To pile on your woes…

The fourth amendment explicitly limits powers of search and requires a warrant. It is an amendment to the constitution and so without any laws explicitly allowing warrantless searches (including wiretapping) it is the ultimate source. Article II of the constitution does not give the President the right to break any laws, nor does it give him “ultimate powers”

The “War Powers” section merely states…

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

I don’t see anything there that says that he can do what he wants… Do you?

So, that leaves FISA which allows wiretapping under certain circumstances… But Bush didn’t use FISA so that is irrelevant.

So, given that the Fourth amendment explicitly prohibits searches without a warrant, and FISA lays down rules for issuing secret warrants. The President was deliberately evading the law. The fact that previous Presidents before FISA declared that it wasn’t illegal for them to do X doesn’t mean that FISA hasn’t changed that.

You might want to go and READ THE CONSTITUTION and then explain to us why the President can come into your house and make you give him head just because he is President and it is a “time of war”… Never mind that there has been no declaration of war.

Z.

Pumpkin, the president doesn’t have any war powers without the consent of congress, so congress has the right to limit the president. It’s OK sweetie, these discussions require the big-boy brain that isn’t available when one is filled with the rage and hate of partisanship. Take a deep breath next time and try to think before you post, maybe next time your comments will make more sense to the reasonably inclined.

Comment by Zwack

Use as many big words as you want buddy but it doesn’t make it any less stupid. I gave you the answer. It is unconstitutional for the congress or the courts to abridge or negate powers vested in the Presidency. Now all you got to do is prove that the President can not under the Constitution conduct wire tapping as he has done at a time such as this. Anything else is bullsht.

Have you considered that you might need anger management?

Let me put this in short words for you.

It is not a secret that the US has spies.

The “enemy” are not so stupid that they do not think the US will spy on them.

All that this secret program does is mean that there are no judges who can say “this is wrong”…

Got that?

FISA has judges saying “this is right” and is secret. Fisa is legal. What Bush is doing is not legal.

The only thing that what Bush is doing does is remove the check on abuse.

Z.

P.S. it’s not easy writing stuff in words of two syllables or less. I shouldn’t have to avoid phrases like “Judicial oversight” and “bullshit excuse”.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I #2

The administration isn’t arguing that FISA is unconstitutional.

Comment by Judd #6

…like shootin’ fish in a barrel…

…hey Judd?

Comment by progressive and proud

Because you liberal fucktards can’t be trusted not to “leak” information that is useful to the enemy. That’s why. Dumbass.

Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based” bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar” by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse” by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.

Battle Plans

The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.

Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency.

This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.

Pretend you are neither Republican nor Democrat. See if you can be honest with yourself. Answer the following:

1) If the Bush said tomorrow – “The only way to keep you safe is to revoke the constitution and let me decide what you need” – would you say yes or no?

2) If Bush cannot keep America safe without breaking the law – do you let him?

3) Are you and your family personally more likely to be suffer a hardship at the hands of terrorists or the “rich get richer, f**k the rest of you” policies being passed in to law daily by Bush & his rubber stampers?

4) Knowing what we know today, if the decision was in your hands would you choose to go to war in Iraq?

5) If you answered yes to the previous question, did you mean you would declare war from a safe distance and send someone else to fight or did you mean you would actually go?

6) Would you send your children to fight as well?

7) Would you want to go into battle with George W. Bush standing next to you?

8) Do you trust the Bush administration with your life? Do you trust them with your family’s lives? How about with your rights? Because you vote republican or because you believe you are safest under their protection?

9) Are you willing to trade your civil liberties for a promise of safety from the bad guys? Have they convinced you that you have to?

I heard someone say tonight, the President did not swear to protect us. He swore to uphold and protect the constitution. It is the constitution that protects us. Making up the rules to suite his own needs and then declaring that it’s for our own good it hardly different than your mother’s “because I said so” answer when you were a child. The only real difference is your mother probably was looking out for your best interest.

Last question:

10) If Bush was in a situation where it was his life or yours, who do you think he would save. What if Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rove were also there and all but one could be saved? Where do you think you would rank then?

Were you able to be honest and argue the republican talking points at the same time? No one else can either.

If Gonzales had been under oath, so caught in a LIE, then he could have been charged with perjury to Congress, and removed from his position!

Now, can we get back on 9/11 gravity physics. Like was it Newtonian or Einstienian that caused the collapse ? Does light travel faster than gravity waves? Would mass times velocity explain the apparent outward exterior wall movement? What about Oscam’s razor?

But isn’t that what Bush is doing to our Bill of Rights?
Crashing thru them??

All while arueing the justification for having speed limits,
But having authority to exceed them to catch a crook?

What does the justification of speed limits have to do with their need to “HOT PERSUIT” after the criminal?