Text 19778, 186 rader
Skriven 2008-08-17 17:22:11 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 19689 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Morality and law
========================
16 Aug 08 08:06, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>> That fact is, he has those powers and the Congress doesn't.

 RB> Actually, that's not true. Secret wiretaps, by law, are supposed to
 RB> be ordered by a "secret judge" whose judgements are not made public,

I said it didn't happen to any US citizen. Nor were the ACLU, who brought
that case before the supremes, able to prove it.

BTW, the name of this 'secret' court isn't so secret, if you know what
you're talking about, it's official name is The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court. Notice the word, Foreign in there? Then surveillance?

The FISC's judges names aren't exactly secret, since they're appointed by
the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, not the President.

The most recent to be appointed, Bruce M. Selya, was most recently the
senior judge on the Boston based 1st Court of Appeals. Chief Justice
Roberts appointed him to the 'secret' court on March 27 and he's been the
'presiding judge since May 19, 08

RB> but nonetheless exist and are binding.

Wrong again. Secret wiretaps are allowed under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978. No warrant is required to implement a wiretap,
although the law says that a judge must issue a warrant for the wiretap to
continue. If I'm not mistaken, that has a time window of 72 hours. The
arguement for the time window was; we do the survellience starting now and
worry about the warrant later, rather than have some terrorists planning
and implementing attacks while someone goes looking for the judge to sign
the warrant.

BTW, the ACLU just lost a case in the US Supreme Court over this.

 RB> Bush simply disregarded this, which is against the law, but when the
 RB> fact became public, he not only defended the practice but stated he
 RB> intended to continue it.

Which he had every right to do, under the act I quoted above.

 RB>  And Congress, which could have stopped him, grumbled but did
 RB> nothing.

LOL! They don't have the power of the Prez. All they can do is bitch about
it now and pass legislation later. Although, they're working on the law
that allows secret wiretapping, it's with the input from the President's
counsil.

If the Congress doesn't fall down on this job, as they've done on all
others, it may be revised, but the Prez won't lose the powers granted to
him under the FISA-78.

 RB> Don't you remember the flap? This was about a year and a half ago.

It was put to rest when a US Appeals court in Cincinatti, OH threw out the
ACLU's law suit in 2007.

BTW, the ACLU could not back up it's claims and prove that anyone had been
spied upon. Neither has anyone else.

 RB>>> Even now, the democrats are so scared they'll be accused of being
 RB>>> "soft on terrorism" that they are sometimes even more hardline than
 RB>>> the republicans.

 RW>> They're not scared, they have no grounds and they know it.

 RB> They're scared, Roy. Everybody's scared spitless that there could be
 RB> a repeat of 9/11 and no politician in his/her right mind will do
 RB> anything that could be considered - in any way, shape or form -
 RB> "soft" on crazies who do such things.

You've gotta be shittin' me. Obama himself said he's going to talk to
Iran's President personally and get things straightened out. All it will
take is a bit of friendly discussion and the Iranians will be good little
boys.

 RB> The main problem is only that a large number (call it "millions") of
 RB> perfectly normal people suffer in the process.

Cite some proof of this suffering by the masses. No one here has suffered
from it yet (ACLU couldn't prove it, remember). Hearsay and articles from
the laughable liberal press don't count.

 RB> What we now have is a little like if Congress would ban cars because
 RB> of the many thousands of highway deaths each year - more, incidently,
 RB> than in all the terrorist attacks to date.

Not a very good example. That's like saying that everything is hunkey dory
in Iraq and no more US or Iraqi soldiers will be killed. The fact is that
soldiers die too often in car accidents or falling off the sidewalk there.
No terrorists are even in the vicinity.

 RW>> If they had any balls, they'd go ahead and defund the Iraq War to
 RW>> stop the Prez...

 RB> Can't do it at this point. The US has a tiger by the tail and can't
 RB> let go.

That tiger is just a little kitty, soon to be fed, fattened and put to
bed.

 RW>> ... or impeach him.

 RB> Not worthwhile at this point. By the time things came to a vote, he'd
 RB> be out of office anyway.

LOL! That doesn't stop the stupid woman who's opposing Nancy Pelozi for
her seat in Congress this fall. She's running because Pelozi didn't bring
impeachment charges against the President. Can't stop the cool-aid
drinkers from being whacko.

 RB>>> The whole atmosphere is one of fear and suspicion.

 RW>> LOL! Ever hear of a Mexican Standoff? The Dems are waiting and
 RW>> hoping they'll have the WH and a majority in January. Then, they'll
 RW>> do the same as the Prez has done.

 RB> I wasn't thinking merely of the president and congress.

 RB>>>>> Concentration camps outside the USA to avoid the need to obey US
 RB>>>>> law?

 RW>>>> US Concentration camps? That's rediculous.

 RB>>> I didn't write "extermination camps". Get real.

 RW>> That's still rediculous, this even more.

 RB> I only wish it were, Roy.

Stop wishing and get some facts. Don't look in the NYTimes for them
though.

 RW>>>> Gitmo is a retirement community, where those being held are
 RW>>>> treated better than American criminals held in American prisons.

 RB>>> And I thought you were relatively well informed up to now.

 RW>> You must have some inside knowledge that supercedes what every one
 RW>> else knows.

 RB> You know, I've always been suspicious of these things that "everyone
 RB> knows"... often enough "everyone" turns out to have been totally
 RB> mistaken. But in this case, all you have to do is read the reports -
 RB> papers, the Net and the newscasts - to get a pretty good picture of
 RB> what's going on.

And you believe that liberal tripe? I thought higher of you, but I must
have been mistaken.

 RB>>> If you are, you're sure not thinking when you write such patently
 RB>>> untrue things.

 RW>> Those are facts. Live with them.

 RB> I have to live with facts as much as you do, Roy, but I don't
 RB> necessarily accept what you call a fact as the truth, any more than
 RB> you do with me or anyone else. Everyone draws his own conclusions
 RB> from what he sees and hears.

Unfortunately, you need binoculars to see from your position.

 RW>> Until there's a way to force the more qualified people to run for
 RW>> office, that's all we'll ever get for choices. Of course, a pay
 RW>> raise for the President might work wonders.

 RB> A legal cap on election expenses would be even more useful.

Sure, that lets the rable run for office and cloud the issues with
fanaticism. Next thing you know, Dan Ceppa and any of his liberal cronies
could participate, all paid for by the tax payers.

 RB> That way people who don't happen to be millionaires or friends of
 RB> millionaires might also have a chance to be elected - and on the
 RB> basis of merit, not of the money they have or can raise.

Whoever has the most money doesn't buy the White House, ask John Kerry and
Ted Kennedy.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)