However, Gonzales claimed they were using a probable cause standard which means they have to have to beleive that the individual in question has have committed a crime or is committing a crime. This does not include omnisciennt pronouncements or predictions. If they had particualr conversations or evidence that there was “a fair probabiltiy” that a crime was in the process of being committed then they could apply for and get a warrant.

Comment by Chase #155

What is meant by “AGENT”?

Part of what’s wrong with your argument is that whole cut off the funding aspect. We don’t want to kill off the NSA. We just want it to obey the United States laws. If democrats came out and tried to insist on killing the program, that would play right into Rove’s hands in calling democrats weak on security.

I, personally, don’t like the aspect of any secret court that there is no defense in front of. Too Star Chamberish for me. But it’s there. Most of their stuff is probably reasonable, so for now, I’m willing to let that one pass.
And this whole bushco has kept us from attack bullshit. You overstate the terrorists menace. 19 guys took over 4 planes with boxcutters. That ain’t happening in the US again. It isn’t that you can’t get through security with the stuff, it’s cause the whole plane is gonna rush the hijackers. It isn’t a free trip to Havana any more baby.

Now as far as you don’t like me calling you & bushco a fascist, Yea, it must be pretty embarassing trying to act like you are protecting freedom & goodness while doing exactly what the fascists did. Laws? You suggest the President trumps laws. Hitler. You think listening to EVERYONE’s phone calls is OK. Totalitarian. Dumbya has consistently given out HUGE tax breaks to the top 1% & corporate “friends”.

You aren’t by chance in that top 1% are you? No, I didn’t think so. If you were, you wouldn’t have time to write lies in a liberal chat room. No, you are just like the 99% of us that hasn’t seen the generosity of George W. Bush.

I thought Reagan was bad. Reagan wasn’t a fascist. Reagan truly didn’t trust or like Big Government. George, and especially his boys in the posse, They LOVE Big Government. It’s made them rich. Business interests running hand and hand with a strong Executive. Nazi.

It must being embarrassing trying to pawn yourself off as a Patriot knowing you’re just another Hitler Youth.

You believe a margin of less than 3% of the population is a landslide? Then Clinton’s 6 million vote over BushII, or his 8.5 million vote victory over Dole must be unanimous?

You partisans say the silliest things.

“And your 2000 claim is interesting. I can understand disapproval with the Electoral College, but facts is facts. Chase”

Then by this statement how is a 3 million vote lead (presuming that’s an accurate count in light of Republicans registering more votes than congressmen on their own majority leader) even relevant? After all, if you don’t think a 1/5 million vote victory by Gore is relevant, how is a 3 million vote by Bush that he BARELY won the electoral votes on relevant? After all, if Ohio hadn’t been stolen as has been pretty much proven at this point, Bush wouldn’t have stolen the second straight election. But after consistently losing the previous two elections and the fear of dying supreme court justices – republican partisans were desperate to win at all costs.

And I’ll definitely concede that this wasn’t the first, nor will it be the last time a political party stole an election. However the party that runs on ‘morality’ stealing an election is pretty much the definition of undeserving and hypocrisy pumpkin.

“Pardon me, not Gregor, bluestocking – the NYC resident” — Comment by Chase

*******************

Chase, it appears that you didn’t actually pay all that much attention to my little(!) soapbox post — I’m more likely to side with RightPunch than you on this one. If I may be so bold as to quote myself, “I certainly don’t like the idea of dying in a terrorist attack — but I don’t see myself as being so incredibly important or my life so infinitely valuable that it’s worth the price of the precious freedoms upon which this country was founded.”

I can’t say I share RightPunch’s belief that al-Qaeda amounts to little more than “some petty thugs”. I may not be willing to sacrifice my Constitutional freedoms to protect our country from another terrorist attack — but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop being careful. I also can’t dispute the fact that, as you put it, “the consequences of failing to act with decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch leaves us very vulnerable.” You and I differ, however, in how “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” should be defined. The Bush administration has already attempted to circumvent the Sixth (and possibly also the Fifth) Amendments with regard to Jose Padilla by holding an American citizen for three years without charge or trial and obstructing his right to consult legal counsel.

6th Amendment — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

They have also attempted to circumvent the Fourth Amendment through the NSA wiretapping.

4th Amendment — The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If we allow the President to circumvent these Amendments with impunity today, which ones will he attempt to circumvent tomorrow? Or a future President? How many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice in the name of safety — particularly if you live in an area where there is comparatively little actual risk of an attack? Where does it stop? You may be willing to go for ten out of ten on the Bill of Rights, but I sure as hell am not. I know as well as anyone that post-911 America isn’t the most safe or cheerful or comforting place in which to live sometimes — but there’s no way to turn the clock back. Americans may simply need to find a way to adjust to a greater level of discomfort and uncertainty if we want to maintain the majority of our freedoms. The eagle in the zoo is safe and protected, after all — but he is not free.

Kudos to Kindness, by the way…

“Pardon me, not Gregor, bluestocking – the NYC resident” — Comment by Chase

*******************

Chase, it appears that you didn’t actually pay all that much attention to my little(!) soapbox post — I’m more likely to side with RightPunch than you on this one. If I may be so bold as to quote myself, “I certainly don’t like the idea of dying in a terrorist attack — but I don’t see myself as being so incredibly important or my life so infinitely valuable that it’s worth the price of the precious freedoms upon which this country was founded.”

I can’t say I share RightPunch’s belief that al-Qaeda amounts to little more than “some petty thugs”. I may not be willing to sacrifice my Constitutional freedoms to protect our country from another terrorist attack — but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop being careful. I also can’t dispute the fact that, as you put it, “the consequences of failing to act with decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch leaves us very vulnerable.” You and I differ, however, in how “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch” should be defined. The Bush administration has already attempted to circumvent the Sixth (and possibly also the Fifth) Amendments with regard to Jose Padilla by holding an American citizen for three years without charge or trial and obstructing his right to consult legal counsel.

6th Amendment — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

They have also attempted to circumvent the Fourth Amendment through the NSA wiretapping.

4th Amendment — The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If we allow the President to circumvent these Amendments with impunity today, which ones will he attempt to circumvent tomorrow? Or a future President? How many of your rights are you willing to sacrifice in the name of safety — particularly if you live in an area where there is comparatively little actual risk of an attack? Where does it stop? You may be willing to go for ten out of ten on the Bill of Rights, but I sure as hell am not. I know as well as anyone that post-911 America isn’t an especially easy or happy or comfortable place in which to live sometimes — but there’s no way to turn the clock back. Americans may simply need to find a way to adjust to a greater level of discomfort and uncertainty if we want to maintain the majority of our freedoms. The eagle in the zoo is safe and protected, after all — but he is not free.

Kudos to Kindness, by the way…

I am not sure I understand your post. Are you arguing FISA is unconstitutional?

Pleas elaborate.

It was down to Ohio in determining who the president would be, if memory serves. Since I cast my vote, and I was not going to be a factor any further I did not watch the election to completion.

I do not vote for a party. I vote for the best person. I would like to see the rest of the country do the same, rather than voting a party no matter what.

I already provided links to the opinion of legal scholars who have stated that Bush cannot claim to have the authority to order wiretaps. Pres Bush has admitted to personally ordering them rather than seek FISA approval -arguing on very shaky legal grounds. He circumvented the law. The wiretaps are illegal.

And I do not support illegal wiretaps, and I particularly dispise wiretaps to gather information against political opponents.

Well, I also provided links that show Quakers have been targeted for opposing military recruitment in high schools.

I do not know the nature of the so-called “Quakers” that were surveilled. They were investigated for some (at least obstensive) reason, and I’m curious what that was. Lacking that, I cannot draw any conclusion.

Quakers were targeted for voicing their opposition to military recruiters on high school grounds (see links in my previous posts). The Quakers are a very old nonviolent Christian community. Read more about them here.

And your 2000 claim is interesting. I can understand disapproval with the Electoral College, but facts is facts.

I’m really not living in this state of fear. I dont think we can underestimate the threat of radical islam but i think we have the power to keep them at bay. no scheme, no intelligence, nothing will ever prevent all terrorism. i just dont think we should open the floodgates, that’s all.

I also appreciate your reasonableness amongst the other schmucks here. I feel so bad – these are probably well educated people that are so misguided, so wrongheaded it’s frightening. But both sides have their fair shares of idiots, that’s for sure.

When Democracy is the game, running to the middle, not the fringes is the path to winning elections. Clinton did it in 92-96. The electorate, the collective intelligence is being represented by the GOP (at least for now.) I think they are very vulnerable, if and only if, the MoveOn/Commie faction is subjugated instead of put out front. I dont know where you fall on this continuium, but this is the truth.

This is true, but they have not. They have recognized certain powers but have also indicated that the president does not have a “blank check” in time of war. If your refering to Hamdi, then that case has been debunked.

This case was regarding a Citizen in a Battle Zone, being held without his habeous. Other than that, the SCOTUS has not declaired the president has powers above the laws. The Congress has the power to tell the president how to do certain things with the military. i.e. How long he can stay in a war (funding). How the troops must behave (UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice).

So Congress can in fact and does tell the president how he will manage certain aspects of the miltary. So by that, this means that the president is in fact limited in what he can do. Doesnt this make sense? If the president has such power in the constitution, then why does the president need to get funding from Congress or why doesnt the president define how the military will act?

Let’s see…. I know this has been discussed, but let me present them again.

1) In 2000, the Supreme Court gave Bush the presidency.
2) In 2004, Kerry actually won but the Diebold machines loked the presidancy for Bush.

There is plenty of efidence to the fact. The exit polls show this. The exit polls were never off this much in the history of our elections. Coincidence?

Now your president just mentioned the words (terror, terrorist, and terrorism) 90 times in todays speech. This is a president operating off of keeping the sheeple in fear and cowering in the corner. I don’t know you, but I get the impression you might fall into that catagory, but you do at least ask questions and propose argumenative debate about the subject so there may still be hope.

At least you have one thing right: republicans have the power; not by military coup but via election. And yes, the tables will turn one day, no doubt. I really hope the day is soon that the Democratic party is able to run a candidate that is a middle-America type. Then things would be interesting.

Terry: It’s unfortuate you are completely at the fringe of our society. One of the annointed you are! Enjoy the view, “pinko.”

and Kindness: Ironic name with the quasi illegal slander dripping from your lips. Brownshirt? Ad hominems are great fun. Listen you twit, elections are what they are. Bush won, for better or worse, and (I’m gonna assume you didnt vote for him) you lost. Better luck in 08. At this rate, I doubt it.

Yes congress does have the right to create laws in this fashion. There is nothing in Article II that states otherwise. So though you might think that he has this “inhearant power”, he does not. Our Admendment 4 TRUMPS the presidents power.

As for your stopping the funding for these groups and that would stop them, and that would be true but the Republicans have the power. We all know that they kiss the presidents butt and would never do anything to rock the boat for their ruthless leader.

So what are the little people suppose to do? This is why I have written to ALL senators and suggested that a 40% vote would be all that was needed to generate an investigation or start an inquiry to any situation, rather than the way it is now. Sooner or later the tables are going to turn, and the Republicans will be crying that they can’t do anything. So why not fix this issue now?

It will never happen though, because the Republicans are to worried about having that reign of power.

Second: I disagree with your characterization of these wiretaps as illegal. And I do not support illegal wiretaps, and I particularly dispise wiretaps to gather information against political opponents.

I do not know the nature of the so-called “Quakers” that were surveilled. They were investigated for some (at least obstensive) reason, and I’m curious what that was. Lacking that, I cannot draw any conclusion.

I also want to touch again on the power of the executive in the realm of foreign affairs. So long as the NSA program in question involves AT LEAST ONE FOREIGN AGENT the president has the authority to wiretap. From Curtiss-Wright (1936):

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations-a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress…

I knew this was somewhere (had to rifle though my briefs) but this is taken to mean the president, in the realm of foreign affairs, does not have to wait for a congressional grant to act.