Advertisement

NSA Spied on UN Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq

topic posted Tue, December 27, 2005 - 2:56 PM by 
Share/Save/Bookmark

Hey, Wayne.

Come over to this tribe and check out this thread.

When you just wrote that Bush did nothing illegal with his taps, let's see if you can keep that brave face up in light of this new info:

tribes.tribe.net/political...5fbbd6df85

Come on by, and let's see how your apologist, dishonest rhetoric works with a lot more people that know more than just parroted, talking point sound-bites.
posted by:
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     
    Andrew, he won't be able to respond to that until after he's been briefed by Rush, Sean, Ann, and Bill.

    • Yeah, that's true - but I've been arguing politics here for a couple of years, so I can wait until he gets his talking points.
      • Unsu...
         
        He's furiously searching for some spineless rationalizing pinhead to quote.
        • <<He's furiously searching for some spineless rationalizing pinhead to quote.>>

          Failing that, he's simply going to avoid this thread. Ah, Bush supporters! So brave!

          • I wonder how this need to lie for the Bush administration effects these people's lives, and does this sickness leak into the rest of their lives?
            • It's called "cognitive dissonance," Andrew. And yes, I've seen more than one Bush supporter degenerate into very odd behavior which seemed to stem from a routine flouting of commonly known facts. (Seth comes to mind.) I mean, if you go around saying "the sun is blue" often enough, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, eventually the truth is going to catch up with you. And when it does, depending on how attached you are to the idea of the sun being blue, this could come as a crashing realization that takes down your whole rationale understanding of the world.

              Such a crashing realization was experienced by the German public at large starting in '44 or '45, and its effects are still being felt and expressed nearly 3 generations later.
              • Unsu...
                 
                Actually, I have a life and a job that I need to do on occasion.

                Whereas this is your religion and the law is your bible, and the ACLU(American Criminal Liberties Union) your priesthood, I come here for distraction and fun.

                I'll give you my short answer here, and expand on it later.

                Who cares?

              • <It's called "cognitive dissonance," Andrew. >

                Yep, and your point is pretty realistic, but I wonder even in a more personal way, if someone a) allows lies to form around them by their leaders, b) parrots that lie, while knowing every time that it is at best a distortion, and in all probability a lie, then how does someone's usual integrity about being dishonest slowly degrade their care for being honest in their real life?

                Or, is it that those that are reds have a tendency to lie and manipulate anyway, do they trend towards the republican party because of this pliable moral hypocritical belief system?

                That explains the whole fundie Christian/red connection, too.
                • <<how does someone's usual integrity about being dishonest slowly degrade their care for being honest in their real life?>>

                  I believe it manifests in a general decay of the Social Contract governing society.

                  I run a web development company. We're not in the habit of turning business away. However, purely as a business decision, we have decided not to work with clients who openly identify themselves as republicans. This is not pure discrimination, but the result of the fact that over the past 5 years, we've had to sue 3 such companies (run by brash, card-carrying republicans) for nonpayment. In each case, it was never suggested that we hadn't done our job, or had performed substandard. Rather, it simply a case of the company wanting to keep that money rather than pay us after services had already been rendered, and a calculus on their part that we wouldn't have the time or energy to pursue the issue in the courts. In all 3 cases, they were wrong.

                  What I've seen, coinciding with the 2000 election, is that some (perhaps a majority of) republicans have decided on some level that the rules are for suckers. This attitude has cost me a lot of time, energy and frustration. For that reason, we try and avoid starting business relationships with companies who seem likely to pursue an unscrupulous path. This, unfortunately, means republicans.

                  I see this whole phenomonon, along with the willingness to see the Constitution dismantled and wars started based on lies, as stemming from the open corruption occuring in government. BushCo is openly corrupt, and in this corruption are achieving some of their strategic objectives. I think many rank-and-file republicans see this example and think, "Yeah...I'm gonna grab mine too."
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     
                    First of all Paul a law has to be broken for a crime to be committed. As I stated in another thread, which I will copy here, The President was well within his confine when he ordered spying.

                    www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...000-.html

                    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802
                    § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General;...

                    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) ....

                    As you know, Article II. Section.1 of the constitution says:
                    "the executive Power shall be vested in a President..."
                    John Jay in Federalist No. 64 wrote that this would include obtaining intelligence from foreign sources. ..."to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest."

                    www.opinionjournal.com/editor...re.html

                    The author, Robert F. Turner co-founder of th Center for National Security Law, at the University of Virginia School of Law, concludes the article with this summation:

                    Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.
                    • Wayne, this is getting frustrating. I have already addressed this issue, and you seem to hope that you can simply wear me down by repeating it again, hoping I won't address it again. In terms of debating tactics, yours is not an intelligent one. Fortunately, I can just provide the link that explains that Bush did in fact disobey FISA by tapping domestic communications:
                      conservativepoint.tribe.net/thre...e7b4e

                      So he broke that law. But you're saying that the constitution says he doesn't have to obey that law. But see, if you'd read the constitution, however, you'd know that it clearly says that congress passes the laws and the executive branch follows them. No getting around that one.

                      Congress passed the FISA law to legislate exactly how the executive branch can collect intelligence. Bush broke that law. No one contests this except you.

                      However, it seems to be your contention that the president does not have to obey the law. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please explain which laws he has to obey, which laws he doesn't have to obey, and what the difference is. Good luck.
                      • Unsu...
                         
                        Actually I said he was obeying the law.
                        • Wayne, try and understand that I don't mean this to be purely insulting, but rather to vent frustration over an issue that is utterly hamstsringing this conversation: God, you are so incredibly dense!!!!

                          <<Actually I said he was obeying the law.>>

                          No shit, sherlock. That why I referred to a link that showed that he was NOT obeying the law. See, here's how it worked. Last week you said he was obeying the law. I pointed specifically to where he definitely broke the law (at least ONE confirmed report of domestic-to-domestic wiretapping without a warrant). You conveniently forgot this (or let's face it, it's possible you just were unable to understand the words in the first place), and then repeated the now defeated claim that Bush obeyed the law. So now I've pointed to where it is refuted. And you follow it up with what?

                          <<Actually I said he was obeying the law.>>

                          We're going in circles caused by your inability to understand incredibly basic points.

                          Sorry, Wayne. I enjoy refuting your points because they're an easy target, but after this I think you might lack the requisite intelligence necessary to have this kind of conversation.
                          • Unsu...
                             
                            >So he broke that law. But you're saying that the constitution says he doesn't have to obey that law. But see, if you'd read the constitution, however, you'd know that it clearly says that congress passes the laws and the executive branch follows them. No getting around that one. <

                            I thought you ran a web development company. Do you have a PHD in law as well?
                            So if you think your smarter than this guy>Robert F. Turner co-founder of th Center for National Security Law, at the University of Virginia School of Law< on this matter, whom I linked to, then I am impressed.
                            • <<So if you think your smarter than this guy>Robert F. Turner co-founder of th Center for National Security Law, at the University of Virginia School of Law< on this matter, whom I linked to, then I am impressed.>>

                              It's not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of integrity or lack thereof, and one's willingness to use one's background to support a dismantling of the constitution.

                              What we're currently seeing is a well orchestrated attempt by the Bush Administration to sieze unlimited power. This isn't about spying: they could have done the same spying without breaking the law. This isn't about torture: they could have the same success in interrogations without torture. Rather, BushCo argues in favor of the president being above the law for absolutely no other reason than to sieze that power for themselves.

                              This attempt was clearly planned well in advance. In doing so, they lined up a handful of lawyers who, on queue, would provide some semblance of a legal rationale for something the Constitution expressly forbids. Read that again: this overreach of power is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in the Constitution.

                              Now, when you hold up Robert F. Turner and his opinion, is that because you've followed Turner's career and believe him as a foremost authority? Of course not. You've probably never heard of him before. It's simply because he's voicing the opinion that you want voiced. Is Turner the only legal authority to weigh in on this issue? 'Fraid not. In fact, many have pointed out exactly why Bush's wiretapping is illegal, among them John Dean from the Nixon Administration, who is arguably the foremost authority on executive branch overreach of power.
                              writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

                              Here are some more:
                              www.concurringopinions.com/arch....html
                              volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml

                              Here's a general breakdown of the justifications BushCo have provided for their domestic spying scandal, and which of those justifications have now been fully refuted and discarded. I strongly recommend you read it, so at least you can catch up to the Bush talking points. They've long since abandoned the "we never broke the law" excuse.
                              news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost...nN1YmNhdA--
                            • Unsu...
                               
                              It appears, Wayne, as if your committed stance on the legality of the President's actions are misplaced.

                              This report, as unbiased as is possible, reaches no conclusion as to whether it was legal or not, but it says that it raises some serious questions and the actions of the President are dubious at best.

                              www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06...nd-nsa.html
                              • I think the report's refusal to state a conclusion was a political decsion not to confront the administration. The domestic wiretapping is almost prima facie illegal, only requiring a cursory investigation and a short hearing of arguments to come to a final conclusion. It's disappointing that these guys wouldn't call a spade a spade.
                                • Unsu...
                                   
                                  Here's where you and I are going to disagree. I don't think the committee made a political decision with this report. The wiretapping is clearly a power grab. It is also clearly infringing on the checks and balances. It is also clearly against the FISA law. However, the issue of whether it is constitutional or not cannot be determined with the amount of evidence this committee was able to examine. Therefore, I believe it's clearly a case that needs a complete investigation and the results of that investigation, when presented, could assist the decision one way or another.

                                  For Wayne to unconditionally claim Bush's innocence is juvenile. For you to unconditionally claim his guilt in this matter is also juvenile. Let's call for an investigation.
                                  • Fair enough, you're right. An investigation is clearly called for to determine guilt in accordance with our judicial system, the same judicial system that BushCo would deny access to for other American citizens. Ironic how the same thing has been said about Saddam.
                                    • Unsu...
                                       
                                      >Let's call for an investigation.<

                                      Thats the most reasonable thing you guys have said yet. I can agree to an investigation, because I still believe Bush was within the law. And if it turns out I'm wrong, it won't be the first time.

                                      I say he was within leagl jurisdiction because the Supreme Court has handed down two decisions on this matter, and I have not seen otherwise.

                                      Candidate John Kerry said the war on terror is" it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world"
                                      This is a story not reported in the major news, probably because it would justify the president's spying. Though it was reported around the world.

                                      www.news24.com/News24/Wor...238,00.html
                                      • this is just like the influence peddling scandal, it will be here for a while, some people will get in trouble but it is just government doing what it does and life will go on. I am a civil libertarian so obviously I am not for this but I would like to know if they limited themselves to suspected terrorists and if so then I would consider it bad but in this case understand able but still bad.

Recent topics in "The Conservative Point"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
gestapo C 0 December 21, 2013
rapandula C 0 December 17, 2013
about cocorocotum C 0 December 7, 2013
Jesus' Return, Blood Red Moons and the Bootes Constellation Rocky 1 November 9, 2013