Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/19/2005 8:24:16 PM EDT
People with an IQ above 50 say:

Under no circumstances is this executive order acceptable or legal. There are already provisions under the law to expedite such a warrant and allow a wiretap, as long as a court order is gained after the fact. This executive order serves one purpose, to allow the president and the executive branch unchecked access. This order allows the president to wiretap without a paper trail. The president contends that this violation of our rights is mandatory, but this presidency's policies and policymakers have all too often wrapped themselves in the flag for their own personal interests.
- Lee Ciccarelli, West Chester, Pennsylvania

This is not acceptable and an abuse of power. Just as many suspected, the Patriot Act just weakened our country. In the past, our government worked well because of "checks and balances" but the Patriot Act gives far too much power to the leading party. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- Robert Maxwell, Richland, Washington

Any time a member of government thinks they can bypass the basic rights of its citizens, supposedly to protect them by playing a "big brother," it should cause concern. There need to be checks and balances in effect throughout the court system. To me the president's actions justify impeachment. He has violated the basic rights of the citizens of the USA.
- J. Pawel Najman, British Columbia, Canada

The FISA courts provide an appropriate mechanism for the administration to seek the authority to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens. Each circumstance that might require secret eavesdropping can/should be reviewed by this court. If time is of the essence, the court can review the surveillance after the fact. This safeguard, however, should be in place.
- Lynn Beck, Stockton, California


People with an IQ below 50 say:

If people are in contact with a terrorist organization, or in contact with someone who is part of a terrorist organization, I am behind President Bush 100 percent on this. Too bad the Democrats aren't interested in protecting the American people.
- Ken Brown, Altus, Oklahoma

Eavesdropping is acceptable if it will help prevent another 9/11. People forget that we were attacked and we are at war with those who attacked us. How many 9/11s will it take for people to understand that in war, you do what is necessary. It's not a game.
- Billy Bevard, Bixby, Oklahoma

While we argue about who is right and wrong; who broke the law and who is the better political party; the terrorists will be undetected and waiting for their next strike.
- Nick Belfiore, Fort Myers, Florida

Under any and all conditions is and should eavesdropping be allowed. Let President Bush do his job to capture or stop terrorists. The people in the USA need to stop the back-biting and rally together.
- Dave, Valdez, Alaska


Conclusion

People with an IQ over 50 intellgently summarize why the government should not be allowed to have unchecked prying eyes, while people with an IQ under 50 naively think that the government should have all powers to do anything necessary and should not answer to the people after the fact (when of course some mistakes are made and the power is ultimately abused).


Snippet of a recent Article:

"We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives," Bush said. "To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks."

"It has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties," the president added.

But lawmakers, several of whom said Congress hadn't been informed about the wiretap program, also are concerned about the legality of the president's authorization.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin told CNN on Sunday that he believes Bush's action violated the law.

"[The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] says it's the exclusive law to authorize wiretaps," he said. "This administration is playing fast and loose with the law in national security. The issue here is whether the president of the United States is putting himself above the law, and I believe he has done so."



- rem
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:26:30 PM EDT
Absolutely not. Giving to wide of powers to government only leads to tyrranny.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:41:23 PM EDT
Should people have the unchecked ability to post stupid shit without being mocked?



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:42:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XJ:
Should people have the unchecked ability to post stupid shit without being mocked?






Boy, howdy!
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:44:45 PM EDT
Well, the NYT achieved their goal. No talk about how well the Iraqi elections went, instead every tinfoil hat loony lefty is all up in arms about shit that didn't happen.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:51:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Well, the NYT achieved their goal. No talk about how well the Iraqi elections went, instead every tinfoil hat loony lefty is all up in arms about shit that didn't happen.



Do you really want Hillary to have this authority? Patriot Act permanantly, are you sure your not sheep? Emergency powers should always repeat always have sunsets.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:58:14 PM EDT
Tapping calls coming into this country from foreign powers who base AQ . I have no problem myself with that if you are referring to the New York Times story.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:01:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Well, the NYT achieved their goal. No talk about how well the Iraqi elections went, instead every tinfoil hat loony lefty is all up in arms about shit that didn't happen.



Do you really want Hillary to have this authority? Patriot Act permanantly, are you sure your not sheep? Emergency powers should always repeat always have sunsets.




+1


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:05:23 PM EDT
notice the people under 50 are mostly from oklahoma...god i hate that place
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:08:31 PM EDT
I don't have a problem with tapping calls, only that it has to be independently reviewed shortly before, or shortly after the fact. I don't have a problem with them tapping or surveiling anyone based on a set of criteria requiring them to do so. But again, it should be governed by someone other than the person ordering and performing the surveillance.

I also don't read the New York Times, because a lot of their shit is biased and sometimes downright distorted.


- rem



Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Tapping calls coming into this country from foreign powers who base AQ . I have no problem myself with that if you are referring to the New York Times story.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:11:17 PM EDT
They already DO have the ability.

They don't have the right.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:23:53 PM EDT
They can listen to my phone calls all they want. They'll be pretty bored, but won't bother me.

Of course, if I constantly talked about committing burglaries, smoking pot, or planning terrorist events, I might be upest about it. Contrary to what most believe, there is no constitutional right to privacy.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:30:57 PM EDT
A president that can secretely wiretap anyone could very well wiretap companies that are competitors to the entities that support him (lobbyists, commercial entities) and his administration. Being the president is all about business.

- rem
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:32:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sagus:
They can listen to my phone calls all they want. They'll be pretty bored, but won't bother me.

Of course, if I constantly talked about committing burglaries, smoking pot, or planning terrorist events, I might be upest about it. Contrary to what most believe, there is no constitutional right to privacy.



FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'


Why be burdened by having to obtain a warrant and show probable cause.


'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:33:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Well, the NYT achieved their goal. No talk about how well the Iraqi elections went, instead every tinfoil hat loony lefty is all up in arms about shit that didn't happen.



Do you really want Hillary to have this authority? Patriot Act permanantly, are you sure your not sheep? Emergency powers should always repeat always have sunsets.



This bears repeating.
Emergency powers should always have sunsets.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:43:27 PM EDT
i know it's been going on for a long time, but does the president have the legal authority to issue an executive order?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:49:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PROFESSORCHAOS:
i know it's been going on for a long time, but does the president have the legal authority to issue an executive order?



Thier is a law somewhere that allows for it, think it dates back to Lincoln era/times not initially in the constitution. That ability of the E.O. needs to go, however it must be moved by both houses and signed by the Pres. Translation will not happen. People who gain power do not give it up by choice.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:49:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 9:54:40 PM EDT by raven]

Originally Posted By remedy:
I also don't read the New York Times, because a lot of their shit is biased and sometimes downright distorted.



And yet you've bought their bogus bullshit on this NSA business hook, line, and sinker. Bush abused no power, broke no laws. He shook up comatose intelligence services who had passed off responsibility for doing their jobs and gathering intelligence on terrorists, he got around plodding FISA courts whose priorities were stifling and thwarting investigators, not catching and stopping terrorists. The NSA eavesdropped on international communications and Bush authorized expedited exploitation of fresh leads and information whose shelf life was measured in hours.

And for doing all this, and capturing and thwarting terrorists and stopping their plans, the NY Times wants you to be outraged and believe that Bush wasn't protecting the lives of American citizens. Oh no, he was destroying your civil rights and privacy. His intentions weren't even good, he's a tyrant in the making.

Enemies of Bush railed and criticized him for failing to connect the dots before 9/11 happened, much of which was due to the "it's not my job" mentality of the intelligence services, plodding FISA judges, and the artificial wall between intelligence services and the FBI. So what are Bush's critics now saying now that Congress wants to get rid of the Patriot Act? They're saying "This is so wonderful! We're taking away the tools the government needs to connect the dots to stop terrorist acts before they happen! We're going back to the pre-9/11 environment that made the terrorists' job so easy! Hooray!"

I get so fed up. What is it going to take for some people to understand the threat we face? How many people have to die before the message gets through?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:50:07 PM EDT
Should posters have the unchecked ability to copy/paste text from another source (CNN in this case), and not attribute it? Or maybe they are just not bright enough to extend that most basic courtesy?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:51:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By PROFESSORCHAOS:
i know it's been going on for a long time, but does the president have the legal authority to issue an executive order?



Thier is a law somewhere that allows for it, think it dates back to Lincoln era/times not initially in the constitution. That ability of the E.O. needs to go, however it must be moved by both houses and signed by the Pres. Translation will not happen. People who gain power do not give it up by choice.



EO's are unconstitutional.
They need to go.
But they won't.
They are here to stay.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:55:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sagus:
They can listen to my phone calls all they want. They'll be pretty bored, but won't bother me.



That isn't the point. Even if you have nothing to hide, your life (nor any other decent person.. err.. law abiding.. err god fearin'.. err average bloke ) is not an open book for others to flip thru the pages at their will.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:57:41 PM EDT
Source

What is an Executive Order?
From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998

"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).

Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.

President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.

Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.


Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:28:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By remedy:
I don't have a problem with tapping calls, only that it has to be independently reviewed shortly before, or shortly after the fact. I don't have a problem with them tapping or surveiling anyone based on a set of criteria requiring them to do so. But again, it should be governed by someone other than the person ordering and performing the surveillance.

I also don't read the New York Times, because a lot of their shit is biased and sometimes downright distorted.


- rem



Originally Posted By copenhagen:
Tapping calls coming into this country from foreign powers who base AQ . I have no problem myself with that if you are referring to the New York Times story.





You have to put this in context also. Your the president. You have been told that there is a terrorists nuclear weapon in downtown New York. Already in position. This isn't not a hypothetical case President Bush was told by our intelligence officers that AQ had a nuclear weapon already in New York. Would you tap incoming calls from know terrorists sponsoring states????????? I damn sure would.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:51:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By PROFESSORCHAOS:
i know it's been going on for a long time, but does the president have the legal authority to issue an executive order?



Thier is a law somewhere that allows for it, think it dates back to Lincoln era/times not initially in the constitution. That ability of the E.O. needs to go, however it must be moved by both houses and signed by the Pres. Translation will not happen. People who gain power do not give it up by choice.



EO's are unconstitutional.
They need to go.
But they won't.
They are here to stay.


I agree with both of you...EOs are BS ....The president should not have that power
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:36:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:50:14 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Well, the NYT achieved their goal. No talk about how well the Iraqi elections went, instead every tinfoil hat loony lefty is all up in arms about shit that didn't happen.



Do you really want Hillary to have this authority? Patriot Act permanantly, are you sure your not sheep? Emergency powers should always repeat always have sunsets.



Do you know what is actually in the Patriot Act? I doubt it.

Besides, the question asked by the originator of this thread has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Are you sure you're not ignorant?

I got your sheep dangling.

In answer to the original question, no they should not have that ability, but that is not what the PA says nor is the poll shown legitimate.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:38:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:39:28 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By remedy:
I also don't read the New York Times, because a lot of their shit is biased and sometimes downright distorted.



You don't?????? Then why did you post something straight out of the NYT, with some completely unsubstanstiated "poll", complete with people's IQs???????????????????????

That entire post is total horseshit.
Top Top