2/16 Conservatives argue for impeachment:
QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an
offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy atty general
in the Reagan Admin: I think the answer requires at least in part
considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath
of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is
totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a
war-time President I can do anything I want . I don't need to consult
any other branches . that is an impeachable offense. It's more
dangerous than Clinton.s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our
democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would
set a precedent that . would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be
used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we.re going to be intellectually
honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton
was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
\_ Congress seems to be agreeing with the necessity of the wiretaps.
What's your point?
\_ Both Congress and the American public are overrun by cowards
who do not believe in freedom. What's your point?
\_ Welcome to a Democratic Republic. It isn't perfect but it
is the best thing the planet has seen so far in governments.
If enough voters cared about this they'd speak with their
votes. Since most people don't vote at all much less based
on issues like this, you would seem to have the minority
opinion on how important this really is.
\_ Fuck you, you patronizing fuckhead asshole.
\_ *laugh* If you weren't such an idiot, then you
wouldn't find everyone so patronizing. Pull the log
from your own eye before pointing to the splinter in
someone else's. ;-)
\_ Fuck you. I can keep this up all day.
\_ Exactly. Now you have identified your problem.
\_ Stick it in your ass.
\_ You're such a cutie! Muwah!
\_ Come a little closer and say that, punk.
Just see what happens.
\_ Just about everyone agrees with the necessity of the wiretaps.
It's the part about doing this without oversight that violates
FISA and has people in an uproar.
\_ The thing is, it's Congress' opinion that counts, not any
professor.
\_ Although I think it's unlikely that a GOP Congress will
impeach a sitting GOP President, there are still plenty
of conservative congress-people who agree with the
speakers above.
\_ And there are Democrats who agree that the process
should continue with congressional oversight.
\_ I really mean no offense, but I think you're
missing why this is an issue to begin with. The
wiretapping has never been the issue; the issue's
been that the wiretapping was going on without
oversight (specifically, Judicial, according to
FISA). If I misunderstand your confusion, I look
forward to your elaboration.
\_ I do not understand the uproar about FISA. Let's say the
Pres. does an illegal wire tap, but never uses the evid.
against you in ct. How are you hurt (esp. if you never
find out that your were wire tapped)? What exactly are
you afraid of?
\_ Well, let's say you're in the opposition party and the Pres.
uses wiretapping to spy on you and set his party's political
strategy. Ridiculous, you say. But if there's no oversight,
there's nothing to prevent people from doing this sort of
thing. Really, court is the least of your concerns.
\_ Or they could end up with 500+ of your FBI files... but
no one would ever do that.
\_ So what? The Pres. could easily get access to these
files if he really wanted it. I don't see how FISA
makes this any easier/harder for the Pres.
\_ FISA prevents the executive branch from violating
the constitutional right against illegal search and
seizure. The international calls go to domestic
lines, and potentially citizens, so FISA allows taps
for cases that have probable cause. What the
executive branch is doing ignores probable cause and
may be using tainted evidence to gain domestic
wiretaps. So if someone in the 300k list of people
listed as terrorists calls say Clinton's Senate
office and hangs up, that's a link. No oversight so
now the NSA tells the FBI says we have credible link,
tap all lines in that office, we'll review the
transcripts. There would be no probable cause to tap
the lines without the tainted no-FISA evidence.
\_ I'm specifically talking about the FBI files.
The wiretap provisions of FISA do not restrict
the Pres. access to FBI files.
I don't follow your argument. At some point the
gov needs to get a valid warrant, that means
the warrant needs to be based on independent
evid not on the tainted wiretap info.
Say the NSA fingers a suspect and tells the
FBI about it. The FBI can't get a warrant to
FBI about it based on a so-called illegal
wiretap. The FBI can't get a warrant to
wiretap the guy w/o a showing of probable
cause. This can't be based on tainted evid.
The FBI will have to est. independent evid
to support a showing of probable cause. This
is what their warrant will be based on. The
fact that they got a tip from the NSA is the
same as if they got an anon tip and invest-
cause. This warrant can't be based on tainted
evid. The FBI will have to est. independent
evid to support a showing of probable cause.
The fact that they got a tip from the NSA is
the same as if they got an anon tip and invest-
igated. There is no taint.
[ I say so-called illegal wiretap b/c I think
FISA is an unconstitutional limitation on
the Pres. constitutional duty to defend this
nation from her enemies. ]
\_ So why would you be discussing your important political
policies in cleartext? Why wouldn't you be using encry-
ption? I still don't understand. When I value my info
enough that I don't want a 3d party intercepting it, I
use encryption. If the opposition party doesn't value
the information enough to take measures to prevent it
disclosure, then it is their own fault if the info is
disclosed.
\_ We're talking about phone conversations, not email.
Also, why should the resources of the US be used for
political gain of one political party?
\_ There are secure phone sol'n for sensitve info.
Use that if you really care. If not, don't be
surprised if someone overhears your conversation
and uses it against you.
I'm not exactly sure why you are bothered that
one party might be abusing government resources
for political gain. Both parties do it. Its not
something that can be prevented.
\_ Congress can decide to impeach on whatever they want. The
Constitution is itself vauge about the terms of what constitutes
a "high crime", so practically speaking as long as you have the
political clout you can just trump up charges and start the
impeachment process. You don't need peanut gallery commentators
to argue for or against impeachment. Is GW going to be impeached
during his term? Not likely unless the Dems can pull off some sort
of electoral revolution during the midterm elections. Chances
of GW getting impeached are probably one in a thousand if not
less.
\_ Just an aside, but Bubba would say, (a) under oath, he didn't lie
about Monica, (b) in the public sphere, "sexual relations" didn't
include oral sex, and (c) in his private life with Hillary and
Chelsea, he lied like hell.
Similarly, Dubya would say there's a loophole on spying on the
American people (a) if one end of a call comes from outside the
country, and (b) one of those individuals is suspected of al Qaeda
activity (c) during a war on al Qaeda (Dubya interprets the
Congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate
force" in fighting al Qaeda as enabling his war powers against al
Qaeda). |
http://csua.com/feed/