Bush cites absolute power clause as reason he conducted illegal wiretaps [Archive]

View Full Version : Bush cites absolute power clause as reason he conducted illegal wiretaps

Desert_Eagle

04-05-2006, 1:13 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

I wasn't aware that the Authorization for use of military force against terrorists Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists) and article 2 of the US constitution granted absolute power to the president, but he argues that it does.

The Administration's view is that the President had the authority under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against September 11 Terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists)" ("AUMF") [19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#_note-18) and under his inherent powers under Art. II of the Constitution to authorize the NSA surveillance program, including the monitoring of international calls of US persons with suspected terrorists abroad without seeking warrants under FISA

Bush reasons that because he is the president, he doesn't have to follow laws passed by congress, because those laws encroach on his executive power too much. He must not be aware of the fact that our constitution created 3 branches of government, and the judicial branch is responsible for determining what laws are and are not constitutional, not the president.

Further, he argues that the AUMF act overrides FISA and grants him the power of creating a domestic spying program, even when he can't find a single senator who agrees that they intended the AUMF to apply to U.S. citizens. He also lied about it 3 times to the American public.

Dick Cheney says the War Powers Resolution (congressional authority to declare war) infringes on the executive authority of the president. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1424802&page=1)

The Congress shall have power
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause) and provide for the common defense and general welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Welfare_Clause&action=edit) of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization), and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcies) throughout the United States; To coin money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Mint), regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST); To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeiting) the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service) and post roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Post_Road); To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States); To define and punish piracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy) and felonies committed on the high seas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_seas), and offenses against the law of nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law); To declare war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war), grant letters of marque and reprisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal), and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army), but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy); To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; The constitution infringes on the presidents constitutional authority.

Is there anybody here who can show me where in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution or the AUMF which contains provisions granting absolute power to the president?

Protosschick99

04-05-2006, 2:16 PM

From what I understand, the President controls the Marines. Those are his men, so he can send them in without congress's approval for war.

I've never heard of this absolute power thing though....That's new to me.

Desert_Eagle

04-05-2006, 3:46 PM

From what I understand, the President controls the Marines. Those are his men, so he can send them in without congress's approval for war.

http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=296173&postcount=1

I don't think the Marines were conducting wiretaps, correct me if I'm wrong though.

I've never heard of this absolute power thing though....That's new to me.

Live and learn (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=296173&postcount=1)

GenocideAlive

04-05-2006, 10:00 PM

Desert_Eagle

04-05-2006, 10:55 PM

Speaking of live and learn, if you're going to create threads just for crybaby purposes I think you'd be better off just going to a liberal forum and whining in chorus there. If you're just looking to sit around and say "the government sucks" or "bush sucks", they're far more sympathetic.

I'll create threads at my own discretion. You will make relevant posts in them or not post at all. Sound good?

The President conducted wiretaps in issues of terrorism and is currently conducting wiretaps in issues of terrorism. What's your basis for saying that he has no right to do so?

http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=296173&postcount=1

Can he wiretap your phone "in issues of terrorism?"

Neo

04-06-2006, 12:47 PM

The President conducted wiretaps in issues of terrorism and is currently conducting wiretaps in issues of terrorism. What's your basis for saying that he has no right to do so?

Thats a bullshit arguement that I am sick of seeing.

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 Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

I wonder if bush is reading the same thing everyone else is, or maybe hes reading some magical constitution from his imagination. Or maybe hes just a pawn. Maybe he sees "...shall be Commander in Chief..." and nothing else?

-Neo

Desert_Eagle

04-06-2006, 1:10 PM

He claims that Article 2 grants him absolute power, though he is unable to find any kind of legal precadent to this effect.

Here's bullshit argument I'm sick of seeing.

Your argument is bullshit! Here, I'm going to quote a 300 year old document [the United States Constitution - the source of any legal argument pertaining to this debate] to prove it! It may or may not prove what I'm actually saying, but my interpretation of it certainly does! No, I have no legal expertise whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Bush: Article 2 of the US constitution states that I do not have to follow laws which I think restrict my executive authority

US constitution: The judicial branch is in charge of deciding what is and is not constitutional (what powers the executive branch does and does not have).

Bush: My position is legal (constitutional).

As you can see this argument has been reduced to absurdity.

I hate to break it to you, kids, but what he's doing is legal. Quote all of the Constitution if you want, it doesn't give you a legal basis for argument. "OMFG BUSH ISN"T READING IT RIGHT!1!! I, THE UNEDUCATED AND UNINITIATED LAW LAYMAN HAVE DECIEDEDT HE ONE TRUTE MEANING!1!!!1" It's a wonder Congress doesn't call you shitbricks at home to ask your legal advice.

So the United States Constitution (the supreme law of the land) is not a legal basis for an argument he says. When a house is built on such shaky foundations, we can see the rest of his argument crumble to the absurd right before our eyes.

don't give a monkey damn if Bush wants to wiretap ALL of my phones for terrorism, because I'm not a motherfucking terrorist. I'm not going to bomb anything and I'm sure as hell not going to be doing anything in the interests of bombing anything. Who the hell do you think you're scaring with that garbage?

It's obvious that you don't care about your civil liberties. Thats part of the reason you don't deserve them. The rest of us are concerned that our rights as Americans are in danger and have been abused by this administration. You might not mind if your phone is being tapped, me I personally prefer privacy. Then again, if you have nothing to hide, why don't you post all your personal information right here on this forum? You don't have anything to hide do you?

Who do you think your scaring with this terrorism garbage? Day after day Americans are getting fed up with the bullshit.

What's Bush going to do, start using wiretaps to issue speeding tickets?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_abuses

No, so far he's only used it to attack the homeless, professors who disagree with his political views, and people excercising their free speech rights.

"Personal freedom" is a fucking illusion that some of you seem desperate to cling to no matter how ridiculous [Freedom is ridiculous]. Believe it or not, the Constitution's 300 year old rules aren't still easily applicable today [Civil liberties are not applicable today]. When we're discussing 3-5k people being killed and 50M in damages dealt to an area, I think it's worth Bush [illegally] tapping a few [thousand] phones. You don't agree? Get a fucking law degree and go argue it in court--in the meantime, STFU. You have LESS basis for stating your opinion than anybody else, because obviously it's legal.

Well thats it guys, obviously it's legal! We don't need proof, all we need is Bush's assurance (even when he has lied about this in the past) that it is legal.

Some crap about posting a picture with an eagle.

Sure, if propaganda is the only thing that sways your sheep mind.

http://www.theflagpole.com/images/flag_eagle_header.jpg

GenocideAlive

04-06-2006, 3:43 PM

Thats a bullshit arguement that I am sick of seeing.
Here's bullshit argument I'm sick of seeing.

Your argument is bullshit! Here, I'm going to quote a 300 year old document to prove it! It may or may not prove what I'm actually saying, but my interpretation of it certainly does! No, I have no legal expertise whatsoever.
I wonder if bush is reading the same thing everyone else is, or maybe hes reading some magical constitution from his imagination. Or maybe hes just a pawn. Maybe he sees "...shall be Commander in Chief..." and nothing else?
I hate to break it to you, kids, but what he's doing is legal. Quote all of the Constitution if you want, it doesn't give you a legal basis for argument. "OMFG BUSH ISN"T READING IT RIGHT!1!! I, THE UNEDUCATED AND UNINITIATED LAW LAYMAN HAVE DECIEDEDT HE ONE TRUTE MEANING!1!!!1" It's a wonder Congress doesn't call you shitbricks at home to ask your legal advice. :rolleyes:

I don't give a monkey damn if Bush wants to wiretap ALL of my phones for terrorism, because I'm not a motherfucking terrorist. I'm not going to bomb anything and I'm sure as hell not going to be doing anything in the interests of bombing anything. Who the hell do you think you're scaring with that garbage? What's Bush going to do, start using wiretaps to issue speeding tickets?

"Personal freedom" is a fucking illusion that some of you seem desperate to cling to no matter how ridiculous. Believe it or not, the Constitution's 300 year old rules aren't still easily applicable today. When we're discussing 3-5k people being killed and 50M in damages dealt to an area, I think it's worth Bush tapping a few phones. You don't agree? Get a fucking law degree and go argue it in court--in the meantime, STFU. You have LESS basis for stating your opinion than anybody else, because obviously it's legal.

Edit: Maybe to lend your flimsy bullshit more credibility, you could include a JPEG of an Eagle crying or something. Maybe a little blurb about liberty or justice or something.

GenocideAlive

04-06-2006, 4:41 PM

Desert_Eagle

04-06-2006, 4:58 PM

Ad hominem. Adress the argument, not the person.

GenocideAlive

04-06-2006, 5:46 PM

Well, I'd love to reply, but apparently your qualifications to question or deride our legal system are apparently completely superfluous and unimportant. Apparently what IS important is that you get to voice your opinion on this subject, regardless of its merit or appropriateness.
So the United States Constitution (the supreme law of the land) is not a legal basis for an argument he says. When a house is built on such shaky foundations, we can see the rest of his argument crumble to the absurd right before our eyes. Hello, Reader Rabbit! What are you doing here?

Not much, Genocide! Just wanted to point out to DE, whom skipped several of my classes, that you said "quoting the Constitution", and that doesn't necessitate legality, accuracy, or appropriateness! For instance, if I say that DE is a total moron, then quote the 19th Amendment, it doesn't prove that he is, indeed, a moron.

Nobody would judge you, RR. And besides, it IS the Constitution!

Very true. But hopefully now some people will realize that quoting the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't mean it applies to what they're speaking--although it does show that they can twist words like a champ! Anyway, hopefully DE will attend some classes in the near future so he can stop embarrassing himself while trying to appear intelligent. For instance, let's run through a few more of his hilarious reading comprehension errors!

Well, hopefully Neo won't delete my reply and then permit his rejoinder again. It seems a little, well, biased.

Are you sure, Genocide? Seems fair to me! After all, we're here to "discuss" things--just without an opposing viewpoint! Technically it's me, Reader Rabbit, speaking out--not you. So he has no basis for rabidly deleting your posts solely on the basis that they're yours.

Hmm. Won't he just ban me anyway?

We've already dug our grave, so we might as well get our shots in now. Fair enough? Anyway, let's continue on to DE's amazing career as a transmogrifier. He's already showing great promise in the area of completely changing one set of words into another! Break it down:

Original: "Personal freedom" is a fucking illusion that some of you seem desperate to cling to no matter how ridiculous.
Transformed: [Freedom is ridiculous]

I didn't say clinging to an illusion was ridiculous, I said FREEDOM IS RIDICULOUS. Awesome job, DE.

Original: Believe it or not, the Constitution's 300 year old rules aren't still easily applicable today.
Transformed: [Civil liberties are not applicable today]

Because civil liberties today aren't any more sophisticated than they were 300 years ago! Threats and danger provided by single men aren't any more than they were 300 years ago either! It's not like they didn't have kton bombs when George Washington was around.

Original: Who do you think you're scaring with this [alarmist phone tapping] garbage?
Transformed: Who do you think your scaring with this terrorism garbage? Day after day Americans are getting fed up with the bullshit.

Not two people having an argument, but now it's GenocideAlive vs. Americans! Someone is wrapping their point of view in the flag--I never saw that one coming!

Me neither, Reader Rabbitt. I'm still getting over the shock. Or maybe I'm still getting over the shock of having my post deleted while my opponent's REPLY TO THAT POST is still "allowed".

Original: When we're discussing 3-5k people being killed and 50M in damages dealt to an area, I think it's worth Bush tapping a few [thousand] phones.
Transformed: Not transformed, just lied about! It's [I]obviously legal!

But illegal sounds so much more bad...and let's face it--if you're not a terrorist, you pretty much have every reason to be worried about phone taps. Look at all the proof!

Original: Hobo kicked off of train sues NY transit authority because they think they should be able to use the train like a house. Case dismissed because it was tipped off that in London masstransit bombers were going to use the disguise of homeless men to carry out plots undisturbed.
Transformed: Patriot Act used to attack the homeless!

Original: Artist following questionable procedures in handling of biohazardous samples. Wife dies suddenly. FBI called in and performing a full investegation. Attempting to prosecute for improper handling and inappropriate use by unqualified persons.
Transformed: Professor being persecuted for having viewpoints contrary to the administration!

Original: Sami Omar Al-Hussayen arrested for a law created during Bill Clinton's presidency and bolstered by the Patriot Act for supporting, funding, and recruiting terrorists with websites.
Transformed: Free speech being quashed!

Original: Your viewpoints are dictated to you by liberal mouthpieces dedicated to suckering partisans. You didn't even critically read any of the sources outside of Wikipedia and you're twisting nearly every circumstance possible into something entirely different.
Transformed: propaganda is the only thing that sways your sheep mind.

Wow, Reader Rabbit, you're amazing.

You always were a good pupil, Genocide.

Neo

04-06-2006, 5:50 PM

Do you come up with this all on your own?

I seriously think you would make a much better artist of some sort - or writer?

I mean really, Reader Rabbit? Talk about something that I've not thought of for a decade or 2.

FYI: (in case you've not noticed) your earlier post is no longer deleted.

-Neo

Desert_Eagle

04-06-2006, 6:18 PM

Not much, Genocide! Just wanted to point out to DE, whom skipped several of my classes, that you said "quoting the Constitution", and that doesn't necessitate legality, accuracy, or appropriateness! For instance, if I say that DE is a total moron, then quote the 19th Amendment, it doesn't prove that he is, indeed, a moron.

Very true. But hopefully now some people will realize that quoting the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't mean it applies to what they're speaking--although it does show that they can twist words like a champ! Anyway, hopefully DE will attend some classes in the near future so he can stop embarrassing himself while trying to appear intelligent. For instance, let's run through a few more of his hilarious reading comprehension errors!

Note: Did not include part where GenocideAlive starts talking to himself.

Which part of the US constitution which I specifically cited is not relevant to my claim? Is Article 2 (the official Administration position) not relevant? The AUMF? Fourth Amendment? Which is it?

Original: "Personal freedom" is a fucking illusion that some of you seem desperate to cling to no matter how ridiculous.
Transformed: [Freedom is ridiculous]

Please translate then. I don't see how else it could be interpreted. You said personal freedom is ridiculous, but now I'm transforming your words?

I didn't say clinging to an illusion was ridiculous, I said FREEDOM IS RIDICULOUS. Awesome job, DE.

So clinging to freedom (an illusion) is ridiculous? Then by definition, isn't freedom ridiculous? Your not making a whole lot of sense.

Original: Believe it or not, the Constitution's 300 year old rules aren't still easily applicable today.
Transformed: [Civil liberties are not applicable today]

Because civil liberties today aren't any more sophisticated than they were 300 years ago! Threats and danger provided by single men aren't any more than they were 300 years ago either! It's not like they didn't have kton bombs when George Washington was around.

And by extension, you argue that the president is in a position to make that decision, even when that is explicitly the realm of the legislative branch.

The constitution is updated and re-interpreted all the time. Updated by the legislative branch, re-interpreted by the judicial. Note that at no time does the executive branch come into play.

Are you arguing that the constitutions seperation of powers are not applicable today because of terrorism? Are you saying the president does not have to follow the constitution simply because he believes it does not apply to todays circumstances? What are you saying, exactly?

Original: Who do you think you're scaring with this [alarmist phone tapping] garbage?
Transformed: Who do you think your scaring with this terrorism garbage? Day after day Americans are getting fed up with the bullshit.

Not two people having an argument, but now it's GenocideAlive vs. Americans! Someone is wrapping their point of view in the flag--I never saw that one coming!

Well yes many Americans agree with me, so literally it is you versus many Americans. Note that the statement "Americans are getting fed up with this bullshit" is not contradicted by anything you have written. As of yet, the statement stands uncontested.

Original: When we're discussing 3-5k people being killed and 50M in damages dealt to an area, I think it's worth Bush tapping a few [thousand] phones.
Transformed: Not transformed, just lied about! It's [I]obviously legal!

They are against the law (FISA, 4th amendment). By definition that is illegal. He also lied about them, but that is not relevant to their legality, it just raises speculation (why would he lie if what he was doing was legal?).

Original: Hobo kicked off of train sues NY transit authority because they think they should be able to use the train like a house. Case dismissed because it was tipped off that in London masstransit bombers were going to use the disguise of homeless men to carry out plots undisturbed.
Transformed: Patriot Act used to attack the homeless!

1. The arrest occured prior to the London bombings.
2. They were in the train station, not in the train.

Original: Artist following questionable procedures in handling of biohazardous samples. Wife dies suddenly. FBI called in and performing a full investegation. Attempting to prosecute for improper handling and inappropriate use by unqualified persons.
Transformed: Professor being persecuted for having viewpoints contrary to the administration!

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz) of the University at Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_at_Buffalo%2C_The_State_University_of_N ew_York) reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the FBI . The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Terrorism_Task_Force), Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAZMAT) gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=US_Biological_Weapons_Anti-Terrorism_Act&action=edit)—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faces 20 years in jail. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism), and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [2] (http://www.caedefensefund.org/) [3] (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0611-05.htm)

Original: Sami Omar Al-Hussayen arrested for a law created during Bill Clinton's presidency and bolstered by the Patriot Act for supporting, funding, and recruiting terrorists with websites.
Transformed: Free speech being quashed!

The EU contributes to the government of Palestine. The United States government has been contributing to the PLO for over 20 years. Should the US government be indicted on terrorism charges?

Original: Your viewpoints are dictated to you by liberal mouthpieces dedicated to suckering partisans. You didn't even critically read any of the sources outside of Wikipedia and you're twisting nearly every circumstance possible into something entirely different.
Transformed: propaganda is the only thing that sways your sheep mind.

Absolutely false. You said in your edit "to be more convincing you could at least have a picture of an eagle crying."

Yes that was a stupid thing for you to say, but you can't blame it on me, then make up some crap that you didn't even say.

GenocideAlive

04-06-2006, 6:20 PM

I'd just like you to note that you refuted nothing. You just claimed confusion for about 4 paragraphs, split hairs, then quoted Wikipedia, finally wrapping it up by calling me stupid.

Desert_Eagle

04-06-2006, 6:35 PM

Unsupported assertion.

ScottieIWU

04-06-2006, 7:56 PM

Desert_Eagle

04-07-2006, 9:57 AM

So I was reading through some posts in IR, expecting the usual kind of debates that I see where GA and WL and I are opposing half of the WB population. I even expected to see people citing logical flaws, but at least addressing the arguments anyway or correcting the arguments, then presenting new points of views or arguments.

Imagine my surprise when I saw about 20 posts between two topics consisting of the accusation of some kind of flaw in the argument of logic, followed by absolutely nothing that supports his argument. Then, when people (such as GA or Kingscrab) point out that he is offering no new evidence and that his old evidence is absolutely terrible, he responds by pointing out the logical error in that.

I absolutely love coming to IR and seeing somebody having wasted about 2/3 of his posts here having said absolutely nothing relevant or intelligent. Yah, I'm attacking you directly DE, but I really don't give a shit because I don't like you and you've posted 30 times.

Your own post contradicts your stated principle of debate.

Also, that part of your post in it's entirety is an unsupported assertion.

That said, who fuck cares about the wiretaps? Oh wait, I do! Except, it's protecting my fucking life so I'm kind of glad. I'm all for privacy but as GA pointed out, times have changed and civil liberties are slightly different than they were in the past. In order to protect the basic institutions of this country some sacrifices must be made. Do we have to be happy about those changes? No! In fact, it's questioning those changes that makes America what it is, and that's good.

However, when questioning something and asking if there might be a better way turns into an accusation that the government is acting completely wrongly and that something like wiretaps are a threat to all of our freedom (more so than the threat of being blown the fuck up) I have to draw the line. This thread boils down to some kind of alarmist bullshit about how we're turning into an Orwellian police-state; an accusation that is completely untrue. Our thoughts are not being monitored, you are not being put in jail for questioning the government's authority. The closest thing we have is wire-taps on people who are likely to be terrorists.

Suck it up. We fight terror now, we do what we can to stop it, we get some new presidents and we find better ways to monitor possible terrorist activity. Technology will advance and thus so will the methods by which we protect our liberties.

Well nobody stated that we are in an Orwellian police state, nobody stated that they are doing mind control (See: Project MKULTRA), and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to make the claim that "these wiretaps are only being used on terrorists."

We have reason to speculate that the government is illegally wiretapping more people than necessary, which is confirmed by the FBI and many NSA officials. The FBI believes the Patriot Act gave them sufficient abilities to conduct investigations into terrorism. George Bush disagrees, and feels the Patriot Act is not enough!

Also, what are your specific objections to FISA requirements? More importantly, what exactly do you even know about this issue, next to nothing?

It appears you simply agree with the president because, well thats what you do. Your not really informed on what FISA requirements are and why they might or might not be sufficient. What are your objections to following the law and obtaining warrants for wiretaps? The answer "this is a new day and age" is insufficient and vague. Please cite specific examples where you think FISA curtails the presidents ability to eavesdrop on terrorists.

Another issue you have not adressed is why the president lied about it. Also, you have no reasonable explanation for why he would not simply have asked congress to pass a law to make his actions legal, instead of unilaterally declaring that he is doing this "to fight terrorism."

Can he drop bombs on U.S. cities to fight terrorism? Under the administrations interpretation of Article 2, yes.

GenocideAlive

04-07-2006, 10:45 AM

Well nobody stated that we are in an Orwellian police state, nobody stated that they are doing mind control (See: Project MKULTRA), and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to make the claim that "these wiretaps are only being used on terrorists."
Oh, so now we have to create negative proof. :rolleyes:
We have reason to speculate that the government is illegally wiretapping more people than necessary, which is confirmed by the FBI and many NSA officials.
At least you admit you're speculating. Which is held synonymous with the word "guessing". Feel free to list all of the FBI and NSA officials instead of just bullshitting.

Original: President authorizes wiretaps to divine the terrorist plans of cells in the US. Succeeds in stopping several plots, including one involving the Brooklyn Bridge.
Transformed: Can he drop bombs on U.S. cities to fight terrorism? Under the administrations interpretation of Article 2, yes.

ScottieIWU

04-07-2006, 11:21 AM

Also, that part of your post in it's entirety is an unsupported assertion.My assertion that you have presented almost no new points to the topic and that your entire method of discussion consists of pointing out logical fallacies in other peoples' arguments is unsupported? What world do you live in where reading this thread isn't support enough.

Your method is to repeat things that you've said since the beginning. You ask me for evidence then show me no evidence in return?
We have reason to speculate that the government is illegally wiretapping more people than necessary, which is confirmed by the FBI and many NSA officials.Where is your evidence for that? I'd like to see it.

Another issue you have not adressed is why the president lied about it. Also, you have no reasonable explanation for why he would not simply have asked congress to pass a law to make his actions legal, instead of unilaterally declaring that he is doing this "to fight terrorism."I hate the idea of secracy but sometimes you need to work in shadows. Do we want a bill going through congress entitled "SECRET ANTI-TERRORIST WIRETAPPING PLAN." Most everything going through congress is open business, and if terrorists find out we're tapping phones then tapping phones will probably become a much less effective means of finding information.

It appears you simply agree with the president because, well thats what you do.Yep, you've definitely gotten my number on that one after I posted in response to you twice. In fact, your character analysis of me is so perfect that I'm going to actually take the time to explain how perfect it is.

I don't agree with the president. In fact, I don't necessarily like the idea of wire taps. But in certain issues I have to assume that some people are basing decisions off of more information than I am. I'm young, I don't have a lot of time to do a ton of research on certain issues, and therefore I must, in many situations, yield to an authority that has done plenty of research on the issue. In this case, even though I dislike the presdient greatly, it would be naive to assume without any evidence that he just started tapping phones on a whim.

GenocideAlive

04-07-2006, 1:23 PM

I don't agree with the president. In fact, I don't necessarily like the idea of wire taps. But in certain issues I have to assume that some people are basing decisions off of more information than I am. I'm young, I don't have a lot of time to do a ton of research on certain issues, and therefore I must, in many situations, yield to an authority that has done plenty of research on the issue. In this case, even though I dislike the presdient greatly, it would be naive to assume without any evidence that he just started tapping phones on a whim.
And, ironically, people like DE prey on these types of people, producing tons of "facts" et al designed to "inform" people about how the current administration is blatantly abusing this or that, or creating some irreversible catastrophe. However, the facts they offer, after scrutiny, are either entirely taken out of context or whored out for purposes of attention garnering.

For instance, I was recently provided a "fact" and link noting that the homeless in trains / train stations were being "attacked" with the Patriot Act. Most would stop there, shocked and appalled that the Patriot Act was being used to go after the innocent, unsuspecting homeless.

After following the link and looking at the source it turns out that a group of the homeless attempted to sue the city a la get-rich-quick-schemes for kicking them out on the grounds that they had no business there. They of course, returned that it was a public place and as long as they don't get caught doing what everybody knows they're doing there (begging, sleeping, abusing the facilities, etc.), they can't be kicked out. The government got their case dismissed by stating that the terrorists in London planned to use homeless guises to carry out their plot.

So, basically the government of a city used the Patriot Act to save itself millions of dollars from a frivolous lawsuit. Yes, indeed, those homeless were mos def "attacked"...

And liberals wonder why they can't get anybody to listen to them, and why conservatives have taken the House, Congress, and the Top Spot in record numbers. Try a little truth, reason, and moderation, kids. The whole "OMFG YOU WON'T BELIVELI THSIES!!1!1 WWW.LIBERAL.COM/BUSHMISTAKE.HTML" is getting old. Talk sense, not partisan politics and maybe you'll stop getting owned in every possible turn.

Desert_Eagle

04-07-2006, 1:38 PM

Oh, so now we have to create negative proof.

Well yes, it's a postive claim. I can say that we have reason to speculate that the wiretaps are being used on non-terrorists, it's a logical assumption given that there have been few convictions based on these illegal wiretaps, even when thousands of phones have been tapped.

For you to say that they are only being used on terrorists, why do you believe that?

Original: President authorizes wiretaps to divine the terrorist plans of cells in the US. Succeeds in stopping several plots, including one involving the Brooklyn Bridge.
Transformed: Can he drop bombs on U.S. cities to fight terrorism? Under the administrations interpretation of Article 2, yes.

The administration argues that Article 2 gives the president the power to nullify or ignore laws (absolute power) such as FISA and the 4th amendment.

It follows that if the president indeed has absolute power, legally he can bomb U.S. cities because he doesn't have to follow laws, so long as he is allegedly fighting terrorism.

My assertion that you have presented almost no new points to the topic and that your entire method of discussion consists of pointing out logical fallacies in other peoples' arguments is unsupported? What world do you live in where reading this thread isn't support enough.

Your method is to repeat things that you've said since the beginning. You ask me for evidence then show me no evidence in return?

You assertion that I have not adressed the arguments is unsupported. As well as the assertion in the above quote.

Where is your evidence for that? I'd like to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_wiretapping

I hate the idea of secracy but sometimes you need to work in shadows. Do we want a bill going through congress entitled "SECRET ANTI-TERRORIST WIRETAPPING PLAN." Most everything going through congress is open business, and if terrorists find out we're tapping phones then tapping phones will probably become a much less effective means of finding information.

You know like how just in case Al Qaeda has managed to infilitrate closed sessions of the United States congress, or somehow managed to infiltrate secret courts like FISA, or for some incredibly idiotic reason they weren't aware that the United States had the ability to wiretap their phones, we need to keep it a secret.

Just in case guys. The terrorists are coming! They are here! They have infilitrated our government, some senators might be terrorists, some FISA judges might be terrorists, and terrorists didn't know that the US government can wiretap phones!

I don't agree with the president. In fact, I don't necessarily like the idea of wire taps. But in certain issues I have to assume that some people are basing decisions off of more information than I am. I'm young, I don't have a lot of time to do a ton of research on certain issues, and therefore I must, in many situations, yield to an authority that has done plenty of research on the issue. In this case, even though I dislike the presdient greatly, it would be naive to assume without any evidence that he just started tapping phones on a whim.

Why would he lie about it then? Why wouldn't he ask congress to pass a law giving him this power, instead of citing some fictitous absolute power clause in Article 2? And why oh why should we trust a lying president?

ScottieIWU

04-07-2006, 3:04 PM

Until your sorry ass stops quoting Wikipedia as a source of information, I am not longer going to acknowledge any post that you make.

You have no support in any kind of really authoritative media. Wikipedia is not any kind of authoritative source of information, learn that, and then start discussing. Until then, keep your alarmist bullshit claims to yourself. I think everybody here except Neo has tried to tell you that, yet for some reason your cannot grasp that Wikipedia is not a real source.

Edit: And GA has already shot your ass down about being able to correctly interpret the Constitution. Until you are sitting on the bench in any kind of court, I am not going to listen to your interpretations of the constitution.

Honestly, if this post gets deleted fine, but you need to shut the fuck up. You're worse than Michael Moore and you give a bad name to liberals everywhere.

Desert_Eagle

04-07-2006, 3:52 PM

Until your sorry ass stops quoting Wikipedia as a source of information, I am not longer going to acknowledge any post that you make.

Fine with me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

You have no support in any kind of really authoritative media. Wikipedia is not any kind of authoritative source of information, learn that, and then start discussing. Until then, keep your alarmist bullshit claims to yourself. I think everybody here except Neo has tried to tell you that, yet for some reason your cannot grasp that Wikipedia is not a real source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

And GA has already shot your ass down about being able to correctly interpret the Constitution. Until you are sitting on the bench in any kind of court, I am not going to listen to your interpretations of the constitution.

It's questinable whether you would even be able to understand any modern interpretation of the constitution.

Honestly, if this post gets deleted fine, but you need to shut the fuck up. You're worse than Michael Moore and you give a bad name to liberals everywhere.

You can suck my cock for all I give a shit. Either post something relevant to the topic or don't post at all.

GenocideAlive

04-07-2006, 3:56 PM

Desert_Eagle

04-07-2006, 4:13 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

ScottieIWU

04-07-2006, 5:42 PM

I take exception to my previous post in favor of this, which I will deem my last:

This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Examples:

Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer. Wikipedia is not person A, Wikipedia is source a. You, DE, are person A. Therefore, Poisining the well is not taking place. Owning is.

You're the one quoting Wikipedia without reading the shit. So here's a direct quote for you that show's you're wrong. I'm saying you're an idiot and I admit that falls under poisoning the well, even though it's true.

However, saying wikipedia is calling into question the source/basis of your arguments. That all you can do is consistently link to the same fucking Wikipedia article shows that you do not even understand the basic underpinnings of logic that it has.

I am not attacking you. Wikipedia, as GA has pointed out to you previously, is not a person. Wikipedia is a source that I am questioning. I am not poisoning the well, I'm just not being some kind of impressionable fool who believes everything he reads on the internet.

Start posting something intelligent or post nothing at all. Please. This is "Intellectual Roundtable" not "Link to Wikipedia's 'Poisoning the Well' Article Every Time Somebody of Greater Intelligence Owns Your Feeble Alarmist Arguments."

Desert_Eagle

04-07-2006, 6:21 PM

I take exception to my previous post in favor of this, which I will deem my last:

Wikipedia is not person A, Wikipedia is source a. You, DE, are person A. Therefore, Poisining the well is not taking place. Owning is.

You're the one quoting Wikipedia without reading the shit. So here's a direct quote for you that show's you're wrong. I'm saying you're an idiot and I admit that falls under poisoning the well, even though it's true.

Read on Young Padawan:

In general usage, poisoning the well is the provision of any information that may produce a biased result. For example, if a woman tells her friend "I think I might buy this beautiful dress." then asks how it looks, she has "poisoned the well", as her previous comment could affect her friend's response.
Similarly, in written work, an inappropriate heading to a section or chapter can create pre-bias. As an example:
The so-called "Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)" of Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity) We now examine the theory of relativity... which has already "poisoned the well" to a balanced argument.

Your argument is that my argument is invalid because wikipedia is my source, even though you have not even begun to explain why wikipedia is not a valid source on this particular, nor have you identified any specific fact which you are calling into question. That sir, is poisoning the well.

However, saying wikipedia is calling into question the source/basis of your arguments. That all you can do is consistently link to the same fucking Wikipedia article shows that you do not even understand the basic underpinnings of logic that it has.

I am not attacking you. Wikipedia, as GA has pointed out to you previously, is not a person. Wikipedia is a source that I am questioning. I am not poisoning the well, I'm just not being some kind of impressionable fool who believes everything he reads on the internet.[/quote]

Your not simply "questioning the source," as that would imply you actually had a question about some specific fact. You are poisoning the well. You state that my argument is invalid because I used wikipedia as a source. Much like "don't listen to him, he's a lawyer." "Don't listen to him, he used wikipedia as a source."

Neo

04-07-2006, 9:27 PM

My assertion that you have presented almost no new points to the topic and that your entire method of discussion consists of pointing out logical fallacies in other peoples' arguments is unsupported? What world do you live in where reading this thread isn't support enough.

Your method is to repeat things that you've said since the beginning. You ask me for evidence then show me no evidence in return?

I'm sorry but this almost exactly describes another member around here that I can't just let it go.

So, basically the government of a city used the Patriot Act to save itself millions of dollars from a frivolous lawsuit. Yes, indeed, those homeless were mos def "attacked"...

I find this really sad.

You'd think that these homeless people would have some place to go (did they? didn't they? was the place they could go to as bad or worse then where they were anyways?). I mean, you know, we poke are noses in other peoples business all around the world, but we can't even take care of our own people.

I would just assume let the middle easterners go to hell, rot for all I care, the US should be taking care of its own. If we spent the money on the war on stuff to improve the US... We could even *gasp* protect ourselves from any future terrorists attacks.

I say let the middle east blow themselves to hell. I say let isreal fend for itself (ala: NO MORE MONEY FOR YOU).

Although thats probably pretty extreme =/

yea for rambling.

Bush doesn't have absolute power. He should never claim that he does. He shouldn't have done a lot of things that he did anyways -- but they always seem to get off don't they?

FFS Cheny SHOT a guy and got away with it. Not to mention he waited to report it (doesn't it take about that long for alcohol to leave the system?)... Its all fine to get pissed at people like DE -- but its not like they are talking out of thier asses -- SOMETHING IS WRONG AND NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

And when people try to, they get attacked for being unpatriotic or some other similar response.

EDIT: Uhm gg me for not noticing page 2. Oh well.

-Neo

Desert_Eagle

04-07-2006, 9:34 PM

They don't see anything wrong with people like Dick Cheney or George Bush being above the law. For instance it's ok for the secret service to obstruct a police investigation because, well just because. They don't even attempt to argue that it had something to do with the vice presidents safety. They simply don't care.

Kingscrab

04-10-2006, 3:36 PM

You can suck my cock for all I give a shit. Either post something relevant to the topic or don't post at all. Out of curiosity, will someone please explain to me how language like this is considered acceptable in the IR. ? Curious how i seen no red line through DE's handle lately. I have been away for a couple days so i must have missed something interesting. Yes. That must be it. :confused:

Neo

04-10-2006, 4:08 PM

dark.slayer

04-10-2006, 4:57 PM

Im pretty sure the Patriot Act (which has just been renewed) allows bush to keep an eye on suspected terrorists....

Whats wrong with keeping an eye on suspected terrorists?

Kingscrab

04-10-2006, 6:58 PM

Your always free to report any posts you feel require moderation. Meh. All due respect Neo, if i felt they would be treated with a consistent level of attention, and without bias, i would do so.

Neo

04-10-2006, 8:45 PM

dark.slayer you should know that IR isn't the place to just say 'you agree' or post such a small amount for the topic -- if you believe that the Patriot Act is legal, or needed, worth it, etc... Then tell us why you think so -- IR is a place for discussion, not 1 or 2 liner spams.

The problem with the Patriot Act is that it tramples on our freedoms, and to give up freedoms under the guise of being more secure just doesn't seem right does it?

-Neo

Desert_Eagle

04-11-2006, 2:18 PM

Out of curiosity, will someone please explain to me how language like this is considered acceptable in the IR. ? Curious how i seen no red line through DE's handle lately. I have been away for a couple days so i must have missed something interesting. Yes. That must be it. :confused:

Yes you must have missed the post I was replying to.

"Honestly, if this post gets deleted fine, but you need to shut the fuck up. You're worse than Michael Moore and you give a bad name to liberals everywhere."

Im pretty sure the Patriot Act (which has just been renewed) allows bush to keep an eye on suspected terrorists....

Whats wrong with keeping an eye on suspected terrorists?

1. Unconstitutional
2. He lied about it
3. He expresses no remorse for 1 or 2.

Meh. All due respect Neo, if i felt they would be treated with a consistent level of attention, and without bias, i would do so.

Oh you mean like the bias you display of allowing everyone to flame me but for some reason I'm not supposed to flame back. Yeah, right..

Dark_Magneto

04-12-2006, 3:16 PM

Im pretty sure the Patriot Act (which has just been renewed) allows bush to keep an eye on suspected terrorists....

Whats wrong with keeping an eye on suspected terrorists?

Because terrorist suspects include anyone that has an Almanac (http://wvls.lib.wi.us/rhinelanderdistrictlibrary/2004%20Columns/terrorist_almanacs.htm), anyone who reads books (http://entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,18160231-7484,00.html), and even 4-year old kids (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10725741/).