<p>“…but the scary part is some Republicans are blinded by their fanaticism to the point where they ignore plain facts. Now thats just scary.”</p>
<p>No, we know the facts just fine. However, I hope you get a chance to take a course in Civics when you get to NYU to realize that the ABA is not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not. So, what you have linked to is opinion, not fact. But, thanks for your opinion.</p>
<p>I think you should read this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://download.yousendit.com/5A23ECDE1CD0CFC0[/url]”>http://download.yousendit.com/5A23ECDE1CD0CFC0</a></p>
<p>This is a transcript of a congressional hearing held on Friday, January 20, 2006 concerning domestic surveillence and the overstepping of executive power. The fact of the matter is : the wiretaps violated FISA law which was designed for just that! (the electronic survellience of people inside the US . this recent revelation about the phone records allows us to conclude the activity is illegal as well, because like the wiretaps, theyre unwarranted. Unfortunately, the investigation into the illegal wiretapping, revealed earlier this year, was killed by the Justice Department: <a href=“http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1147348831.shtml[/url]”>http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1147348831.shtml</a></p>
<p>i fear the same will happen to any such probe that results from the phone record revelation…</p>
<p>This isnt the first time a president has invoked the specter of “national security” in order to break the law. Noone, not even the president is above the law.</p>
<p>FF, much of what you so emphatically post is opinion as well, so don’t be coming down on Firewalker. I am well aware of your defense of every one of Bush’s policy decisions (by use of gov’t web sites…how very non-partisan…or opinion pieces of your own), even if you are now part of an increasingly small minority of people who share your beliefs.</p>
<p>driver, you are right that I did ask the question in sort of a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife way. So let me reset here and ask a real question:</p>
<p>It’s apparent that Bush is losing the support of the people. According to an article I read today (don’t remember where) Bush has lost a significant portion of conservative Republicans in the recent months. I’m actually curious about which issue(s) were the ones that led to a withdrawal of support. For example, in zoos case, it was the immigration issue (and in the article I read, it seemed like a LOT of conservatives had that same “last straw”).</p>
<p>There are liberals like me who never liked Bush in the first place, so I’m not really asking the question of them. And there are people who will defend Bush to the end, so I’m not really interested in those opinions either. But I am interested in those who have lost faith and the issues which finally did it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901504.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901504.html</a></p>
<p>maybe that article will shed light on why they have lost faith…</p>
<p>notable highlights:</p>
<p>“The Republicans’ problem is not simply their inability to run their government and wage their war of choice, it is also their bankruptcy of ideas.”</p>
<p>“On taxes, the Republican legislative leaders’ top priorities are to make permanent the tax cut on investment income and to repeal the estate tax – economics, as ever, for our wealthiest 1 percent. (This at a time when the entire theory of trickle-down has been negated by the propensity of U.S. corporations to use their shareholders’ investments to expand abroad rather than at home.)”</p>
<p>“It’s not clear how many independents, or even conservatives, will warm to a campaign that focuses on forestalling congressional oversight – not with gas prices soaring and the American military bogged down in a war with an increasingly undefinable mission.”</p>
<p>Oh, I was really sad this morning when I read the declining poll numbers article in the Post today, and the margin of 14% that the Dems have in the ‘think they will do a better job in Congress’ category. I wept in my cornflakes and soy milk…The horror! The horror!</p>
<p>Yulsie, you shouldn’t be too surprised…Katrina, gas prices, corruption at all levels of the Republican party, Iraq, illegal spying, Republicans really shot themselves in the foot</p>
<p>Firewalker, are you being serious? You keep throwing around the word “fact” as if you are conveying established facts. You also keep using the word “scary” about anyone who doesn’t buy into your “facts”. Just in case you are trying to be objective and are just a bit naive, I’ll give you a hint - don’t link to a report from a Democratic caucus and then try to pawn it off as a finding of Congress. To persist in doing so is … “scary”</p>
<p>I think youre not giving enough credit to the national representative of the entire legal profession. The general consensus is that such programs are in fact, illegal. Don’t take my word for it though…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182824,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182824,00.html</a></p>
<p>If you insist on the legality of such programs…well then I’ll leave up to the readers who to trust on such issues. Ill take the ABA’s word over yours any day.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Gonzales’ legal defense was sketchy at best. He claimed Bush has an inherent executive power, which is bogus IMO because they conflict with existing law. What was more interesting was that the president knew all he had to do was ask Congress to change the law, but he didn’t. The right people weren’t even informed of the existence of the program, a point Gonzales still denies</p>
<p><a href=“U.S. Senate”>U.S. Senate;
<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/06/senators_have_tough_questions_for_gonzales/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/06/senators_have_tough_questions_for_gonzales/</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php[/url]”>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_12_11.php</a></p>
<p>Whats interesting is this quote from the foxnews article</p>
<p>"He added that it would be impossible to monitor all phone calls between the United States and abroad because in 2003 alone, Americans participated in 200 billion minutes of international calls.</p>
<p>“The purpose of all of this is not to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and prevent attacks. The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren’t likely to protect us. And NSA has no interest in doing so. These are communications that we have reason to believe are Al Qaeda communications,” Hayden said."</p>
<p>Obviously he was lying.</p>
<p>from the USA today article…</p>
<p>“The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY…“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added. For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made across town or across the country to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.”</p>
<p>I don’t know about you but i consider that “reams of intelligence”.</p>
<p>It’s gonna be hard for Gonzales to dig himself out of this one…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000622.php[/url]”>http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000622.php</a></p>
<p>Driver:
Except that the president doesn’t have to go to FISA if he doesn’t want to, according to this administration. So we’re basically left with “trust me” as the defense of our Constitutional right not to be subject to a government seizure of our personal phone records based on an “alarming terorist pattern” such as calling the Sierra Club, the local Democratic party, etc. Because it’s so darn hard to figure out who someone is from their phone nunmber…</p>
<p>I love it when right wingers are naive and trusting. They’re almost cuddly.</p>
<p>A busy day tomorrow, so I am out of here for the night. I will leave you with this question, which seems to stump all of the loudest CC mouths (Kluge, perhaps you, my reliable legal beagle, will rise to the occasion and solve the riddle):<br>
What crime did Roosevelt commit?
<a href=“http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9790[/url]”>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9790</a></p>
<p>Driver, while I would dearly love to indulge your purely historical interest in an event which:
a) Happened long before you or I were born;
b) The precise details of which are unlikely to be accurately reported; and
c) Occurred during a time when our nations existence was - realistically - threatened;
I’m afraid I can’t. Because, after all, even if the inference you want me to draw is correct:
d) Two wrongs don’t make a right.</p>
<p>P.S. Is that the very best you’ve got?</p>
<p>"Except that the president doesn’t have to go to FISA if he doesn’t want to, according to this administration. " </p>
<p>kluge, why do you insist in putting words in people’s mouths that they never said? You know that Bush has never said that the government was immune from FISA for domestic calls.</p>
<p>dstark</p>
<p>You’re not serious, are you? I mean you just happened to talk to a long time Republican (30 years, in fact!) and he happened to state 17 reasons why he doesn’t like our President.</p>
<p>Nice try.</p>
<p>Kluge, you’re dancing around the central question like a pimply-faced One-L who didn’t do the assigned reading. For “two wrongs don’t make a right” to apply, there must be a first “wrong.” What was it? What crime did Roosevelt commit?</p>
<p>More bad news for Bush: New poll today (Harris) shows a dip to 29%, so more people are finding the last straw. The number can only go down as low as the number of people who don’t even know or care who the President is anyway. I think most intelligent people have abandoned ship and are rowing away…</p>
<p>In addition, yesterday the Senate approved a $70 billion tax cut most of which will benefit the wealthiest segment of society. </p>
<p>Even forgetting for the most part that the part of society that least needs tax cuts will benefit the most, how can an administration that is spending money in record amounts be so irresponsible as to cut $70 billion in potential revenues?</p>
<p>This is one of the most crass and recklessly irresponsible administrations in our history. And now to top it all off, W has the audacity to suggest that Jeb’s time to occupy the White House may be coming soon!!!</p>
<p>It is also an administration that seems to welcome each new scandal as diversion of the public’s attention from the previous one. </p>
<p>Scarier still 29% of the nation still support them and the job they are doing.</p>