits of his labor. Who knows, it could be a {{gasp}} democrat! :~D

~~~~~~

Deference, if you really do believe that our government shouldn't treat anyone within our borders the same as any other enemy on any other battlefield, I'd appreciate your opinion on this: Link

There are legal channels that the traitor could have used to challenge the wiretaps. Channels that would have been able to investigate the authority of the president to do so without jeopardizing national security. Whoever the traitor was may have known about this for years, but said nothing. Then it went to the press, putting lives and ongoing intel operations at risk.

What legal channels do you think these people had available to them? Acoording to one congressman they weren't even told that "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."

There are letters from several in congress that objected to the program. members of both parties have stated that their objections couldn't be aired because the program's existence was highly classified.

Conservatives have sought to defend the secret spying operation by falsely suggesting that the Bush administration adequately informed Congress of its actions and that Congress raised no objections. For example, on the December 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that the NSA's domestic surveillance "wasn't a secret program" because "the Bush administration did keep key congressional people informed they were doing this." The claim was also featured in a December 21 press release by the Republican National Committee (RNC).

In fact, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have said that the administration likely did not inform them of the operation to the extent required by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended in 2001. Members of both parties have also said that the objections they did have were ignored by the administration and couldn't be aired because the program's existence was highly classified.

As The New York Times reported on December 21, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security Act:

The demand for written reports was added to the National Security Act of 1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into law on Dec. 28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision, with the stipulation that he would interpret it "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority" to withhold information for national-security or foreign-policy reasons.

[...]

n interviews, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Graham and aides to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Reid all said they understood that while the briefings provided by [Vice President Dick] Cheney might have been accompanied by charts, they did not constitute written reports. The 2001 addition to the law requires that such reports always be in written form, and include a concise statement of facts and explanation of an activity's significance.

Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy of a letter he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns "were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues" because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."

Link

Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy of a letter he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns "were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues" because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."

Yeah, a letter that he sat on for a year before trotting it out for display. Makes me wonder???

..but then again I can't remember if you've ever said you support anything Prs. Bush has done. - Parated2k

I did voice my support, here in the hallowed halls of JU for Bush's nominee - Mr. John Roberts.

Just to remind some:

Back in the 2000 campaign I volunteered at the local GOP campaign HQ to help elect candidate Bush. His only promise back then fullfilled today is his originalist judge pick. The faith-based initiatives were clunkily and unsatisfactorily implemented. Cutting taxes pre-911 seemed like a great idea, but post-911, that campaign hint seemed erroneous. Over the years, this administration has continually made decisions I disagree with. I feel our Republican legislators and the executive branch have taken the party down several incorrect avenues.

If Prs. Bush has a secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties, he'd better hurry. He's moving way to slow to be able to enjoy the totalitarianism he's after. ;~D

I somehow doubt he's going through "all this trouble" to help the next president enjoy the fruits of his labor. Who knows, it could be a {{gasp}} democrat!


There are both Republicans and Democrats who, throughout the years, have consistently provided groundwork and laying of an infrastructure that consolidates more and more power at the federal level. We've seen a more rapidly advancing move towards an undemocratic society in just the last few years, but it would be incorrect to lay all the credit at the feet of President Bush.

The Clinton Administration was the first blatant precursor towards such moves (see: Executive Orders, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City Bombing, and The Butcher of WACO; El Reno) but thanks to an overly friendly press (back when I thought there was a real Liberal Media) there was little dissemination of or trumpeting of these glaring steps against democratic society.

There are numerous individuals serving in our government and leading the way within the private sector to create the barcode society. Some are well-intentioned groups (MADD), others are structural masterminds (PNAC) and others are corporates trying to make a buck (Verichip, Lockheed Martin) .

I'm not in any way saying there are some shadowy "Illuminati" or globalist masterminds feverishly toiling day in day out to bring about the "Great American Prison" under the control of a "New World Order" but I am saying that many different groups within America today are attempting to recreate an America that is within their own personal interest(s) without regard to the America our forefathers had designed.

President Bush may genuinely feel some archaic bits of unused liberty may need to fall in order for America to stay secure, I say ,no, because 'securing' America, at least by the means his administration (with cooperation from both aisles in the legislature) have wrought forth means destroying part of America.

It was President George W Bush, himself, who said, "The object of terrorism is to try to force us to change our way of life..."

Link

Let's not let the terrorists win.

Deference, if you really do believe that our government shouldn't treat anyone within our borders the same as any other enemy on any other battlefield, I'd appreciate your opinion on this... - ParaTed2k

That is, admittedly, a very complicated issue that I still need to research to give a 'correct' answer on, but I will initially say that I believe labeling Americans 'enemy combatants' for any reason opens up a pandora's box this democracy may not recover from - it would fundamentally change our approach to due process and would require the perverting of 200 years of faithful fourth amendment service.

I would offer to you the example of John Walker Lindh (spelling probably incorrect) who was found on foreign soil fighting against our soldiers. John should be subject to the military, not the civilian courts. If John had been on American soil I would support him being tried in a civilian court. Needless to say, I think it would be very straghtforward prosecution of the individual either way.

End ParaTed2k Response
-----------------------

I guess we all agree that telling the press about secret information is a No No . - COl Gene

No, I don't agree.

Hardly. Either the law was broken or it wasn't. If Libby ideed leaked Plame's name and that turns out to have been a crime, then whoever leaked this classified information is just as guilty. - Daiwa

I undestand your point. The issue of a double standard and the selective enforcement of laws... I'll tell you that I don't personally see the Libby incident and the NYT incident as the same thing.

I'm going to reiterate my point about the Apples and Oranges - I don't believe going after the leak in the NYT case is beneficial to America. I think that leak served Americans well. We can have an open and honest debate as to whether or not we really want to cede such powers to the government.

In Libby's case, it's possible he provided a very personal disservice to an individual by providing personal information about them with malice aforethought and so should be punished for it if that is what he is guilty of and if that can somehow be proven in a court of law.

I don't know what law states the press cannot report on the actions of the government, so in my book, the legality of the action is under question only. Perhaps the leak is bound by a law and under that law should suffer the deterrent punishment, but if that leak was provided a trial by jury consistent of his peers I would think those peers would find the contribution to the public by that leak far outweighs the principle of deterrence set to guard against other sensitive information leaking.

It is highly interesting to me that Americans are told time and again to "take a hike" based on the excuse of "National Security". The end all, be all, no-explanation-need-be-given-or-expected thinking driven by this excuse is a ridiculous means of avoiding taxpayer inspection of opaque governmental workings. We are told there is no accountability owed or bilateral loyalty within this dark corner of government.

I urge citizens to reconsider continually giving our government a free pass when it simply tells us - Trust Me, I owe you citizen - the bearer of my sustenance - nothing, because this is for your own good.

Finally, Daiwa, in response to your post #15, I'll explain to you as clearly as I can what I'm driving at by referring you to that old post of mine:

I'm attempting to discuss the issue - not the man. That is why you get referred to it and that is precisely how it jives with this title and with this line:

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

It's not about the man Bush, it's about the 'Bush Act' or the 'Bush Administration Agenda', etc. .

I haven't tried, convicted, etcetera and so forth Mr. Bush - I'm not attempting to and that isn't the purpose or intent of my posting.

The article's intent was to provide information to JU denizens that it isn't simply 'liberals' taking an opportunity to bash Bush - there are Republicans voicing their concerns on this issue as well, who view this as a serious debate. Some are attempting to write those Representatives off as simple opportunists as well.

I'm curious as to why anyone will try to write off any criticism of this administration as simply political opportunism every time there is problematic action stemming from the White House.

It almost seems as if there is a desire amongst some at JU to divide users into two groups cheerleading for 'their team' and to simply have those two groups constantly trying to out-boo the other. Ludicrous.

"Web Browser - take me to JU."

"Ludicrous speed, Captain?"

"LUDICROUS SPEED!"

Thanks for the clarification Deference, again, that is why I don't simply write you off as a mindless "Bush basher" like I do Colon Bin Gangrene.

Yes, there have been many attempts by politicians to federalize as much authority as they can. Things like Ruby Ridge and Waco are nothing new though. Unfortunately.

Equally unfortunate is the demands by "we the people" for the federal government to take control of everything. Don't like how the education system is going, demand NCLB. Don't like how Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin handled Hurricane Katrina? Blame Bush and demand that he take Emergency Management from its rightful place at the local level, and give it to FEMA. Don't like how your state elections turned out? Demand that we do away with elections at the state level and have one big happy Federal election.

The thing is, National Defense IS a federal responsibility. Fighting a war is more than just a bunch of folks shooting at each other, while other folks hold up signs demanding they stop. Electronic warfare is just as effective as combat in denying the enemy the ability to continue the fight. The enemies of the U.S. are using EW against us. What are we going to do to counter it?

I am not saying what Bush has been doing is legal or not. I am not qualified to make that judgement, and there's not even enough information to come to a logical conclusion.

What I do know is, not one of the people in Congress who are speaking out against Prs. Bush's directive seem to have any answers themselves. Only criticisms.

With all the attempts to federalize everything, Congress has done a great job of making sure they aren't considered responsible for any of the actions of Congress. It must be great to be in a position of power, without having to accept the responsibilities of that position.

Thank you for the excellent reply, Ted.

One more Republican conservative Sam Brownback speaks out regarding the wiretapping issue;

From ABC's This Week;

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case?

BROWNBACK: I think we need to hold hearings on it and we’re going to. Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.

I think we need to look at this case and this issue. I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.

I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?

BROWNBACK: It didn’t, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.
Link

dayyum deference.

i gotta feeling barry is resting a lil easier knowin youre on the case.

i know i am.

dayyum deference.

i gotta feeling barry is resting a lil easier knowin youre on the case.

i know i am.

Thanks, bro. Though I'm hardly enough, people have got to wake the F*CK UP!

waitaminute...who the fuck is barry?