The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2006, 03:28 PM   #46
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Statement by the FBI:
...
In any case where the records of a private person are sought, they may only be obtained through established legal process.
What's "established legal process" mean?

I like how they made no mention of a warrant or other judicial review here. Since Bush now says that he don't need no stinkin' badges, that's probably what they mean by "established legal process." Anything they do is legal, because they are the ones doing it. So the FBI could be telling the truth here and so could ABC.

I'll admit the whole set of ABC News stories was sloppy reporting. We don't know if the Feds are looking at the leakers or looking at the press. But the first story clearly said it was the press.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 04:23 PM   #47
MaggieL
in the Hour of Scampering
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
Anybody here watch Law and Order? Especially the original series (as opposed to the D'Onofrio Overacting Seminar :-) ).

How many times have you heard Lenny or one of his colleagues say "We pulled his LUDs and it shows a call to blah at blah woof...".

Had you assumed he'd gotten a warrant for that? Considering how they usually make a big deal about getting a search warrant under other circumstances, or at least conspicuously mentioning that they'd gotten one, I hadn't.

But in this case, I'll bet USC Title 18 Chapter 121 2709 (or something like it) applies. I guess we'll be finding out.
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."

MaggieL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 04:37 PM   #48
warch
lurkin old school
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,796
The tighter the control, and the secrecy, the more rampant the leaks- good ones and bad ones, big ones and little ones, ones to aid the good guys and the bad guys.

I'll settle for a return to the illusion of some degree of governmental transparency, even during wartime, even a little, with constitutional checks on executive power.

Get a warrant. work with FISA.
warch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 04:57 PM   #49
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Typically we don't know what was leaked and in this case we have no idea whatsoever.
Then don't try to put some blanket "we're in favor of leakers this week" statement on it.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2006, 12:25 AM   #50
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
Let's start with ANY unconstitutional activity EVER, by ANY branch, regardless of what they think of their fantasy status.
Why would anyone leak anything to the press that was not in the interest of America (and against extremist interests of Democrat, Republican and Communist party loyalists)?

Oh. Valerie Plame. Clearly we must access all phone records so that the President and Vice President will be prosecuted for outing a CIA agent.

Oh. Maybe all this J Edgar Hoover security without judicial review would not stop such criminal activity. So why does the President and Vice President want all this power without judicial review?

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?

Nixon had an 'Enemies List'. George Jr has '1984 Big Brother'. Both required no judicial review. Both to provide the president with more power. America be damned.

Last edited by tw; 05-18-2006 at 12:28 AM.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2006, 06:13 AM   #51
MaggieL
in the Hour of Scampering
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?
Because evidently Neil Young is still the same whiney moron he was thirty years ago. :-)
It's not just the military who is always "perfectly trained and equipped to win the last war".

It's possible to take nostalgia too far. Anybody see South Park last night? :-)
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."

MaggieL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2006, 07:44 PM   #52
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Because evidently Neil Young is still the same whiney moron he was thirty years ago. :-)
It's not just the military who is always "perfectly trained and equipped to win the last war".

It's possible to take nostalgia too far. Anybody see South Park last night? :-)
Whiney? Probably. Moron? He was correctly on the money back then as he is about a mental midget leader today.

But that is all secondary to a large problem: a president who needs powers that even J Edgar Hoover did not have - and have those powers without Congressional or Judicial oversight. Hoover, with less power, could blackmail anyone in the US - any president, any congressman, or any citizen. Apparently Hoover did so often. And yet this president - like Nixon - declares he needs "more power"? Presidential mouth pieces even justify it by saying "You have no expectation of privacy."

Why complain about a whiney Neil Young when a current president is and is surrounded by those who pervert America (and science, and religious freedoms, and wealth distribution, and education, and social welfare) for their self serving agenda.

God, these governmental perverts even have you blaming illegal immigrants - using emotion - for a problem directly traceable to those leaders. At what point do you stand up for America rather than parrot Rush Limbaugh propaganda?

BTW, in Law and Order, those LUDs get pulled after a court order is issued. But then those who respect American principles would be very angry if that were not true. Those who hate America - Rush Limbaugh disciples - agree that "We have no expectation of privacy".

Want a benchmark to measure enemies of everyone in America - legal, tourist, and illegal? Those enemies of all people say "You have no expectation of privacy". Rush Limbaugh - drug addict and money launder - says "You have no expectation of privacy". Being enemies of all people is profitable? He got all prosecution dropped and his record expunged because so many perverted American (such as a president) also believe "You have no expectation of privacy".
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2006, 12:02 AM   #53
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Why would anyone leak anything to the press that was not in the interest of America (and against extremist interests of Democrat, Republican and Communist party loyalists)?

Oh. Valerie Plame. Clearly we must access all phone records so that the President and Vice President will be prosecuted for outing a CIA agent.

Oh. Maybe all this J Edgar Hoover security without judicial review would not stop such criminal activity. So why does the President and Vice President want all this power without judicial review?

Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming.
We're finally on our own.
Why do such refrains sound so familiar?

Nixon had an 'Enemies List'. George Jr has '1984 Big Brother'. Both required no judicial review. Both to provide the president with more power. America be damned.
If it violates the rights of Americans it is against the interest of America, period.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 08:14 AM   #54
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,617
Attorney General Gonzales weighed in on this yesterday, saying that the rights under the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the press, are not as strong as the "right" of the federal government to prosecute who it wants to.

His exact words:
"I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect . . . but it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 08:35 AM   #55
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,259
Ooh, now that is a foul statement.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 02:57 PM   #56
BigV
Goon Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,893
GodDAMMIT!!

Let's just get the teensy generous part of my rant out of the way first, shall we?

AG AG is a prosecutor. I understand that. His freakin job is to take people to court, to presume guilt, to focus on wrongdoing and wrongdoers. He's a lawman. No bad guys--his kids go hungry. Fine. His motivations are clear. When you are a hammer, the whole world looks like nails

However.

The ends do not justify the means.

There are so many things wrong indicated in his statement, it makes my head spin. First off, it is not his place to pretend that one "right" has precedence over another right. Note the quotes. "right" == "[Alberto gonzales]...the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity." Contrasted with the right == ""[Framers of the Constitution]...the protection under the First Amendment..."

WTF?!

You, Gonzales, you are responsible for trying to create a distracting smokescreen by falsely suggesting that in order for the government "go after criminal activity" it is permissible or necessary to disregard the First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States. That is lying by implication. It is *neither* necessary nor permissible.

You are a lawman. Why would you consider breaking one part of the law to uphold another part of the law? That didn't come out exactly right...I mean to disregard the protection written in the law covering the behavior you claim is criminal. The cynic in me can think of several reasons. It's easier, it suits your boss's agenda, it's habitual, you *truly, truly, cross your heart* believe what you said...

Tough. Because it makes things easier is no excuse. You weren't elected (appointed) because it's an easy job. It's not ok to cut corners. Stop it. Because your boss told you so is also insufficient. You've no obligation to obey illegal orders, capisce? I won't derail my own rant to examine the long list of his problems, but you should use your own judgement here and decide if *our country* is better served in the long run by this kind of attitude. I say emphatically no. Because that's the way it's always been done. Well, when you're doing the wrong thing, doing more of it is no way to make things better. Just stop digging. Lastly, you *may* have drunk the kool aid. I suspect you have. And that makes me sorry for you and sad for our country.

I am no anarchist. I believe in the law. It is that very belief that is the fount of my tears and the fire of my anger when I see the display of attitudes and actions of intelligent people in postitions of responsibility like this that tear our country down from within. You don't preserve, uphold and defend the Constitution by ignoring the parts you don't wipe your feet on. When you weaken it this way, by not respecting it and working within its constraints, you help win it for the bad guys by making it less, less valid, less important, less alive.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not.
BigV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 03:19 PM   #57
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
Attorney General Gonzales weighed in on this yesterday, saying that the rights under the first amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the press, are not as strong as the "right" of the federal government to prosecute who it wants to.

His exact words:
"I understand very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect . . . but it can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.
"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views, which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
Dr. Who (The Face of Evil)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 05:12 PM   #58
rkzenrage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
We have met the enemy and he is us - Walt Kelly (Pogo)

C.I.A. Choice Says He's Independent of the Pentagon

By MARK MAZZETTI
In a hearing that put him on track to win swift confirmation, Gen. Michael V. Hayden also defended an eavesdropping program.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 08:42 PM   #59
richlevy
King Of Wishful Thinking
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
He admitted that his Justice Department is currently looking for ways it can prosecute the NYT journalists who printed the leaks about the NSA phone surveillance of US citizens.
Now that would be an interesting case. Of course we would not hear any of it. The journalists would disappear, maybe get hauled before a FISA court, and shipped to Guantanamo.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama
richlevy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2006, 09:30 PM   #60
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 70,877
Again, the scum rising to the top. It's way past time to skim the scum.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.