Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old May 17th, 2007, 10:22 PM       
It's not a Domestic Spying Program. It's not unConstitutional.

Personally, I sleep better at night with the knowledge that at least some phone calls made from the United States to, say... Lebanon... Saudi... Iran... pick one... are potentially being listened to. It's nice to know that at least somebody is making some sort of efforts to stop future 9/11s, despite the hard work of those that label such efforts in such a way as to make them SOUND LIKE something bad.

There's plenty of things you could reasonably be pissed at Bush's administration for. This is simply not one of them. There are very obvious and practical uses for NSA counterterrorism, Gitmo, water-boarding and (Max's favorite) SEEEEEEEECRET prisons. Do they blur the lines of Presidential Authority? No. War does that. It always has and it always will. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus for God's sake! Roosevelt interned over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens and legal Japanese guests, but only after he set government in competition with private industry with the creation of the TVA. Hoover wiped his ass with the Constitution every morning before breakfast, and Kennedy was told specifically by the leader of the French forces in Vietnam that any American involvement in that mess over there that was pursued in the manner he and 4 other Presidents adopted as their model was doomed to failure.

Not all of these examples of Presidential overreach were specific to wars, but they were all Presidential answers to extremely difficult questions involving the lives and deaths of millions of people. You know I have a hard on for Constitutional rights, but even I'm not going to weigh a terrorists right to plot the destruction of my city against my right to not die a firey death so a bunch of assholes can continue to live in the 12th century.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old May 18th, 2007, 01:36 PM       
omg it was just her mouth? Fucking lame. I can't believe they even went to court over that...
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 18th, 2007, 02:16 PM       
I was wondering when the total tonnage of his contempt for the law would get to you.

While I'll cop to hating him as much as you don't, loathesomeness isn't an impeachable offense.

I think, and have thought for some time, that W believes himself to be not above the law, but the law itself. And I think tat is very, very bad juju for America.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 18th, 2007, 02:23 PM       
Oh, and Preech, I think the protection of Terrorists constitutional rights were exactly what known liberal pansy Ashcroft was considering resigning over.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 18th, 2007, 02:58 PM       
from the Washington Post Editorial page

It doesn't much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush's response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.
"I'm not going to talk about it," Mr. Bush told reporters at a news conference with departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm."
No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president's willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible.
Yes, Mr. Bush backed down in the face of the threat of mass resignations, Mr. Ashcroft's included, and he apparently agreed to whatever more limited program the department was willing to approve. In the interim, however, the president authorized the program the Justice lawyers had refused to certify as legally permissible, and it continued for a few weeks more, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's careful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the Constitution, the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is. But as a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.
These are important topics for public discussion, and if anyone doubts that they can safely be discussed in public, they need look no further than Mr. Comey's testimony. Instead of doing so, Mr. Bush wants to short-circuit that discussion by invoking the continuing danger of al-Qaeda.
"And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress," Mr. Bush assured the country yesterday, as he brushed off requests for a more detailed account. But this is exactly the point of contention. The administration, it appears from Mr. Comey's testimony, was willing to go forward, against legal advice, with a program that the Justice Department had concluded did not "honor the civil liberties of our people." Nor is it clear that Congress was adequately informed. The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
adept_ninja adept_ninja is offline
Member
adept_ninja's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nap town MD
adept_ninja is probably a spambot
Old May 18th, 2007, 05:53 PM       
I was talking with someone the other day in my school about this and they are a supporter of Bush and they believe that things like this should be aloud and that "if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" which seems to be the terrible mindset that a lot of people have these days.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old May 18th, 2007, 06:00 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
omg it was just her mouth? Fucking lame. I can't believe they even went to court over that...
don't you live in the u.s.?
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:46 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.