Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 12/26/05 10:57 am:
I was only correcting the glaring error about why Clinton should have been removed from office. The trash now constituting the Democratic Party has lowered impeachment to mere aproval/disapproval. There are absolutely no grounds to impeach Bush. I know, the Democrats can't stand integrity, and can't admit how great a man Bush is.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/27/05 10:20 am:

Hello again, Elliot:

By the way, just WHO in congress gave permission? Not my congressman!!! Did he just ask his friends in congress??? Was it brought up for a vote in the entire congress? No, it wasn't.

So, CONGRESS, wasn't informed at all - that would mean the entire senate and the house. No, he didn't go to "congress". He went to his cronies, and a couple of mealy mouthed Democrats.

That's why, in their infinite wisdom, our founders had it right. An independent JUDGE (not congressman) MUST be inserted between a person, and the US Government who wants to search him.

No really, it says that.

excon

PS. Now, are you going to respond with the typical Bill O'Reilly spin? That because I want the president to obey the law, what I really want is Al Quaida to attack us?

Why didn't he get a warrant from the FISA court? They certainly would have given it to him - if the people he was spying on really were bad guys.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/27/05 11:45 am:
Excon,

The members of the Foreign Intelligence committees of both houses (including members from both parties) were informed, and they signed off on it. That's all that is needed. They were informed, they gave consent, end of story.

>>>An independent JUDGE (not congressman) MUST be inserted between a person, and the US Government who wants to search him.<<<

Really?

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nowhere does it say that such warrants have to be issued by a judge. In fact, CONGRESS (specifically the Senate) is the body that determines the jurisdiction of the courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court, which only has power to determine law with regard to treaties, and issues dealing with ambassadors. Historically, warrants were issued only by CONGRESS (which is why Congress still has the power to file subpoennas and warrants in congressional investigations, without getting them signed by a court). The only reason that judges issue warrants in modern times is because CONGRESS GAVE THEM THE POWER TO DO SO. But that authority really rests with CONGRESS, not the courts.

Therefore, Congress, has the power to issue warrants as it feels necessary, providing that it follows the Constitutional requirement of "probable cause". The Foreign Intelligence Committee is the representative body of the Senate and House of Representatives for intelligence matters. Tht means that they have the authority to issue warrants on behalf of all of Congress. Which they did on at least 30 sepparate occaisions.

>>>PS. Now, are you going to respond with the typical Bill O'Reilly spin? That because I want the president to obey the law, what I really want is Al Quaida to attack us?<<<

Nope. I'm just going to respond that the President DID obey the law. He just did so in a manner by which you do not approve.

>>>Why didn't he get a warrant from the FISA court? They certainly would have given it to him - if the people he was spying on really were bad guys.<<<

Are you saying they weren't bad guys? Are you arguing that they were innocent as lambs? That they were just kidding when they were talking about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge in their communications?

I don't know why Bush didn't get the warrants from FISA. Maybe he did it because he wanted to keep Congress informed of it rather than having it go through secret courts. Maybe he has reason to believe that there is a leak within the FISA court and that he was bypassing that leak by going to Congress. Maybe he was doing it for partisan political reasons: to get the Dems ranting about something else that most people disagree with in order to garner additional support for conservatives. There could be any number of reasons he did it. All I know is that what he did do was legal, and he can't be impeached for following the law and protecting the country from terrorist attack.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/27/05 11:53 am:

Hello again, El:

Nice try, but it doesn't wash.

If congress has the power to issue warrants as you say they do, then why didn't they? The Fourth Amendment is clear on that regard. A warrant MUST be issued. If you're right, and I don't think you are, then the full congress could have issued the requisite warrants.

Are you saying, instead that the Intelligence Committee can issue warrants? I think you are. You say they did. I disagree. Where are the warrants? They are printed documents, you know. They don't just reside in some Republicans head.

No, it's a good spin. But, even you don't buy it. Or, do you think that just visiting some of his friends and telling them what he's doing is the same thing as congress issuing a warrant? I don't think so.

>>>Are you saying they weren't bad guys? Are you arguing that they were innocent as lambs?<<<

I'm saying, that WITHOUT a warrant, we don't know whether they were bad guys or not. Sure, they probably survieled bad guys. But maybe they survieled me. Maybe they surveiled their enemies. (Nahh, Republicans don't do that!) But, we'll never know will we?

When government asks me to just "trust" them, that's the first sign that I shouldn't. Of course, when Bush says trust him, you say sure.

And, it isn't just Bush. Even if we had a president who agreed with everything I stand for, I would want him to get a warrant too.

Finally, some Americans may feel secure by assurances that the mounds of data gathered without warrants will be used solely in the battle against terrorism. People like me, on the other hand, are uneasy over the other, less noble, uses for which this data might be used.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/27/05 1:29 pm:
>>>If congress has the power to issue warrants as you say they do, then why didn't they?The Fourth Amendment is clear on that regard. A warrant MUST be issued. <<<

They did.

What is a warrant, other than an authorization to perform a search (or in this case a wire tap). Congress gave that authorization.

>>>If you're right, and I don't think you are, then the full congress could have issued the requisite warrants.<<<

They could have. Bush chose not to go to the entire congress, but rather to the intelligence comittee.

>>>Are you saying, instead that the Intelligence Committee can issue warrants? I think you are. You say they did. I disagree.<<<

You can disagree all you want. It doesn't make you right. And yes, the intelligence committee has the authority to issue warrants with regard to intelligence matters--- much the same way the judicial committees have the authority to issue warrants with regard to judicial matters. That was the authority under which Ken Starr operated. It is also the authority under which Congress can force members of the Executive branch of government to appear before them to give testimony. Warrants and subpoenas are issued by congress all the time.

>>>They are printed documents, you know. They don't just reside in some Republicans head.<<<

Yup. And there are at least 12 such authorizations on file as part of the Congressional record. And no, I'm not going to hunt them down.

>>>I'm saying, that WITHOUT a warrant, we don't know whether they were bad guys or not.<<<

So warrants determine who the bad guys are? If there is no warrant, he isn't a bad guy? You don't really believe that.

I think that if there was a wire tap on specific conversations (out of all the millions of cell phone conversations taking place every minute) then there must have been a reason to suspect those specific people, don't you? And if such a reason exists, then there was "probable cause", which means that Congress' authorization was appropriate. It also means that they had good reason to believe they were bad guys before they ever got the wire taps.

>>>Of course, when Bush says trust him, you say sure.<<<

Why not. So far he's had a pretty good record of stopping terrorism since 9/11, despite numerous attempts. He must be doing something right, or New York City would look like the West Bank.

The proof is in the pudding; nothing shows success like success; etc. I could give you a thousand cliches to make my point, but I think you get my drift.

>>>And, it isn't just Bush. Even if we had a president who agreed with everything I stand for, I would want him to get a warrant too.<<<

There's something to be said for consistancy. Although consistantly wrong is probably not what you were going for, is it.

>>>People like me, on the other hand, are uneasy over the other, less noble, uses for which this data might be used.<<<

You mean putting people who break domestic laws in jail? Yeah, there's nothing noble about getting murderers, rapists and mafia thugs off the streets.

And if you are worried about the Bush administration (or any other administration) using illegal wire taps for domestic purposes, then what makes you think that you will be any safer because this particular story broke in the papers? If a President wants to break the law, what makes you think he's going to listen to the complaints of Congress or the comments of newsies? He'll just do what he wants to do, and there's nothing you could do to stop him. What's the point of worrying about it? If you aren't doing anything illegal, there's nothing to worry about, and if you are, then I want you to worry about it. And that assumes that Bush isn't keeping his word that he won't use that power for domestic purposes. I have no reason to believe that he is using it for domestic purposes. Do you?

If you are that worried about wire taps, where do you plan on going that they won't be able to do it to you? Just about every country in the world allows wire tapping under at least SOME circumstances, and most are a lot more liberal about when it is allowed than the USA, even under Bush. So what third world country with no telephones are you planning to go to in order to avoid government wire tapping.

I hear Somalia's nice this time of year... if you can get past the disintary and AIDS and the bloody gang wars and such.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 12/27/05 11:08 pm:
Hey ET, quit trying to confuse people that have their mind made up with a bunch of facts.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/28/05 7:58 am:

Hello Elliot and labdude:

>>>They are printed documents, you know. They don't just reside in some Republicans head.

Yup. And there are at least 12 such authorizations on file as part of the Congressional record. And no, I'm not going to hunt them down.<<<

Seems to me, since you have the FACTS that labdude likes, that you could solve a lot of my problem if you would, indeed "hunt them down".

I don't believe they exist, but if they do, then they'll go a long way in support of your argument.

If you don't, maybe the labdude will since he likes 'em so much. However, if neither of you present such documents, or tell me where I can read them myself (they are PUBLIC documents) I'll assume they don't exist. And, I will have kicked your butt again.

The labdude? I've never not kicked his butt.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/28/05 8:35 am:
Gee, excon, do you have access to Intelligence Committee records that I don't have? Are you a member of the intelligence community? Are you a ranking member of the DOD? Do you have access that I don't?

Last I heard, intelligence comittee records are kept secret... probably because they deal with intelligence issues. I don't have access to them. Do you?

Here are a few points of note that you should probably read. They are from the proceedures and rules of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Select).

Rule 7. Subpoenas
Subpoenas authorized by the Committee for the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records or any other material may be issued by the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chairman, and may be served by any person designated by the Chairman, Vice Chairman or member issuing the subpoenas. Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of S. Res. 400, 94th Congress, 2nd Session and a copy of these Rules.

(As you can see, the committee can issue warrants and subpoenas, just as I said they could.)

Rule 9.6 No member of the Committee or of the Committee staff shall disclose, in whole or in part or by way of summary, to any person not a member of the Committee or the Committee staff for any purpose or in connection with any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, any testimony given before the Committee in executive session including the name of any witness who appeared or was called to appear before the Committee in executive session, or the contents of any papers or materials or other information received by the Committee except as authorized herein, or otherwise as authorized by the Committee in accordance with Section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress and the provisions of these rules, or in the event of the termination of the Committee, in such a manner as may be determined by the Senate. For purposes of this paragraph, members and staff of the Committee may disclose classified information in the possession of the Committee only to persons with appropriate security clearances who have a need-to-know such information for an official governmental purpose related to the work of the Committee. Information discussed in executive sessions of the Committee and information contained in papers and materials which are not classified but which are controlled by the Committee may be disclosed only to persons outside the Committee who have a need-to-know such information for an official governmental purpose related to the work of the Committee and only if such disclosure has been authorized by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, or by the Staff Director and Minority Staff Director, acting on their behalf.

9.7 Failure to abide by Rule 9.6 shall constitute grounds for referral to the Select Committee on Ethics pursuant to Section 8 of S. Res. 400. Prior to a referral to the Select Committee on Ethics pursuant to Section 8 of S. Res. 400, the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall notify the Majority Leader and Minority Leader.

(In other words, warrants and subpoenas issued by the committee regarding sensitive matters --- such as ongoing investigations into terrorism --- must be kept secret, and are not available for public viewing.)

Kicked my butt again??? The word "again" assumes there was a first time. I'm still waiting for a first time... this certainly won't be it.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/28/05 9:15 am:

Hello again, El:

Oh no?? Watch this!

>>>(As you can see, the committee can issue warrants and subpoenas, just as I said they could.)<<<

From what I read, they can issue subpoenas. A subpoena is not a warrant. YOU inserted the word warrant. You aren’t the guy who makes committee rules. Sorry, try again.

THIS is the committee that issued the 12 warrants you are talking about? Who said they were issued? Where can I read that statement? Was it leaked, or did the committee announce it?

According to rule 9.6, wouldn't disclosing the existence of these "warrants" be a violation of the rule? Indeed, it would. Seems to me, that if they could disclose the existence of warrants, they could actually release them with the name redacted. The barn door is already open. What state secrets would be blown by that revelation? I suggest, NONE.

>>> --- such as ongoing investigations into terrorism --- must be kept secret, and are not available for public viewing.<<<

Not after the secret is out. Everybody knows they spied on people. Who are they fooling by keeping these warrants secret? Once the cat is out of the bag, why wouldn't they release them? Seems to me, that IF these warrants exist, they would absolutely be disclosed. It's the evidence needed to clear up the matter in toto.

The fact that they won't release them, and I'm asked simply to "trust" that they exist, causes me to actually believe that they don't exist.

Evidence is what I need. Until you can give it to me, and all you have to offer is "well they said so", then I will have kicked you butt once more, as I have since the get go.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/28/05 11:39 am:
>>>Oh no?? Watch this!<<<

Still watching.

>>>From what I read, they can issue subpoenas. A subpoena is not a warrant. YOU inserted the word warrant. You aren’t the guy who makes committee rules. Sorry, try again.<<<

A warrant and a subpoena are for all intents and purposes the same thing... they are government authorization to obtain documents or information. The rules are essentially the same for both.

>>>THIS is the committee that issued the 12 warrants you are talking about? Who said they were issued? Where can I read that statement? Was it leaked, or did the committee announce it?<<<

Actually Bush gave that information after being questioned by the press about it. It was then confirmed by members of the committee. However, certain (Democrat) members of the committee say they "didn't know what they were signing". Which either makes them very stupid or very poor liars... you choose which.

>>>According to rule 9.6, wouldn't disclosing the existence of these "warrants" be a violation of the rule? <<<

Absolutely... which is why so many people on the Conservative side of the fence have been demanding an investigation into who leaked it to the press. They SHOULD be brought before the Ethics Committee and face legal penalties for leaking secret information.

>>>The barn door is already open. What state secrets would be blown by that revelation? I suggest, NONE. <<<

And I suggest that yopu are wrong... again.

What makes you think that the investigations are completed? What makes you think that the CIA isn't still listening to the conversations of suspected terrorists? And what makes you think that revealing the names on those warrants to the public wouldn't screw up those investigations? You are assuming that the wire taps aren't still in effect and stil ongoing. I submit that they are, and that naming names would be bad for security.

>>>Who are they fooling by keeping these warrants secret?<<<

I don't know... and that's the point, isn't it.

>>>It's the evidence needed to clear up the matter in toto.<<<

Yeah... that's the difficulty of dealing with accusations regarding intelligence work. Defend yourself with the available records, and you risk revealing secrets. Refuse to reveal the information, and people say that such documentation dopesn't exist and you are a liar.

It's a catch 22, and the Dems LOVE using that tactic. That's why the "Bush Lied About WMDs" canard is so popular. Bush can't reveal the evidence that would defend his position without compromizing security, and as such he is left open to attacks on that front... especially from people who know just what kind of lie it is, Democratic leaders who were privy to the exact same info he had and came to the exact same conlusions he did.

>>>Evidence is what I need. Until you can give it to me, and all you have to offer is "well they said so", then I will have kicked you butt once more, as I have since the get go.<<<

And the sum total of YOUR argument is "they must be lying cause I said so". If that is the butt kicking you are talking about, I suggest you work on your aim. Your foot is way off the mark... and my butt is a pretty big target, which means your aim sucks.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/28/05 3:20 pm:
Sorry, I meant this as a follow-up, not another answer. Sorry about that.

One more thing, excon.

If you will notice, you have spent pretty much the past 4 years saying that "Bush lied" or "Bush was wrong" or "Bush did something illegal"... and that he's "goin' down".

And each time, we find out that Bush was right/truthful/legal the whole time, that what he has done has been much more effective than he's given credit for, and that he's NOT going down at all.

Don't you hate being wrong so often?

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 12/28/05 9:15 pm:

Hello El:

So, warrants and subpoenas are essentially the same thing, huh? Ok, I'll buy that, if you'll buy that beef and pork are essentially the same thing.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/29/05 8:20 am:
From a nutritional standpoint they are: they're both high-protein, high-fat foods.

Subpoenas and warrants are both government-approved demands for information.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/29/05 8:22 am:
>>>Yes, I do, but I'm not wrong. History will bare me out.<<<

Really? What's going to change this time as opposed to every other prediction you have made?

Elliot