Hmmm… sounds like may of you guys are ready for a minimalist, hands-off government with VOLUNTARY funding by its citizens (where each person gets to choose whether to contribute to the government(s)). Sounds like a cool idea.
Of course, like term limits, it might cut down the power of the magalomaniacs. What ever happened to term limits, by the way?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Since it was a leak of classified inofrmation of an ongoing operation I wonder if the leaker will be charged.
Since the Plame case turned out to be such a hot issue for the Democrats I’m curious how they will react to this.[/quote]
You’re not getting much traction out of this question, Hedo. I wonder why that is?
Can anyone say partisan hypocrites?
There are two distinct issues here: Whether the wiretapping (or other interception) was legal, and whether the leak was legal.
The leaks to the NYT almost certainly violated the law. Those of you who were jumping on the Plame thing and aren’t calling for prosecution here are hypocrites. I myself have serious First Amendment issues with the law, just as I expressed concerning Plame.
The wiretapping is not so clear: Most people fail to appreciate how limited their protection against government surveilliance is, both under statutes and under constitutional law. And that’s doubly so where international communications are concerned. (And, except for the small possibility of a constitutional-tort action, the main remedy for unconstitutional surveillance can be found in the 4th Amendment’s exclusionary rule, which only comes into play if someone is prosecuted and the government tries to introduce the surveillance into evidence – meaning that, as with the exclusionary rule in general, the remedy is worthless if you’re never charged with anything, say because you’re innocent.) Nor is this a phenomenon that can be blamed on the Patriot Act or the Bush Administration, particularly – the protections are just quite limited indeed, and prone to technical parsing on such questions as whether the communications were “stored,” even momentarily, en route. You may find these legal interpretations offensive, but they’re the law as it is.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hedo wrote:
Since it was a leak of classified inofrmation of an ongoing operation I wonder if the leaker will be charged.
Since the Plame case turned out to be such a hot issue for the Democrats I’m curious how they will react to this.
You’re not getting much traction out of this question, Hedo. I wonder why that is?
Can anyone say partisan hypocrites?[/quote]
blind love of authority rules the roost, huh?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hedo wrote:
Since it was a leak of classified inofrmation of an ongoing operation I wonder if the leaker will be charged.
Since the Plame case turned out to be such a hot issue for the Democrats I’m curious how they will react to this.
You’re not getting much traction out of this question, Hedo. I wonder why that is?
Can anyone say partisan hypocrites?[/quote]
They’ll probably blame Carl Rove-LOL
[quote]vroom wrote:
(It should be noted that it is perfectly legal to tap Vroom’s phone because he lives in the Nation of Beavers.)
I’m not sure that is quite accurate.
…[/quote]
It’s true, there is a lot of hot beaver in Canada. I love the Canadian Ballet.
With the exception of mmg’s commentary, I appreciate the informative posting on this thread.
Since W. has confirmed the existence of this monitoring, I’ll comment.
First, of all it sounds like this was completely on the up and up. harryreid and others were routinely briefed. It seems to have been a transparent effort done in good faith. It sounds like this was limited to international calling. Sounds like W. was monitoring this very closely. Sounds like he was personally reviewing individual cases. It also appears that he had his Attorney General at his side during these cases.
It would have been nice to have had a reasonable discussion about how far this should go behind closed doors. I’m uncomfortable with the thought that there will now be exactly zero overseas calls from the bad guys. They’ve been tipped off. It also sounds like this program yielded results.
We live in a Republic where we DO NEED to trust our elected leaders to some degree.
I know, in an era of cynicism involving government, that is a tall order. Before the dems go off on nixon, I’m also very aware that this trust cannot be unlimited.
In summary, it sounds like W. was doing exactly what we elected him to do. He was protecting the country from domestic and foreign enemies. It also sounds like he was working within the Constitution.
Now that it is in the open, I hope we have a sincere discussion about how far we should go in the name of security. We need to strike the balance between security and our civil liberties.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the democrat leaders (who were aware of this) are going to try to use this as another political witch hunt. In my opinion, this will ultimately cloud the issue to the point where meaningful reform will be nearly impossible.
I hope W. doesn’t let them define the debate. Yesterday, was a good start.
He needs to talk about this issue with the people. If he is smart, open, and diligent, the American people will see this for what I believe this is: W. fighting to win the War on Terror.
JeffR
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
blind love of authority rules the roost, huh?[/quote]
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Now run along - or sit on the curb until you can understand what the grown ups are talking about, okay sparky?
I was going to reply to this earlier this morning, but I figured, what is the point? I still feel that, but I see this is turning into some type of lame talking point.
Can you not see the issue with the ADMINISTRATION potentially breaking the law as opposed to individual citizens? There is an important difference between the plame issue and whistle blowing.
Go after them. Have fun. Get them all. You might not like where the investigations lead though…
Will that suffice? Or is something more expected?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
With the exception of mmg’s commentary, I appreciate the informative posting on this thread.
Since W. has confirmed the existence of this monitoring, I’ll comment.
First, of all it sounds like this was completely on the up and up. harryreid and others were routinely briefed. It seems to have been a transparent effort done in good faith. It sounds like this was limited to international calling. Sounds like W. was monitoring this very closely. Sounds like he was personally reviewing individual cases. It also appears that he had his Attorney General at his side during these cases.
It would have been nice to have had a reasonable discussion about how far this should go behind closed doors. I’m uncomfortable with the thought that there will now be exactly zero overseas calls from the bad guys. They’ve been tipped off. It also sounds like this program yielded results.
We live in a Republic where we DO NEED to trust our elected leaders to some degree.
I know, in an era of cynicism involving government, that is a tall order. Before the dems go off on nixon, I’m also very aware that this trust cannot be unlimited.
In summary, it sounds like W. was doing exactly what we elected him to do. He was protecting the country from domestic and foreign enemies. It also sounds like he was working within the Constitution.
Now that it is in the open, I hope we have a sincere discussion about how far we should go in the name of security. We need to strike the balance between security and our civil liberties.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the democrat leaders (who were aware of this) are going to try to use this as another political witch hunt. In my opinion, this will ultimately cloud the issue to the point where meaningful reform will be nearly impossible.
I hope W. doesn’t let them define the debate. Yesterday, was a good start.
He needs to talk about this issue with the people. If he is smart, open, and diligent, the American people will see this for what I believe this is: W. fighting to win the War on Terror.
JeffR
[/quote]
Oh, guess I must have struck a cord with you huh… Seeing as you never fully explained why you questioned me about who I voted for and so forth, or why you made absolutely no sense in your posts towards me… What exactly did I say to piss you off so?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
blind love of authority rules the roost, huh?
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Now run along - or sit on the curb until you can understand what the grown ups are talking about, okay sparky?[/quote]
The grown ups,huh? Surely you must not be including yourself, big tex, you fucking moron. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand? It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue at hand. Your exactly the reason why things like this get accepted. something ILLEGAL which no one should stand for. Take the blinders off for 2 seconds, stop listening to rush, and look at whats REALY happening.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I was going to reply to this earlier this morning, but I figured, what is the point? I still feel that, but I see this is turning into some type of lame talking point.[/quote]
Define talking point? Drawing attention to the ABB crowd’s hypocrisy is hardly a talking point. But dismiss it if it interferes with your preconceived ideas.
It is not whistle blowing, It is a breach of security. Tell me which law was broken, and maybe you will have a point. Short of that i think you are the one spouting talking points.
It has not been proven yet that Plame was outed by the Administration. At least not well enough to convince Fitzgerald that a crime was committed.
WTF does that even mean? Vroom - you are back to making little, if any sense.
Links to Bush Approval:
There was a poll shown on the 12th that puts dubya’s approval up at 50%. But the most recent one brings him back down to what he has been at , around forty percent which it looks like what he likes staying at. The higher number may have been just a fluke in the polling or a show of good things to come for bush politically we’ll have to wait a few days and see.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
It mentions several different organizations that did the polling.
I think this all comes down to trust. Who trusts Bush and his administration to do the RIGHT thing and not abuse their power? If your a republican on this board apparently you do, regardless of what illegal your administration may have been doing. I really have a hard time seeing how this is not a big deal to some people. Its called a slippery slope. start with spying on a few calls, turns into something else,etc.,etc… Lets see, Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blow job, and Bush spies on US callers illegally and its alright? Someone help me out with this please…Whats wrong with this picture and why the hell cant some people see there is something seriously wrong with this whole thing?
Heh , everybody likes my joke about vroom being wire-tapped
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
The grown ups,huh? Surely you must not be including yourself, big tex, you fucking moron. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand? It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue at hand. Your exactly the reason why things like this get accepted. something ILLEGAL which no one should stand for. Take the blinders off for 2 seconds, stop listening to rush, and look at whats REALY happening. [/quote]
Fucking moron? And you expect yourself to be considered anything other than a kid? C’mon, junior - tell me how you really feel.
What is illegal? I’m sorry but it may not be what you like, but it is not illegal. If it is - you really need to back that up. Illegal is not a state of mind, kiddo.
I know what is happening. Do you? I think you are just an agnry little kid that pretends to know way more than he does, and who opens his mouth and proves just how ignorant he is about current events.
Now - back to the porch with you, sparky.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Links to Bush Approval:
This one says that bush’s approval has been about 40% for a while, although there is the 50% approval reported as well earlier this week Lets give it a few weeks to see if proves to be accurate
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
It mentions several different organizations that did the polling. [/quote]
Bush could be at 95% - or 5% - for all I care about polls. They are proving themselves to be useless. Anyone that uses them for anything other than entertainment purposes (and by that, I mean pissing off liberals) deserves whatever they have coming to them.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Since the Plame case turned out to be such a hot issue for the Democrats I’m curious how they will react to this.
I was going to reply to this earlier this morning, but I figured, what is the point? I still feel that, but I see this is turning into some type of lame talking point.
Can you not see the issue with the ADMINISTRATION potentially breaking the law as opposed to individual citizens? There is an important difference between the plame issue and whistle blowing.
Go after them. Have fun. Get them all. You might not like where the investigations lead though…
Will that suffice? Or is something more expected?[/quote]
Well Vroom ole Val was a political football nothing more. She was the most media photogenic spy in the history of the nation.
If your a leftie you can call it whistle blowing. In reality it was a current operation and was classified. No ambiguity whether or not it was classified. Lot’s of ambiguity about Valerie. Not a lot of spies get their pictures taken for Vanity Fair and you know drive to CIA headquarters everyday. Bottom line if you go after the Plame whistleblowers then this is much much more clear cut.
Are you saying with regards to whistleblowing the ends justify the means?
I’m going to speculate that nobody got hurt by the confirmation of the obvious public information regarding Val. I am also going to make a wild guess that lots of active terrorists stopped using their cell phones and e mails last week.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
The grown ups,huh? Surely you must not be including yourself, big tex, you fucking moron. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand? It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue at hand. Your exactly the reason why things like this get accepted. something ILLEGAL which no one should stand for. Take the blinders off for 2 seconds, stop listening to rush, and look at whats REALY happening.
Fucking moron? And you expect yourself to be considered anything other than a kid? C’mon, junior - tell me how you really feel.
What is illegal? I’m sorry but it may not be what you like, but it is not illegal. If it is - you really need to back that up. Illegal is not a state of mind, kiddo.
I know what is happening. Do you? I think you are just an agnry little kid that pretends to know way more than he does, and who opens his mouth and proves just how ignorant he is about current events.
Now - back to the porch with you, sparky. [/quote]
What is happening Rainjack? Please tell me since you presume to know so much more than me. It WAS illegal what the administation did, not obtaining warrants. You side with the administration on EVERY issue. Bush or Cheney could tell you to jump off a bridge and youd do so. All youve proven time after time after time is you have your head so far up Bush’s ass you can’t see straight. Please, tell me what is happening here. Prove for once you can see beyond party lines and dont have to resort to insults, which once again you came out with first. Until that happens you can call me ignorant all you want, but until that day you remain a useless sheep.
[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
What is happening Rainjack? Please tell me since you presume to know so much more than me. It WAS illegal what the administation did, not obtaining warrants. You side with the administration on EVERY issue. Bush or Cheney could tell you to jump off a bridge and youd do so. All youve proven time after time after time is you have your head so far up Bush’s ass you can’t see straight. Please, tell me what is happening here. Prove for once you can see beyond party lines and dont have to resort to insults, which once again you came out with first. Until that happens you can call me ignorant all you want, but until that day you remain a useless sheep. [/quote]
No, no, no, junior. That is not how we play the game. You asked if I knew what was going on. I answered.
I asked you to prove that tapping international calls was illegal. You don’t get to ask another question until you have first answered that which was asked of you. I am sorry but your word means dick to me. You need to prove with something other than your childish logic.
I have never said whether I sagreed with the monitoring of selected international phone calls, or not. I just know that it is not illegal as you proclaim.
Anyhow - the issue that I initially posted about was the hypocrisy of the ABB crowd in not calling for an investigation to find the one that did indeed break the law by revealing top secret information. That is the law that was broken, sparky.
I guess your parents always told you that you were really smart. I hate to break it to you, but they were just being nice. Just like my parents were when they told me I was a cute kid. The truth hurts but the sooner you face the fact that you are missing a couple of light bulbs upstairs, the sooner you will be able to live a happier, all be it a much, much simpler life.
And your anger at those that have made a decision to stand on the right side of history is really getting a little old. Just in case you haven’t got it yet - you aren’t changing anyone’s mind with your hatred. But look who I am talking to. How many hockey helmets do you go through in a year anyway, sparky?