Respect the law...

[RandomGuy]

This is pretty straightforward. We are a nation of laws and the President is ignoring those laws because "wants to".

Here is the Law that Bush ordered broken, because he felt like it and the penalties that are proscribed for it...

The Law

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this le; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this le;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this le; and

The penalty

LE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809 Prev | Next
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Cons ution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a cons utional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law -- that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening. (recent rolling stone article)

[Vashner]

Article 2 trumps that . The king can do whatever the he wants with the Army.. the includes the CIA.

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.

[JoeChalupa]

I concur.

[gtownspur]

Corso says, if Vashner's take is right, then Bush is declaring war against the citizens of America -- that's treason, Corso!

That's complete idiocy and and paranoia on your part, Corso!

It is the NSA who can do the wiretapping, it's not like its the Local Sherrifs department tapping your phone if you been watching child porn.

So explain how bush is declaring war on our citizens?

[RandomGuy]

Article 2 trumps that . The king can do whatever the he wants with the Army.. the includes the CIA.

Given that this is the son of a former president, you might not be too far off.

[RandomGuy]

That's complete idiocy and and paranoia on your part, Corso!

It is the NSA who can do the wiretapping, it's not like its the Local Sherrifs department tapping your phone if you been watching child porn.

So explain how bush is declaring war on our citizens?

Secret detainment camps, torture, detaining people indefinitely without trial or access to family or lawyers, spying on it's own citizens, rank nepotism.

Jesus, when you add it all up, it starts to form a pattern that is REALLY scary.

These are all the kinds of things that we criticize other governments for.

[xrayzebra]

I don't consider Bush breaking any laws. Of course we could do like the
dimm-0-craps and call it: Civil disobedience. You know like Illegal aliens, they
really don't break the law, cause the have all those Human Civil Rights. Tell
you what, all you that think you civil rights are being abused, give us your names
and we will see if we can send you to a country of your choice where you civil
rights are not abused as much as they are here in the good old USA. Maybe
like Mexico, that wonderful land, where you have all the civil rights in the world
as long as you can stand the pain.

[DarkReign]

I don't consider Bush breaking any laws. Of course we could do like the
dimm-0-craps and call it: Civil disobedience. You know like Illegal aliens, they
really don't break the law, cause the have all those Human Civil Rights. Tell
you what, all you that think you civil rights are being abused, give us your names
and we will see if we can send you to a country of your choice where you civil
rights are not abused as much as they are here in the good old USA. Maybe
like Mexico, that wonderful land, where you have all the civil rights in the world
as long as you can stand the pain.

So, our standard of human rights cannot be compared to the verbage the framer's used, but only the global standard of which country I choose?

Do I sense a problem here?

[xrayzebra]

So, our standard of human rights cannot be compared to the verbage the framer's used, but only the global standard of which country I choose?

Do I sense a problem here?

Would you care to clarify yourself. Your post makes no sense. As far as
I know no one has had their "cons utional" rights infringed on under
this administration. Even Congress and the courts have more or less said
that by their silence. And I agree, no one has had their rights taken away
from them.

And those who think they can find another country with more freedom
than they have here should identify themselves and I will gladly help
pay their fare to that country.

[DarkReign]

Would you care to clarify yourself. Your post makes no sense. As far as
I know no one has had their "cons utional" rights infringed on under
this administration. Even Congress and the courts have more or less said
that by their silence. And I agree, no one has had their rights taken away
from them.

And those who think they can find another country with more freedom
than they have here should identify themselves and I will gladly help
pay their fare to that country.

I think you missed the point. Not that I expected any less.

[RandomGuy]

I don't consider Bush breaking any laws. Of course we could do like the
dimm-0-craps and call it: Civil disobedience. You know like Illegal aliens, they
really don't break the law, cause the have all those Human Civil Rights. Tell
you what, all you that think you civil rights are being abused, give us your names
and we will see if we can send you to a country of your choice where you civil
rights are not abused as much as they are here in the good old USA. Maybe
like Mexico, that wonderful land, where you have all the civil rights in the world
as long as you can stand the pain.

So let me see if I get your point here.

I have given you a law that you can read for yourself and clearly see that Bush violated it.

BUT

You don't consider Bush to have broken the law for some reason. So Bush has the ability to decide for himself that breaking laws is ok.

Then you go on to criticize other for doing the exact same thing. The illegal immigrants you rail against don't/shouldn't have the ability to decide for themselves that breaking laws is ok.

Is that pretty much it?

[xrayzebra]

So let me see if I get your point here.

I have given you a law that you can read for yourself and clearly see that Bush violated it.

BUT

You don't consider Bush to have broken the law for some reason. So Bush has the ability to decide for himself that breaking laws is ok.

Then you go on to criticize other for doing the exact same thing. The illegal immigrants you rail against don't/shouldn't have the ability to decide for themselves that breaking laws is ok.

Is that pretty much it?

What laws has Bush broken? None that I am aware of, nor your
brother dimm-o-craps. Oh, if they really thought he had they would
be running to the floor filing a bill of impeachment. The make all
kinds of noises, want all kinds of investigations, but no bills.
You gonna have to do better than that.

Anyhow, Reid and Pelosi did it. What, you ask. Everything. I can
make the same accusations as you. I don't need proof. Just say it
and it must be so. Right?

[RandomGuy]

What laws has Bush broken? None that I am aware of, nor your
brother dimm-o-craps. Oh, if they really thought he had they would
be running to the floor filing a bill of impeachment. The make all
kinds of noises, want all kinds of investigations, but no bills.
You gonna have to do better than that.

Anyhow, Reid and Pelosi did it. What, you ask. Everything. I can
make the same accusations as you. I don't need proof. Just say it
and it must be so. Right?

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this le; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this le;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this le; and

[RandomGuy]

I gave you the law in the first post. Now all you are doing is defending a criminal out of some bizarre blind loyalty.

The fact that the Democrats don't have the nuts to go for a trial simply says that they have given into party loyalty above the good of the nation as well.

The GOP got hammered after calling for Clinton's removal on even shakier ground, and the Dems seemed to be taking that lesson to heart.

[gtownspur]

Dont worry Random, the day a democrat president breaks the law for the common progressive good, you will be riding his nut sac.

[RandomGuy]

Dont worry Random, the day a democrat president breaks the law for the common progressive good, you will be riding his nut sac.

Uh, yeah.

Thought I would bump this in light of the new domestic spying scandal coming out.

[IceColdBrewski]

Crybaby forum.

[Nbadan]

Here is what random is talking about:

Seventy two in Congress join battle against wiretaps
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday May 11, 2006

Seventy two members of Congress filed papers late Wednesday seeking to end President George W. Bush's warrantless NSA eavesdropping program, RAW STORY has learned.

The filing came just before a report Thursday in USA Today which revealed that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program had collected call records on tens of millions of Americans through agreements with AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.

It also comes a day after lawyers looking into the NSA program abruptly closed their probe after the Bush Administration refused to grant them clearances.

The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Cons utional Rights. Both suits demand the program be stopped.

The following 72 Representatives are amici in the brief. The brief can be read here: RAWSTORY

[Nbadan]

Crybaby forum.

Seems like there is more crying going on in the Spurs forum lately.