NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) Bush's argument is that this is NOT domestic law enforcement, but part of the war against al Qaeda. Then it's military force inside the borders used against US citizens, and its per se illegal. "snap" my ass.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) That act seems to refer only to the Army, AF, Navy, and Marines. I don't think any of those is involved here, right? There also seem to be a lot of exceptions (war, emergency), and I'm sure the WH would stretch the "necessary" clause to fit here, if it needed to. Domestic law enforcement is not use-of-force in a governmental sense.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:16 PM) Here's the LAT piece by the way. It's listed as 14 hours ago...so it may well have been in my morning paper or may be there tomorrow (was in a bit of a rush this morning so i did a lot of glancing @ stuff) I also posted it on post #22, and people still don't want to see it.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 05:04 PM) Still waiting for someone to give a good reason why Williams&Connolly filed so many briefs to keep the full report from the public? Because that's what any defendant with lots of legal funds would do. And again, the real problem, as pointed out, is that there is NO EVIDENCE OF A COVER-UP, or anything else illegal. Read the article in the actual news source.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) The title contains "military force", but the text itself uses only "force". I don't believe any interpretation of the word should exclude intelligence. In any case, I want to see a source which states that "military" action must be "foreign". The Civil War was just a police action? Comitatus (spelling probably butchered) made it very clear that the military could not be used on US soil except when defending against an invading force.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Which has been in the headlines daily and he ADMITTED what he did, and he has a legal arguement that was he did was legal (FWIW). This is a conspiracy to hide tax evasion and obstruct justice alledgedly, in which the President led the charge. I still don't understand how that shouldnt' be just as big if not bigger? Are you serious? You think that tax evasion is more serious than illegal domestic spying? I think the spying is worse by an order of magnitude. But that aside for the moment, as we have established earlier in the thread, the big difference here is believability. We all accept Bush is doing this. With the Clinton thing, the believable news sources all make it pretty clear that there is virtually no evidence of any wrongdoing on Clinton's part. Heck, the prosecutor claiming to have endured 10 years of blockading could not provide one shred of evidence that such blockading occurred. I'm sorry, but I don't find much believability there.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) Hit a google news search on Cisneros. It has been reported by a few different reputable groups now. I remembered seeing LA Times at the top of the list when I checked. Got it. For everyone's benefit, here is the LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/po...s-supreme_court Not the strongest sounding case I've ever heard, for having spent 10 years on it. There are other actual news articles out there now too outside of Trib Corp, if anyone wants to Google it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:01 PM) I would still hesitiate to call this story really "reported" Where would you think that alleged obstruction of justice by a President should fall on a newscast? Call me silly but I would have thought it would have been screaming headlines and leading newscasts... Has it? I sure haven't seen it. It was picked up days later by some of the newspapers and wires, but it is so far back on the headlines it isn't even funny. Again, the only story I have seen about the Clinton thing is that laughably-biased op-ed piece that was posted early on. Has there been any actual, fact-based news about this whatsoever? Maybe that's why it's not headlines - it might be unfounded. If someone can provide a link to a real news article, I'd be curious to see it, BTW. I am NOT saying the Clintons aren't guilty - I've always thought Slick Willie was an unusually well-spoken used car salesman. But I've seen no actual news on this.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) A quote from the SC decision that uses the 2001 resolution: Clearly the resolution is, in some sense, "law" and "actionable". Just not however the WH pleases. Right. Combatants are combatants, and these prisoners are combatants because of the military action. But that actionable phrase does not cover that which is outside of military force. Military force NEVER deals with domestic situations, by undisputed law. Therefore, no actionable law regarding domestic ANYTHING is contained in that statement.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) Congress makes the law, so I don't understand this: "no Congressional authorization can grant the authority of illegal activity". It can't countervene the Constitution, but it may, if it wants, authorize the President to act outside a previous law of Congress (like FISA) -- new laws superceding old ones. It seems very clear to me that Congress did no such thing here, but I don't really understand how it's not allowed to change its mind. Re-read my post. In the sentence right after that, I point out that no new applicable law was passed. So, with no new law, they can't say it's OK to break the law. They can MAKE new law, which may change existing law. But a statement about general leeway or force or some other subject cannot be used to break some other law.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 02:26 PM) Now, I think these actions were illegal and pretty damn slimy. BUT, to be fair, the resolution does have some power. The Supreme Court did accept that it gave the WH authority to hold US citizens as enemy combatants (though it did not accept the way in which the WH held them). Just saying, it's not true that the resolution is empty. The supreme court reiterated the ability to hold enemy combatants because it was of what they were. That has nothing to do with the means-necessary. The court agreed that the US was able to act militarily, and therefore have POWs, for all purposes. That was action taken by Congress, authorizing the use of force. Use of force cannot be stretched by anyone into breaking US law. It's just not legally defensible.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:56 PM) It's not that clear-cut because he can still claim that the 9/11 authorization somehow gave Bush this authority. While, for reasons shown earlier (i.e. the whereas parts of the resolution), this explanation may be dubious, it has not been firmly, 100% shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush broke the law. I may believe that, but without a court or Congress coming down and saying that, then it is just an opinion, no matter how well-supported 1 side is and how poorly supported the other side is. These taps have been going on pre-9/11, I thought, so that's not much of an explanation. But even more importantly, I'd like to point out again what I mentioned earlier in this very long thread: no Congressional authorization can grant the authority of illegal activity. Congress did NOT pass a law of any kind, first of all - this was a resolution, and there is no action statement in it that can be defensible here, therefore there is no new law regarding it. The taps clearly violate FISA. Therefore, there is no possible viable argument to defend it's legality. Even the Justice department report finds no new defense - they lean on the resolution, which is pretty laughable. If this makes it to a court, I don't see how it will be legal. I think the only thing that keeps Bush out of this mess is if it never makes it to court at all (as was suggested here by others). That could happen if Congress intervenes to pass a new law, or if some red tape BS is thrown at the problem by the administration that causes it to be buried or profoundly delayed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:31 PM) Not only do you all sound like Chicken Little (thanks, YAS) but you all WANT to catch Bush on something like this so you can hang him by his toenails. That's the reality of it all... you 'nasty leftists' want to get him so bad, on ANYTHING, that you'll take points of view that support your hatred and feed the fire of "anything but Bush". Wow. You're starting to sound a little paranoid, there. Here is the thing. I don't like Bush's policies, for the most part. And this domestic spying thing is pretty bad if you ask me. Even on issues I normally side with the GOP on, this administration seems hell bent to stomp all over (budget, debt, less intrusive gov't). Frankly, it's hard NOT to find things wrong with Bush's Presidency - he's laid government-side bombs all over the damn place! I agree that there are those on the left who just blame everything on Bush. But this issue is a pretty big problem, and it upsets people even in his own party. To say this is some sort of witch hunt is really pushing the envelope of reality a bit. Your defense that EVERYONE IS AFTER BUSH sounds no less ridiculous than the EVERYTHING IS BUSH'S FAULT assault.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 11:57 PM) Move to NE Iowa, and get a house on the cheap. My hometown, where a $75,000 will make you middle class. 27,347 is the median income, if that tells you anything about where I came from. Median resident age: 40.8 years Median household income: $27,347 (year 2000) Median house value: $53,300 (year 2000) I almost bought a house in Ames. Huge, 4 BR, designed by a Taliesin scholar (very Wright-influenced), lots of windows, nice lot, etc., pretty much the perfect house. It was just west of the Rieman Gardens, south of Trice Field, but off the main roads. Price tag in 1995 was something like $125k. But then I remembered I'd be living in Ames, Iowa. Don't get me wrong Heads, Iowa State is a great school, and Ames is a great college town. But I just couldn't live there long term.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 10:38 AM) Or perhaps it's because I ain't a Democrat and the wise folks voting realize that... Then why did you get nominated as a Lefty? Hmmm. Conspiracy afoot?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) WTF...?? I am RIGHT handed.. ! Maybe that's why you're losing.

How is VAFan not on this poll?!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 01:47 AM) another vote held hostage because of a lack of mr_genius.... You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with "mr_genius".

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:20 AM) As long as you have politicians who are a bunch of sore losers like Democrats you're always going to have divisiveness. Even though they are about as far out of power as they possibly could be they still think they can push their leftist agenda. If America wanted the leftist agenda they would vote leftists into office. They are incapable of proposing sensible alternatives to Republican legislation so they are reduced to stomping up and down and crying like a bunch of spoiled little toddlers who didn't get a candy bar they wanted. f*** them. As long as they want to act like they are acting then they deserve to lose. As long as they are the hypocritical assholes that they are they deserve to lose. As long as they choose to whine and cry about how evil Bush is and resorting to character assassination instead of a reasoned and logical argument then not only do they deserve to lose but they deserve to have it rubbed in their faces at every opportunity. Nuke, man, you make some good points on this board. But you make it hard to have any kind of real discussion, when you constantly refer to anything and everything left of center as "losers" and "leftists". And yet, here you are complaining that the Dems need to use "logical arguments" instead of character assassination. Irony indeed, as Balta pointed out.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:01 AM) I can't find the exact quote anywhere, but here's the real problem with this country. For all the bulls*** that's spewed on this particular board from you Bush haters, and for all those who try to defend what we think is a bigger picture, this drives right to the heart of what's wrong with our country today: these f***ers, ALL OF THEM, WANT division, otherwise, they have nothing. Hear me out. Cheney was in New York today, and he gave a speech. In it was the paraphrased quote: f*** you, Dick Cheney. With this attitude, NO ONE WINS. What about the 50% of the people who LOST on that vote? What about all of us who have loans to go to school? What about all those Democrats that you profess to be representing? Who LOSES? WE DO! Someday, the shoe will be on the other foot. And the Dems will drive the stake through just as hard. And it sucks. Our whole government is built on one party losing, and one party "winning", and we all lose, because of the divisiveness of Washington DC. And if these Republican assholes wouldn't have spent like a drunken sailor, these "cutbacks" wouldn't even be necessary. Idiots. Rant over. I do agree that it's laughable that the GOP is now having to make these "tough cuts" to the budget, which is only necessary because they made it necessary with their inability to control spending. Thing is, the divisiveness is sort of necessary. The way our system is set up, you need competing parties and coalition building. It's an adversarial system. The idea being that if you let groups fight it out, you usually end up in the right place when you are done. But I think the downfall is that we have a dominantly 2-party system. Yes, I said downfall. I think one thing that allows some of the European governments to be more agile in their policies than we are is that, often times, there are 3 or 4 parties with a significant voice. In those cases, you still get debate, argument and coalition building. But, you get less of the us v. them mentality. You get connections between groups. I realize this is a pipe dream, but I agree with Kap about a real moderate party. I see the GOP having a large faction that is moving further and further to the right socially, and they are seperating from the fiscal conservative/social moderate Republicans. The Dems also have a swath of folks who are starting to become more hawkish on defense and spending. Perhaps a joint effort? I personally would love to see a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal come out of the wood work - I think there is a large part of society that would fall in that category. People like McCain and Lieberman would fit into that niche. Hey, I can dream!

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 10:47 PM) Anyone else sick of hearing people who are left of center referred to leftist like it's the same as communist? I'm going to start referring to "rightists" in a negative tone....if I ever posted here....which I prefer not to. I brought up a similar point recently in one of the Buster forums. Even the people pretty far left don't refer to people on the right with childish and inane names like "leftist" or "liberal scum". It makes the right wingers in this forum look like 12-year-olds. Where does that come from, anyway? The desire to degrate someone who doesn't agree with you, just for that reason?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 10:38 PM) Just curious, would you support a policy of no longer sending funds or weapons to Isreal? If you think about it, supporting Israel is the main action that has resulted in us being terrorist targets. ps. i'm not trying to defend what that other guy was saying (nuking mecca), just bringing up a point. Well, sort of, yes. I believe Israel is no more "right" than the Palestinians in this thing. But then, I think bth groups are really victims of the rest of the world in some ways, and they are in an awful place. I would really hope that the UN, the US and a whole lot of other people would be putting in more effort to try to find a solution there (I realize that will be incredibly difficult). I believe the only way to work it is a seperate Palestine, and a neutrally controlled Jerusalem. As a last resort, if it gets really bad down there, I'd seriously support a multi-national force taking control of parts of that area in the long term. But if all that fails, then yes, I would be in favor of cutting off miltary aid to both entities. Right now though, we only supply the Israelis. It's a very complicated puzzle there. For the person/country who finds a long term solution, they'd go down in history as one of the greats.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) Why the green? Just as MAD (mutually insured destruction) was the key strategy in keeping the USA and USSR from blowing each other to bits during the Cold War, maybe only the threat to nuke Mecca would deter these crazies. Unlike the Soviets, they don't care about the lives of their compatriots or any country's survival. Now, their holiest shrine...? And one other thing. Let's dismiss for a moment the moral indignity in your suggestion, and concentrate on the simple logic of response. There are two groups of Muslims for the purpose of this discussion - extremists who want to bery the West, and non-extremists who want to be left alone. What does targeting holy sites do to those two groups? Group A points at it and says, "see?! They are warmongers!", and it only strengthens their resolve. Group B, who previously could have been the bringers of peace, are now thinking, "well F*** you, if you think that of my religion. I'm joining the jihad." Please give the actual results of your suggestion some thought.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) Why the green? Just as MAD (mutually insured destruction) was the key strategy in keeping the USA and USSR from blowing each other to bits during the Cold War, maybe only the threat to nuke Mecca would deter these crazies. Unlike the Soviets, they don't care about the lives of their compatriots or any country's survival. Now, their holiest shrine...? Wow. Just... wow. Didn't you say you were a Priest? Are you really prepared as a representative of a faith to intentionally target the holiest site for all Muslims? Thus indicting the entire religion as being fanatical and dangerous? Maybe we should target Rome because of all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world. How does that sound? Trying to say MAD was a positive thing is like that episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns is only healthy because so many diseases are trying to get him at once that they all get stuck in the door trying to get in. Sure it worked, in a fashion, but is that a chance you are prepared to take? And do you really think that's all that kept us from going to war? GMAFB. Some messenger of peace. :headshake

Reading the last paragraph of the article, I think calling whatever that source is "news" is a stretch. It looks like a fact-challenged letter to the editor.