ACLU sues the NSA

[eyrei]

The President should issue a statement saying that he and the executive branch he controls (unitive executive theory) does not recognize the authority of any court claiming to rule on the military operations of the executive branch. So then any decision by any court about it would be meaningles -- except politically at the ballot box. For it is according to the Founding Fathers the PEOPLE who are the "final arbiter" of the constitution and NOT the courts. It's amazing to me that a Hispanic Florida Woman Congressman was so ignorant of this when she claimed that the Supreme Court was the "final arbiter" (not really surprising given her background, but still disconcerting that a member of Congress would say it)

Actually now that I think about it, the President has ALREADY issued such a statement:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

Moderator Action: Warned for racism/trolling. Do not attempt to toe the line, or you will never post here again. You will not get another warning. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[wit>trope]

Is there any reason that you must mention that the congresswoman is hispanic?

Maybe you should ask HER since she mentions it all the time herself! "As a Hispanic... blah blah blah" Same with other people they say "As a black American.... blah blah blah" (In fact IIRC, she mentioned it in the very speech or hearing which I cited where she erroneously claimed that the Supreme Court was the "final arbiter") ... there's even a BOOK called "Black in the White House" written by a Black Administration Official ... if they themselves constantly refer to their race or ethnicity, you can't criticize others for referring to it.

 

[CartesianFart]

I'm not sure how successful they will be since they will be stonewalled by the entire executive branch, but it is a good thing the suit has been filed. If nothing else it will show the president that there are those who are keeping tabs on him as well.

This is sad,that the ACLU is ignorant of what is really going on behind the scenes in the international stage.Why should i worry about wiretapping when in fact that it is only for the intent to weed out and monitor any future attack on US soil.

The one thing about these ACLU[naive boy-scouts is more like it ]is that they fail to argue that USA have enemies[People who are against Global capitalism and liberal secular democracy]

 

[wit>trope]

The military and the executive must obey the laws of the land, as well. You're putting them above it by saying the courts have no rights to decide.

I am saying that the executive gets to interpret laws and judge which are constitutional in matters of the "sword" just as congress does in matters of the "purse"

If THAT puts them "above the law" -- then YOU are putting the COURTS above the law since they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

They, according to YOU, interpret laws and judge which are constitution in ALL matters ... so on your own account, if ANY of the three are "above the law" it is the courts!

And there are thousands of blogs that talk about people going about their lives.

It's not just blogs. It's talked about on national television as well.

But I cannot care for every detail.

That's fine. That's your choice.

 

[Irish Caesar]

The one thing about these ACLU[naive boy-scouts is more like it ]

Ah, but the ACLU is anti-Boy Scout.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I am saying that the executive gets to interpret laws and judge which are constitutional in matters of the "sword" just as congress does in matters of the "purse"

If THAT puts them "above the law" -- then YOU are putting the COURTS above the law since they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

They, according to YOU, interpret laws and judge which are constitution in ALL matters ... so on your own account, if ANY of the three are "above the law" it is the courts!

That, my friend, is the purpose of the courts.

The legislative branch makes the laws.
The executive branch executes the laws.
The judicial branch interprets the laws. The court's job is to interpret the constitution.

I'm not sure how else to explain separation of powers to you, but as a fan of King Andy (Jackson), I'm not sure you'd be interested.

 

[eyrei]

This is sad,that the ACLU is ignorant of what is really going on behind the scenes in the international stage.Why should i worry about wiretapping when in fact that it is only for the intent to weed out and monitor any future attack on US soil.

The one thing about these ACLU[naive boy-scouts is more like it ]is that they fail to argue that USA have enemies[People who are against Global capitalism and liberal secular democracy]

If the Bush administration had the trust of most of the country it might not even be an issue. They squandered that trust by lying whenever they couldn't give a politically feasible answer. The ACLU is one of the few organizations in this country that protects us from the government, and we should be thankful that they are more interested in ideals than in fighting illusory wars.

 

[The Yankee]

I am saying that the executive gets to interpret laws and judge which are constitutional in matters of the "sword" just as congress does in matters of the "purse"

If THAT puts them "above the law" -- then YOU are putting the COURTS above the law since they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING!

They, according to YOU, interpret laws and judge which are constitution in ALL matters ... so on your own account, if ANY of the three are "above the law" it is the courts!

Congress has a lot more authority than that over budgetary concerns, if that's your "purse" reference is all about.

And the military is not the domain of the President and his staff alone.

Furthermore, when was the NSA part of the military? It's part of the executive branch, and as such, Congress and the judicial branches both hold checks over it. The ACLU is asking the judical branch to use that authority.

It's not just blogs. It's talked about on national television as well.

So why not mention that first?

 

[CartesianFart]

If the Bush administration had the trust of most of the country it might not even be an issue. They squandered that trust by lying whenever they couldn't give a politically feasible answer. The ACLU is one of the few organizations in this country that protects us from the government, and we should be thankful that they are more interested in ideals than in fighting illusory wars.

Illusory wars?!
I dont mean to shout but can you explain that nation-building Iraq,Afganistan and the success of Germany,South Korea, and Japan is illusory?

Also,all head of state lies,its a practice since the dawn of civilization and tribes.It is best for all those worker bees out there to know that

 

[blackheart]

Also,all head of state lies,its a practice since the dawn of civilization and tribes.It is best for all those worker bees out there to know that

That doesn't mean we have to accept it as a permanent fact.

 

[CartesianFart]

That doesn't mean we have to accept it as a permanent fact.

Then live in a dream land and fear of what you dont know

 

[wit>trope]

Congress has a lot more authority than that over budgetary concerns, if that's your "purse" reference is all about.

It has authority to pass advisory recommendations. This is the whole "unitary executive" theory that is supported by legal giants such as the person who wrote the outstanding memo saying that the President could authorize coercive interrogation even contrary to Geneva treaty since treaty's have no legal force until they are "executed" by a separate bill in the legislature. This same legal giant (an Asian if I may say so -- married to a white woman though -- say I guess that makes him half-white) Moderator Action: One month. Your behavior is nothing but intentionally disruptive, and you have been warned many, many times to change it. You will receive notification in the next few days to let you know if your ban is permanent. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889-- also is rumored to be the author of a memo which supported the current NSA spying thing -- in any case he publically today says it is legal. He is said to have had a hand in almost every Bush administration decision of legal significance -- which is strange considering -- not his Asiaticity lest anyone get the wrong idea -- but his relatively young age. His is considered super-smart -- even Democrat Senator Joe Biden says he is super brilliant. So those of us who are less brilliant should try to agree with him

And the military is not the domain of the President and his staff alone.

Well according to the aforementioned legal giant, it is. But the Congress is free to withdraw funding -- so in that sense the legislative has influence over it. So fo rinstance Bush decides to invade Iran, no one, not a court, not a legislature, can stop him but COngress can withdraw funding and so then BUsh would have to stop ... Congress can also of course impeach.

Furthermore, when was the NSA part of the military? It's part of the executive branch

Right and the CONSTITUTION says that "THE executive power" is vested within the President. Solely. It does not mention ANYONE else in whom is vested "THE executive power"

Furthermore, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are about a DOZEN intelligence agencies of which the NSA is only one. So if your WHOLE argument boils down to "NSA is not part of military" then Bush could EASILY circumevent that by having an intelligence agency which IS in fact part of the military do it (some of the dozen or so intelligence agencies are indisputably part of the military)

So why not mention that first?

This is going no where. If there's no argument anymore, then let's drop this issue and just talk about the other substantive issues.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well according to the aforementioned legal giant, it is. But the Congress is free to withdraw funding -- so in that sense the legislative has influence over it. So fo rinstance Bush decides to invade Iran, no one, not a court, not a legislature, can stop him but COngress can withdraw funding and so then BUsh would have to stop ... Congress can also of course impeach.

Congress has sole power to declare war. The President can't do it on a whim.

Oh, and why don't you tell us the name of this legal giant?

 

[nihilistic]

Maybe you should ask HER since she mentions it all the time herself! "As a Hispanic... blah blah blah" Same with other people they say "As a black American.... blah blah blah" (In fact IIRC, she mentioned it in the very speech or hearing which I cited where she erroneously claimed that the Supreme Court was the "final arbiter") ... there's even a BOOK called "Black in the White House" written by a Black Administration Official ... if they themselves constantly refer to their race or ethnicity, you can't criticize others for referring to it.

Wow, and you must go on. Was she on this forum? If not, then why must you go all the way out to bring her in with almost no other accreditation with what you claim to be an outrageous comment? I can similarly find almost any class of outrageous quote by an individual of any ethnic/racial group and post it. What makes your comment on how she is hispanic somehow relevant to your argument? Why did you only identify her only as a hispanic woman? How about giving a name? I'm sure she has one.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go read Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man".

 

[eyrei]

Illusory wars?!
I dont mean to shout but can you explain that nation-building Iraq,Afganistan and the success of Germany,South Korea, and Japan is illusory?

Also,all head of state lies,its a practice since the dawn of civilization and tribes.It is best for all those worker bees out there to know that

Exactly what do Germany, South Korea and Japan have to do with any of this? And the illusory wars I am referring to are the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Neither of which is actually a war. Afganistan may be part of the counterterrorism effort, but the fighting in Iraq would more aptly be called Operation Hornets Nest.

Regardless, there is a process to be followed to allow certain powers to intelligence agencies when they need them. That includes obtaining warrants for domestic spying. The simple fact that the White House decided they could bypass the courts when they wanted to should send shivers down your spine, unless you have a blind trust in our current leadership.

The lies of most heads of states result in corruption and scandal. Some, including those of George W. Bush, result in lives lost and cities bombed. The difference is so obviously profound I am amazed that people need it explained to them time and time again.

 

[The Yankee]

Who cares if this person that wrote the memo is Asian or white or whatever? Why even bring it up?

His opinion does not change anything. And it certainly does not change the fact that the government is more than the President and the executive branch. Congress passes laws, the Senate ratifies treaties that the President signs, both are involved in amending the Constitution, in addition to simple funding concerns.


And even if this intelligence gathering operations were shifted to the DIA, they're still under the law of the land. A law which said that a warrant from the FISA court must be obtained, just like a warrant for other searches must be obtained from your standard local judge. It has nothing to do with swords, at all.

 

[CartesianFart]

Exactly what do Germany, South Korea and Japan have to do with any of this?

That is what reference to USA success of nation building

And the illusory wars I am referring to are the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.Neither of which is actually a war.

I wouldnt group those 2 together as any war that relate to one another or if you condone that these 2 so called illusory war is an abstract of the fact 'that these war do really exist'.

Afganistan may be part of the counterterrorism effort, but the fighting in Iraq would more aptly be called Operation Hornets Nest.

The so called 'Operation Hornets Nest' is just another name for the mission of nation building a peaceful Secular Democratic society in the heart of the middle east,but you could be right on the Afganistan situation.But tell me,how can you really fathom an idea that American troops sationed in Iraq is not really fighting a war?

Regardless, there is a process to be followed to allow certain powers to intelligence agencies when they need them. That includes obtaining warrants for domestic spying. The simple fact that the White House decided they could bypass the courts when they wanted to should send shivers down your spine, unless you have a blind trust in our current leadership.

Ha,and fall for the ACLU with a blind trust

The lies of most heads of states result in corruption and scandal. Some, including those of George W. Bush, result in lives lost and cities bombed. The difference is so obviously profound I am amazed that people need it explained to them time and time again.

The thing is about the ACLU is that they insist that they are on your side,when Mommy and Daddy[George Bush]lies that there is no Santa Claus[Indivisibility of Liberty] when in fact they are opportunistic and abstractedly out of touch of the fact that liberty must be sacrificied for security.Of course you dont think we are at war .Quite amazing how a child can be naive and then react in such a manner of contempt when in fact that there is no harm of discovering that a truth was such a lie.
I find this analogous to all the people that is hateful of the administration ways of doing things.

 

[Renata]

Thanks, Eyrei.

 

[Kayak]

The thing is about the ACLU is that they insist that they are on your side,when Mommy and Daddy[George Bush]lies that there is no Santa Claus[Indivisibility of Liberty] when in fact they are opportunistic and abstractedly out of touch of the fact that liberty must be sacrificied for security.Of course you dont think we are at war .Quite amazing how a child can be naive and then react in such a manner of contempt when in fact that there is no harm of discovering that a truth was such a lie.
I find this analogous to all the people that is hateful of the administration ways of doing things.

I'm curious, what liberties do you think we should give up? And when should we get them back again? And how?

Next I think you should define the word war. You must be looking at it differently than eyrie and I.

EDIT: I thank you too eyrei.

 

[Cuivienen]

The President should issue a statement saying that he and the executive branch he controls (unitive executive theory) does not recognize the authority of any court claiming to rule on the military operations of the executive branch. So then any decision by any court about it would be meaningles -- except politically at the ballot box. For it is according to the Founding Fathers the PEOPLE who are the "final arbiter" of the constitution and NOT the courts. It's amazing to me that a Hispanic Florida Woman Congressman was so ignorant of this when she claimed that the Supreme Court was the "final arbiter" (not really surprising given her background, but still disconcerting that a member of Congress would say it)

Actually now that I think about it, the President has ALREADY issued such a statement:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html

Effectively, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. It isn't as if we hold referenda on major court cases.