Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

[Ana4Stapp]

See this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...rtner=homepage

what do you think about it?

[Lunar Shadow]

Impeach the bastard!


Sorry does it show that I hate bush?

[RMadd]

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much grounds for impeachment. Only problem is, it looks like, at least right now, only Democrats have a problem with this little violation of our private rights. And with a Republican majority, at least until next fall's mid-term elections, in both houses of Congress, partisan politics could prevent his impeachment and a subsequent removal. (Keep in mind that just because a President is impeached doesn't mean he's removed; Clinton was impeached, but not removed, perhaps largely due to the success of the economy and a desire to not hurt it in any way).

I'm sure we'll see comparisons to how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (literally, "have the body") during the American Civil War, but this is a little bit different. Sure, it's not in the Constitution that the President can do that, but history has shown that it went very far to preserve the Union. In this case, however, the NSA is not allowed to spy on US soil, and the President's authorization of such, even in the interest of using it as a tool in the war on terror, just ain't right. I mean, not needing judicial authorization to go through people's emails, phone records, etc? That's just ludicrous!

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much grounds for impeachment. Only problem is, it looks like, at least right now, only Democrats have a problem with this little violation of our private rights. And with a Republican majority, at least until next fall's mid-term elections, in both houses of Congress, partisan politics could prevent his impeachment and a subsequent removal. (Keep in mind that just because a President is impeached doesn't mean he's removed; Clinton was impeached, but not removed, perhaps largely due to the success of the economy and a desire to not hurt it in any way).

I'm sure we'll see comparisons to how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (literally, "have the body") during the American Civil War, but this is a little bit different. Sure, it's not in the Constitution that the President can do that, but history has shown that it went very far to preserve the Union. In this case, however, the NSA is not allowed to spy on US soil, and the President's authorization of such, even in the interest of using it as a tool in the war on terror, just ain't right. I mean, not needing judicial authorization to go through people's emails, phone records, etc? That's just ludicrous!

I think I didnt get it: how is that: a president can be impeached but not removed, how? Seems that Congress rejected it? Can you explained that to me????

Anyway, we had a president who was impeached and removed, thanks God!!!!!

[RMadd]

dictionary.com defines "impeach" as: "a) to make an accusation against, or b) to charge a public official with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal." Removal, of course, is when one is actually taken out of office.
In '98 or thereabouts, the Congress (maybe just the House of Representatives) voted to impeach President Clinton on account of his perjury (lying under oath). However, when it came down to a vote of whether or not to actually remove him from office for his perjurous conduct, Congress voted against taking him out.
As far as Bush's present situation, unless a fair number of Republicans decide to abandon him and follow the Democrat lead in these proceedings, Bush will not likely be removed from office. Even his impeachment may be questionable, although to not vote in favor of impeachment would pretty much show that politicans care more are partisan politics (supporting their party) rather than doing what is right.

[Ana4Stapp]

^^
I got it...it was waht i had imagined...it was very similar to my coiuntry, even though here Congress voted pro impeachement(they were pushed by people) --the president was accused of corruption acts...and it he was removed ...

But here in my country or in your country,wherever ..politicians are all the same...

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

But here in my country or in your country,wherever ..politicians are all the same...

that's good to know, I guess, that we're not the only country in the world with morons in office lol

I guess Machiavelli was right: that the idealism of ancient political philosophers was absurd, and that people (read: politicians) are inherently bad and pursue their own interests above those of their city or state. or is this view just perpetuating the myth? who knows?

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

that's good to know, I guess, that we're not the only country in the world with morons in office lol

I guess Machiavelli was right: that the idealism of ancient political philosophers was absurd, and that people (read: politicians) are inherently bad and pursue their own interests above those of their city or state. or is this view just perpetuating the myth? who knows?

I wouldnt say that evey politician has that repulsive behaviour, that all of them are BAD people, I think some of them are really good people with great ideas of how make citizens life a little better, but you know , they change when they get to the power...I think the political system doesnt want that things really change and also doenst like people who wants to change things...
wow...waht a mess...hope you get me...lol

[guitardude1985]

Here's the way I figure it.

Well, given that the spying was done on telephone, E-mail, faxes and such. However, given the simple fact that those communication outlets are really not that private. I mean, anybody can be looking at your e-mail with the propper technology. Lastly, if your not a potentiall terrorist or criminal that you simply have nothing to fear. And, this has been going on since Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by guitardude1985)

Here's the way I figure it.

Well, given that the spying was done on telephone, E-mail, faxes and such. However, given the simple fact that those communication outlets are really not that private. I mean, anybody can be looking at your e-mail with the propper technology. Lastly, if your not a potentiall terrorist or criminal that you simply have nothing to fear. And, this has been going on since Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago.

Yeah, i got waht you meant, but people has the right to something called privacy, right?

[guitardude1985]

Of course people have the right to privacy, but with something as open at the internet it's not entirely given. Even before the internet the gouvernment has always had these filters going through our e-mails. And with this spying from what I have read is more like a filter searching for key words. For example, if I were to write something like "oh this album bombed" it could pick up on that key word, just in massive preportions, over millions of documents. Also, you have to realize that in a time of war sometime measures like this are sometimes nessisary to try and at least prevent another attack.

[revisfoot]

Bush made a really good point the other day, as well.

He said that if (and I'm paraphrasing) you're making calls to or recieving calls from known al-Queda members, we SHOULD be monitoring you.

And, to the idiot who immediately called for impeachment --

why don't you go do some homework on the subject at hand before making such absurd statements. Not only does it make you look like a damned fool, but a damned fool who is ignorant about the current events around him. Instead of instantly yelling "IMPEACH IMPEACH", how about you take a moment, read some of the news excerpts, maybe even pick out a few details about the program itself AND THEN make your judgement. However, now it would be more sound, more educated, therefore making you no longer seem like a step-in-line moron.

[HeavenBesideYou]

Wire tapping without a warrant is against the law.

Quite simple.

Now, where on Earth did he get permission to break this law?

Allowing this illegal behavior just shows how vulnerable and convincible politicians and the American people were immediately after 9/11, and that they were willing to do almost anything in order to feel a little bit of the safety they felt on 9/10. "Any means necessary" should not include illegal methods. This sets a dangerous precedent when we're cramming the promotion of democracy and the concept of running a country on the basis of the rule of law.

This idiocy is the biproduct of the president and his intent (again) to establish he can do what he wants as long as he keeps us living in fear!

When we concede our liberties in order to gain security, then we've lost our battle against terrorism.

Heaven

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by HeavenBesideYou)

Wire tapping without a warrant is against the law.

Quite simple.

Now, where on Earth did he get permission to break this law?

Allowing this illegal behavior just shows how vulnerable and convincible politicians and the American people were immediately after 9/11, and that they were willing to do almost anything in order to feel a little bit of the safety they felt on 9/10. "Any means necessary" should not include illegal methods. This sets a dangerous precedent when we're cramming the promotion of democracy and the concept of running a country on the basis of the rule of law.

This idiocy is the biproduct of the president and his intent (again) to establish he can do what he wants as long as he keeps us living in fear!

When we concede our liberties in order to gain security, then we've lost our battle against terrorism.Heaven

WOW!!!! Loved this!!!!

[revisfoot]

However, it has been made very clear, though numerous articles written after the leak was made, that this program does not listen to you or you or you or you. If you're making phone calls to known al-Queda members, or known al-Queda members are calling you, yeah, I think we should listen to what you're saying. Sorry. When you deal with terrorists, you give up your rights. You are an enemy of the state.