Washington Post: Bush authorized domestic spying...

[west3man]

Here's something maybe y'all can help me with. I've never understood this, probably because I'm not the political animal that a lot of the folks are in this thread.

I can see not wanting to make classified info public. But, they can't show it to Congressmen or Senators? Why are they seemingly classified as security risks? Is it just because of the potential impermanence of their position (they can come and go to and from the private sector very fast) or is there some other concern?
I must've missed something. From what I read, he claimed Congress and the Senate knew about this stuff.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I must've missed something. From what I read, he claimed Congress and the Senate knew about this stuff.

A couple folk within the House/Senate were informed, but were not permitted to discuss the matters with their colleagues, their staff or much of anyone else. As one Senator put it, this effectively prevented them from performing any real oversight, since they couldn't effectively research the matters in order to determine if the Administration was being accurate. At least one person informed of these matters says the information he was given was quite different from the facts that came to light with the NY Times story about this matter - in other words, it is claimed that the Administration didn't give the full or accurate details even to the very few people it briefed about these matters.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

This just keeps getting worse (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html) :


The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.
Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.
...
As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."
Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.


I think Brian's analysis is correct in that the Administration has now discarded any pretentions of trying to fit these warrantless wiretaps within the strictures of FISA. Clearly, the Administration is relying on the Use of Force Resolution. However, as I said, that is what was so disturbing to me about Gonzalez's statement that they didn't bother seeking authorization from Congress because they knew they wouldn't get it.

But Daschle's recollection of events makes it even worse than that. Apparently, the Administration did try to slip in authority to act domestically pursuant to the Use of Force Resolution, but such authority was denied.

That seems to kick whatever narrow pillar the Administration thought still supported their case out from under them. It's pretty hard to argue that they thought the Use of Force Resolution allowed them to conduct warrantless wiretaps in the U.S. when such authority was explicitly denied.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That seems to kick whatever narrow pillar the Administration thought still supported their case out from under them. It's pretty hard to argue that they thought the Use of Force Resolution allowed them to conduct warrantless wiretaps in the U.S. when such authority was explicitly denied.

The Adminiistration's stance is clearly that the President trumps the will of the House/Senate, and clearly Bush has contempt for the idea of checks and balances, and of oversight. Since 9/11, we've been observing an Administration engaging in a power grab unprecedented in modern times.

The only question is, what will the House/Senate/courts/people do about this?

I still vote for impeachment, and think Bush also deserves a public horse-whipping.

[Paradox]

west3man understandbly gets me wrong:

I must've missed something. From what I read, he claimed Congress and the Senate knew about this stuff.

Oh, oh, no, I was just being far more general than that.

It was triggered by me quick scanning a USA Today article last night at work that mentioned something about this not coming to fruition because of the classified documents. I was pretty sure they were referring to a Senatorial hearing, but I could easily be wrong, as, like I mentioned, I only scanned it quickly.

[Theophilus]

I can see not wanting to make classified info public. But, they can't show it to Congressmen or Senators? Why are they seemingly classified as security risks? Is it just because of the potential impermanence of their position (they can come and go to and from the private sector very fast) or is there some other concern?

Probably because Congress has more leaks than the Titanic now. When I say that, I don't buy that informing a handful, or even the entire, Congress of his intentions puts him on any better legal ground. That's not the approach I'd take, and if he really wants a green light from Congress he shouldn't trust word of mouth in closed door meetings. Get it in writing.

But these days, giving Congress any sort of headsup is equivalent to calling up the New York Times and saying, "Do I still have time to make page one?"

And then you have groups like CAIR with terrorist affiliations asking for info on the wiretaps through the Freedom of Information Act.

[phoenixrising]

I can see not wanting to make classified info public. But, they can't show it to Congressmen or Senators?

Because there are Democrats there.

Of course, that doesn't really work anymore....now the GOP isn't even having an easy time keeping it's own in line.

[Sam]

But that's the question, isn't it? There's no way to prove classified info about al-Quaeda conversations without compromising intelligence. But there's no way to verify claims about the reasoning for wiretaps without proof...at least in the public forum. It just comes down to trust.

Which is the entire reason for the FISA court!

There is not a single rational reason why Bush couldn't do this with FISA court warrants, if he were simply acting on national security concerns. Not one. The only reason for bypassing the court would be that he is doing something he knows the court wouldn't approve -- which would have to be something pretty extreme, since the court has virtually never turned down warrants.

Of course, it's interesting to note that Bush made this authorization very shortly after the FISA court slapped down the Ashcroft Justice Dept. and the FBI for acquiring warrants by lying to said court: Washington Post article, from back when it happened. (http://foi.missouri.edu/secretcourts/seccrtrebuffs.html)

We can't just sit back and trust that our leaders aren't abusing their authority. That's the whole point of having checks and balances, judicial oversight. If Bush wasn't doing anything wrong, then he'd have gone through the court. The very fact that he felt the need to cut them out of it is a sign that he's doing something that wouldn't have passed muster.

[Sam]

Probably because Congress has more leaks than the Titanic now. When I say that, I don't buy that informing a handful, or even the entire, Congress of his intentions puts him on any better legal ground. That's not the approach I'd take, and if he really wants a green light from Congress he shouldn't trust word of mouth in closed door meetings. Get it in writing.

According to Anthony Gonzales, they didn't get it in writing because they knew Congress wouldn't authorize it. He's come right out and said so.

Which gives lie to the whole idea that it was authorized by the Congress, of course.

But these days, giving Congress any sort of headsup is equivalent to calling up the New York Times and saying, "Do I still have time to make page one?"

Good. That is a sign that you're doing something you shouldn't be. If you can't go through the proper oversight channels without horrified whistleblowers leaking what you're doing, then it's obviously something that shouldn't be done.

[Theophilus]

Since 9/11, we've been observing an Administration engaging in a power grab unprecedented in modern times.

Not unprecedented, Jeffrey. It's a little like boiling a frog slowly. The momentum for executive prerogative has been building for quite some time. Whatever legal standing he has is built on executive precedents from Republicans and Democrats--even Carter!

But legal standing aside, no one has accused Bush of wire tapping for the sake of tracking political enemies. Here's how it was portrayed on the ABC report I saw. As it stands, there's no controversy over tapping foreign communications from people with ties to terrorism. The problem is listening in on the American part of the conversation. So if the one person says, "What are you going to attack tomorrow?" it's illegal to track the response. That doesn't account for the fact that you can get FISA approval after the fact in such a case.

I can appreciate the hyperbole. 'Unprecedented in modern times' has a nice ring to it. It really just means everything is as it has always been--we're always in modern times by my count. I think your hatred of Bush is counterproductive, though. If your convictions run as deep as your personal antimosity I'd recommend you focus on the culture. It will still be in full swing long past his administration. To hear talk now, you'd think Bush invented the NSA.

We're long past the days of 'No Such Agency', though, aren't we?

[Sam]

But legal standing aside, no one has accused Bush of wire tapping for the sake of tracking political enemies.

No one in the mainstream media.

Yet.

The current theory percolating the liberal blogosphere is that he was spying on journalists. Whether there's any veracity to that, who knows. The thing is, it has to be something like that, because that's the only way to explain the extralegal methods. If they were spying on Al Queida, they'd have done it through the FISA court. There's no reason whatsoever not to, despite what Republican pundits keep saying. And there's a very big reason to do it -- it doesn't open you up to accusations of criminality and extralegal power-grabs.

The only reason to cut the court oversight out of the process is to engage in wiretaps on people that the court wouldn't let you wiretap.

To hear talk now, you'd think Bush invented the NSA.

No, he just wildly extended their power.

We're long past the days of 'No Such Agency', though, aren't we?

Yes. Now we're openly telling the public that the NSA can spy on them illegally, and if they don't like it they're filthy terrorism enablers.

[Theophilus]

The current theory percolating the liberal blogosphere is that he was spying on journalists.

If he was, there would be one of two reasons. He would either want to know when stories were breaking so he could prepare a counterattack, or he would want to kill the story.

If it's the first, he shouldn't bother. He usually waits far too long to even answer accusations, and he doesn't give off an aura of extensive preparation for the time that these stories will hit. For instance, the inopportune spying story on the day the Patriot Act was up for renewal. Personally, while I support him, I'm glad the story broke that day. I don't want a permanent Patriot Act. But I hope you get my point about spying on journalists.

If it's the second, it's the lousiest grab for power ever. He never stops the stories from breaking.

So if he is monitoring journalists, it's not working.



The only reason to cut the court oversight out of the process is to engage in wiretaps on people that the court wouldn't let you wiretap.

You'll notice I already mentioned that my theory about privacy did not account for FISA approval, which can be had after the fact.



No, he just wildly extended their power.

I'm smiling right now. The NSA has the power of Grayskull, with or without President Bush. They go as far as technology permits. They listen to anything and everything they think is relevant to national security and weed through a lot of useless stuff. They don't need his authorization to spy. The only issue is when something is brought up for trial whether it is legally admissible.


Yes. Now we're openly telling the public that the NSA can spy on them illegally, and if they don't like it they're filthy terrorism enablers.

I'm not smiling because I'm comfortable. I've written other posts about my personal concerns over civil liberties. It's a balancing act, to be sure.

At this point, I seriously doubt the NSA could care less about anything that isn't a real security threat.

It doesn't mean I don't think it could be exploited in the future, but every power can. Like any power, it is dangerous to use but foolish to throw away.

And I'm actually very happy that there are people who are vehemently opposed to any sort of spying. It keeps others honest. I'm not oblivious to the very real threat...from both sides of the aisle.

[phoenixrising]

If he was, there would be one of two reasons. He would either want to know when stories were breaking so he could prepare a counterattack, or he would want to kill the story.

If it's the first, he shouldn't bother. He usually waits far too long to even answer accusations, and he doesn't give off an aura of extensive preparation for the time that these stories will hit. For instance, the inopportune spying story on the day the Patriot Act was up for renewal. Personally, while I support him, I'm glad the story broke that day. I don't want a permanent Patriot Act. But I hope you get my point about spying on journalists.

If it's the second, it's the lousiest grab for power ever. He never stops the stories from breaking.

So if he is monitoring journalists, it's not working.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's still very much in a conspiracy theory mode, but it would not at all surprise me if he were spying on the media. Why? Because if he knows what certain Washington journalists have planned, he CAN keep things from running.

If he hears about an upcoming story or ongoing investigation (legally or illegally), he could easily get his people in the business world on the horn and they can strong-arm the corporate heads of the media conglomerates (some of whom are big GOP contributors) or individual publishers into withdrawing their stories or face losing X amount of ad money. Those people don't at all care about watchdog journalism or news value and they have no qualms about playing along with the powers that be.

Stories get held or killed for dubious reasons all of the time. Hell, the NYT held the spying story for more than a year for dubious reasons. So, it would't surprise me one bit to hear this was going on.

[Iangould]

If they were spying on Al Queida, they'd have done it through the FISA court. There's no reason whatsoever not to, despite what Republican pundits keep saying. And there's a very big reason to do it -- it doesn't open you up to accusations of criminality and extralegal power-grabs.

The only reason to cut the court oversight out of the process is to engage in wiretaps on people that the court wouldn't let you wiretap.

Or you have a very long list of targets and the taps are regarded as urgent - just playing Devil's Advocate here.

the right-wing Talking Point De Jour is that the FISA Court rejetced an application to search Mousaoui's (sp.?) computer hard disc when he was arrested a few weeks before 9/11.

If that's correct, it makes it more understandable that the Administration wouldn't necessarily have confidence in the FISA Court.

[Paradox]

Theophilus makes me pull out epithet #2:

If he was, there would be one of two reasons. He would either want to know when stories were breaking so he could prepare a counterattack, or he would want to kill the story.

If it's the first, he shouldn't bother. He usually waits far too long to even answer accusations, and he doesn't give off an aura of extensive preparation for the time that these stories will hit. For instance, the inopportune spying story on the day the Patriot Act was up for renewal. Personally, while I support him, I'm glad the story broke that day. I don't want a permanent Patriot Act. But I hope you get my point about spying on journalists.

If it's the second, it's the lousiest grab for power ever. He never stops the stories from breaking.

So if he is monitoring journalists, it's not working.

Heh, I think the error in following that is the assumption that he actually thinks stuff through. I don't think anyone's going to be labeling George W. "The Logic President". :)

[Paul McEnery]

Or you have a very long list of targets and the taps are regarded as urgent - just playing Devil's Advocate here.

the right-wing Talking Point De Jour is that the FISA Court rejetced an application to search Mousaoui's (sp.?) computer hard disc when he was arrested a few weeks before 9/11.

If that's correct, it makes it more understandable that the Administration wouldn't necessarily have confidence in the FISA Court.
If that's correct, you can bugger me with the Eiffel Tower.

[Corrina]

An NY Times front-page article today about the domestic spying claims the volume of information collected is much larger than the White House has acknowledged.

As I said before, those who believe the White House has told the complete truth about the domestic spying without warrents aren't thinking very hard, considering this administration hasn't told the full truth about ANYTHING yet.

[Nick Soapdish]

Or you have a very long list of targets and the taps are regarded as urgent - just playing Devil's Advocate here.

the right-wing Talking Point De Jour is that the FISA Court rejected an application to search Mousaoui's (sp.?) computer hard disc when he was arrested a few weeks before 9/11.

If that's correct, it makes it more understandable that the Administration wouldn't necessarily have confidence in the FISA Court.

According to EPIC (http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html) (and unfortunately, I don't know how reliable they are), the only four applications that were denied were during Dubya's reign. However, they were all in the year 2003.

The website I referenced also shows that more applications were approved than were presented in a few years and some were neither approved nor denied (possibly withdrawn?).

[Nick Soapdish]

Then you are buying into the media myth. More people are killed with weak .22 caliber rimfire rounds than anything else. When was the last time a civillian killed somebody with a legal automatic weapon in the US? Here's a clue "not once since the 1930s!" yet there are approximately 130,000 legal, transferrable automatic weapons. (Sabrina is lucky enough to own one)

In that case, we can also infer that no civilians have killed any criminals with one in self-defense since the 1930s.

Statistically, it's almost a certainty (unless the incident didn't happen very often) that if they were used in home defense, that somebody would've been killed by one. So we can assume that they haven't been used (successfully or not) very often in home defense to protect private property and lives.

They're out there but they aren't doing anything. They are EXTREMELY regulated -contrary to popular belief- (You have to have it transferred and registered as per the NFA. Said registration and transfer takes 6 months, and a $200 tax is levied on applicants, PLUS the fact that there are only 130,000 such weapons drives up the price. An M16A1 usually goes for the same price as a moderately priced used car.). If nobody has ever used one such weapon in a crime, why should it concern you?


By extremely regulated, I presume that you also mean well-regulated.

So how did we get illegal ones that are being used in crimes? It seems like the process had to have broken down somewhere.

[BlairH]

In that case, we can also infer that no civilians have killed any criminals with one in self-defense since the 1930s.
Dude, they are collector's items, not self defense weapons. Most people I know who have a transferrable fully automatic weapon also have a pistol for defensive use. Why? Because carrying an M16 assault rifle around gets tiresome.

Statistically, it's almost a certainty (unless the incident didn't happen very often) that if they were used in home defense, that somebody would've been killed by one. So we can assume that they haven't been used (successfully or not) very often in home defense to protect private property and lives.
In comparison to regular guns, NFA registered weapons are just too few in number to be seen to be used in defense. What I don't get is, why is it that you are attacking it from this angle? So what if they are not used in defense? They certianly aren't used in offense either, so what's the problem? Why be afraid of mere collector's items?

So how did we get illegal ones that are being used in crimes? It seems like the process had to have broken down somewhere.
"Daddy, where do AK47s come from?"
Over 90% of shipping containers coming in to the US are not inspected...

Furthermore: Criminals don't usually use automatic weapons (even illegal ones). They do in some states (California. Yes. The state with the most draconian weapon laws) but mostly they go for cheap crap guns "saturday night specials". Indeed, most gun crime in this Country is comitted by guns built from common household materials.

Did you know the famous UK WWII Sten submachinegun is constructed from some steel tubing and some springs?

And now you know!
GI JOE!

[StoneGold]

Did you know the famous UK WWII Sten submachinegun is constructed from some steel tubing and some springs?
!
And I can make mustard gas with a toilet bowl full of bleach and my own urine. What's your point?

[BlairH]

And I can make mustard gas with a toilet bowl full of bleach and my own urine. What's your point?
My point is that deadly weapons can be constructed regardless of whether or not said weapons are "legal".

As long as the knowlege is there to make the weapons, there will always be weapons around. You can't erase knolege with legislation.

[StoneGold]

My point is that deadly weapons can be constructed regardless of whether or not said weapons are "legal".

As long as the knowlege is there to make the weapons, there will always be weapons around. You can't erase knolege with legislation.
Sure, so might as well just let the Iranians build their nukes, right?

[BlairH]

Sure, so might as well just let the Iranians build their nukes, right?

Well passing a law "banning" their nukes certianly isn't going to do anything.

The 2nd ammendment states
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

It does NOT however say:
"A well regulated Islamic Theocracy, being necessary to the security of a free Dictatorship, the right of the fundamentalist regime to keep and bear nuclear weapons, shall not be infringed."

[StoneGold]

Well passing a law "banning" their nukes certianly isn't going to do anything.

The 2nd ammendment states
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

It does NOT however say:
"A well regulated Islamic Theocracy, being necessary to the security of a free Dictatorship, the right of the fundamentalist regime to keep and bear nuclear weapons, shall not be infringed."
And neither of those have anything to do with what you said before, which is since they aren't hard to make, why bother regulating them?

[BlairH]

And neither of those have anything to do with what you said before, which is since they aren't hard to make, why bother regulating them?

Well, y'see I think an analogy can be drawn here.

In the US, Felons are not allowed to keep and bear arms. They shed that right when they commit the crime.

I consider Iran to be a nation with a Felony.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Back to the topic at hand:


Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.

Isn't this the ultimate hubris? The FISA Court, whose sole job is to ensure that these wiretaps comply with constitutional protections, modifies and rejects some warrant applications and Bush decides to bypass the entire process as a result.

Personally, I'm doing everything I can to ensure Democratic control after the 06 elections. The man deserves nothing less than impeachment.

[Nick Soapdish]

Dude, they are collector's items, not self defense weapons. Most people I know who have a transferrable fully automatic weapon also have a pistol for defensive use. Why? Because carrying an M16 assault rifle around gets tiresome.


In comparison to regular guns, NFA registered weapons are just too few in number to be seen to be used in defense. What I don't get is, why is it that you are attacking it from this angle? So what if they are not used in defense? They certianly aren't used in offense either, so what's the problem? Why be afraid of mere collector's items?


I'm attacking it from this angle because the refrain that I keep hearing (although not from you that I recall) for why we need to be able to keep guns ... including fully-automatic weapons ... is for defense.

I don't really have a problem with pistols (which are useful for defense). I'd rather live in a nice, fluffy world where nobody ever needed guns or went hungry, etc. But since we don't, I see a role for guns.

I don't really have a problem with hunting rifles either. I'd rather go back to bow-and-arrow hunting as it's more sporting, but it'd also result in more injured animals. Plus, archery is hard.

I like shotguns (although I don't own one).

I just don't see the need for automatic weapons. So there's sporting events using them. There have been sporting events using lions and ... um, bad example. You can buy lions, although it's tough. But the point is that it's not for sport anymore. Just because you can think of a sport with something doesn't mean it has to be legalized.

And although you haven't accused me of it yet, I am not opposing automatic weapons only with the expectation that if I succeed in banning those, that I can then move on to other weapons. (For some reason, I get that a lot.) I have had my doubts about the founders' intent with the 2nd amendment, but I don't see how to put the genie back in the bottle and the current administration has done an excellent job of demonstrating why it might be important for a country's citizens to have guns and dispelling any remaining doubts about the subject.

[Calybos]

In the US, Felons are not allowed to keep and bear arms. They shed that right when they commit the crime.

I consider Iran to be a nation with a Felony.
Under whose law? And why should the US (or any other country) have any say over what other nations do within their own borders?

[Harry Angel]

Under whose law? And why should the US (or any other country) have any say over what other nations do within their own borders?



Not that the current US government has much to brag about, but Iran has constantly broken or ignored international treaty and laws for the last 30 years, including supporting terrorists, attempting to build nukes and least we forget holding American citizens hostage for over a year.

Just because they don't like the US doesn't suddenly turn them into martyrs for international sovereignty.

[Nick Soapdish]

Not that the current US government has much to brag about, but Iran has constantly broken or ignored international treaty and laws for the last 30 years, including supporting terrorists, attempting to build nukes and least we forget holding American citizens hostage for over a year.

Just because they don't like the US doesn't suddenly turn them into martyrs for international sovereignty.

Yep. They're the country that we would've and do have a great case to invade - at least going by the reasons that we claimed - ties to terrorism (including al-Qaeda, I believe) that were a bit more substantial than "I'll pay money to the families of suicide bombers", WMDs, and they're pursuing a nuclear program. Plus, their prez has publically called for the destruction of Israel and claimed that the Holocaust was a myth.

And they're about as much of a democracy as Iraq is likely to become. Encouraging thought, eh?

[Iangould]

Actually on the basis of proven ties to Al Qaeda, war-crimes against it's own people, attempts to develop WMDs, attemtps to destabilise its neighbours and an immediate humanitarian crisis, Sudan was an even better candidate.

Take out the war-crimes and humanitarian crisis and the same applies to Pakistan.

[Harry Angel]

Actually on the basis of proven ties to Al Qaeda, war-crimes against it's own people, attempts to develop WMDs, attemtps to destabilise its neighbours and an immediate humanitarian crisis, Sudan was an even better candidate.

Take out the war-crimes and humanitarian crisis and the same applies to Pakistan.


Okay, but how does any of that change that Iran has the record that it has?

[Iangould]

Just pointing out to Nick, who seems to be arguing in favor of an invasion of Iran, that bad as they are there are others that are even worse.

[Tages]

Sure, so might as well just let the Iranians build their nukes, right?
Because nuclear weapons are completely comparable to guns, despite that one can discriminate targets and the other cannot.

[Nick Soapdish]

Not really.

I was just playing off the Jon Stewart joke that the Dubya admin did pretty well going to war - they only got one letter wrong.

[BlairH]

I just don't see the need for automatic weapons.
Just like any other civil liberty, there is no "need" about it. The question of civil liberties should not be subject to a means test.

Just because you can think of a sport with something doesn't mean it has to be legalized.

Conversley, just because something is contraversial doesn't mean it has to be criminalised. If one wishes to criminalise a certian object or behaviour, there has to be a need to do so. (onus is not on "us" to "keep" our right.)

[StoneGold]

Because nuclear weapons are completely comparable to guns, despite that one can discriminate targets and the other cannot.
Hey, no more inane than the argument that because the British government could make Stens out of relatively simple parts in WWII, it means anyone can manufacture a fully automatic weapon.


In other words, it was supposed to be a stupid argument.

[Noah Johnson]

On the actual thread topic, have any of Bush's defenses for ignoring the law, the constitution, and the concept of separation of powers NOT proven to be complete lies yet? I just want to see if any of Bush's defenders here have any talking points that haven't yet been utterly discredited. It's looking to me like the president broke the law on purpose, a lot, and is saying he intends to keep doing so. Am I missing something?

[JeffreyWKramer]

On the actual thread topic, have any of Bush's defenses for ignoring the law, the constitution, and the concept of separation of powers NOT proven to be complete lies yet? I just want to see if any of Bush's defenders here have any talking points that haven't yet been utterly discredited. It's looking to me like the president broke the law on purpose, a lot, and is saying he intends to keep doing so. Am I missing something?

Yeah. You're missing Rumsfield's pep talks about the war in Iraq.

Why do you hate freedom?

[BlairH]

the British government could make Stens out of relatively simple parts in WWII.
By the "British Government" I hope you mean "40-60 year old machinists in their garage", because otherwise my mother's Great Grandfather is spinning in his grave.

[Nick Soapdish]

Just like any other civil liberty, there is no "need" about it. The question of civil liberties should not be subject to a means test.


Conversely, just because something is controversial doesn't mean it has to be criminalized. If one wishes to criminalize a certain object or behaviour, there has to be a need to do so. (onus is not on "us" to "keep" our right.)

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't specify the right to bear automatic weapons. It says "arms". Why not nuclear, eh? In fact, if I was an originalist, I'd be more than happy that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for it to include automatic weapons. (One could just as easily make the opposite argument that they didn't intend to exclude them.) The point is that somebody is arbitrarily drawing a line as to what sort of arms the citizens have the right to bear. Having a difference of opinion as to where that line should be drawn doesn't necessarily mean that one is against the right.

Your second point is a good one and with which I agree. However, based on the (admittedly cursory) information that I have, I am satisfied that there is sufficient need.

[Nick Soapdish]

Not sure if any of Bush's talking points have been proved to have been lies, but he has been proved to have been lying.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

Dubya then (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#)

Bush now (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html) (It's already been posted here.)

[BlairH]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't specify the right to bear automatic weapons.
Does the first ammendment apply only to mere quill pens and old fasioned printing presses? No! It applies to all of our modern impliments of communication.

It says "arms". Why not nuclear, eh?
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" The wordd "people" implying personal (individual. This is the Bill of rights, which refers to individual, not collective rights). An automatic weapon is an individual, personal weapon. A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction, and requires a certian level of governmental and industrial infrastructure. Therefor, the 2nd ammendment applies to automatic weapons, but not nukes.

I am satisfied that there is sufficient need.
What need are we referring to? If we are talking about protection of the public, then I am afraid we are at odds. As I said before, these registered weapons are not the weapons of criminals. They are the weapons of collectors and rich sportsmen. When I say "rich" I mean somebody who is willing to spend $16,000 on an M16A1 (a weapon that by rights should only cost $900). They're just not used in crimes. What's the point in banning them?

Even if one were to ban these weapons, what exactly would the compensation be to the owners? $16,000 (minimum) multiplied by 130,000 guns equals $2080000000. (this figure assumes that every NFA registered automatic weapon is a basic, unmodified M16A1. One has to remember that there are many NFA registered weapons with a higher dollar value reflecting collector status)Think of what that money could be spent on. Useful stuff that needs to be done, I'd wager.

Further, many of the firearms in question have historic value. It would be a crime against history to confiscate and lock them up somewhere or -worse still- destroy them.

[Iangould]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't specify the right to bear automatic weapons. It says "arms". Why not nuclear, eh? In fact, if I was an originalist, I'd be more than happy that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for it to include automatic weapons.

After a fair bit of reading on the topic, I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "well-ordered militia" was not intended to be limiting. It sets out one reason for supporting the right to bear arms but not the only one.

Nevertheless it IS the only enumerated one. So the original intent of the document was, in part, that "the people" should have access to military-standard weapons.

Whether that's still a sensible approach given changes in the interim to the destructive capacity of military weapons, I'm not sure.

But if it isn't, I'd suggest the Constitution requries revision.

[Iangould]

"This is the Bill of rights, which refers to individual, not collective rights)."

Actually from memory, (and I may be mistaken) the Bill of Rights also dealt specifically with the rights of the states and their relationship with the Federal government.

[BlairH]

But if it isn't, I'd suggest the Constitution requries revision.
When that day comes, I'd argue that is the time to make use of the 2nd. Call me crazy, paranoid or whatever but I think the beauty of the 2nd is that when "they" try to take it away, that's when you know you needed it all along.

[Nick Soapdish]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" The word "people" implying personal (individual. This is the Bill of rights, which refers to individual, not collective rights). An automatic weapon is an individual, personal weapon. A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction, and requires a certain level of governmental and industrial infrastructure. Therefor, the 2nd ammendment applies to automatic weapons, but not nukes.

And the word "militia" implies the opposite. When the Constitution was drafted (or more precisely, when the 2nd Amendment was adopted), were there any weapons that it would not have allowed?

What need are we referring to? If we are talking about protection of the public, then I am afraid we are at odds.

I'm OK with that.

Even if one were to ban these weapons, what exactly would the compensation be to the owners? $16,000 (minimum) multiplied by 130,000 guns equals $2080000000. (this figure assumes that every NFA registered automatic weapon is a basic, unmodified M16A1. One has to remember that there are many NFA registered weapons with a higher dollar value reflecting collector status)Think of what that money could be spent on. Useful stuff that needs to be done, I'd wager.

Like we'd use it on useful stuff. ;)

A brief internet search suggests that the replacement price of an M16A1 is around $5 to 6K. Is the rest of that the license fee? :confused:

Further, many of the firearms in question have historic value. It would be a crime against history to confiscate and lock them up somewhere or -worse still- destroy them.

What's wrong with museums? Heck, if they have historic value, that's a better argument for them being locked up somewhere.

Honestly, I wouldn't bother with buying back all the guns. Or confiscating them. Or destroying them. Genie in the bottle again.

I just don't want anymore to get sold. Heck, that might already be the case. At least, that's the impression that I get from the NRA sorts, but they could be exaggerating a bit.


So can we get back to Dubya lying again? I wasn't really trying to derail the thread. :p

[BlairH]

And the word "militia" implies the opposite. When the Constitution was drafted (or more precisely, when the 2nd Amendment was adopted), were there any weapons that it would not have allowed?
It starts with "a well regulated militia", but finishes with "the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed." How do we distinguish the militia from the citizenry? Are they not ourselves?


A brief internet search suggests that the replacement price of an M16A1 is around $5 to 6K. Is the rest of that the license fee? :confused:
That's probably trade price or the price for LE agencies or something (or post dealer samples), the actual price for an M16A1 is around the $16,000 mark and then there's a $200 tax stamp.

M16A2s go for around the price of a small house:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976626620.htm

Here's a really cheap M16A1:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976666875.htm

What's wrong with museums?
Living history commands involvement with the people. Handling historic firearms connects us to the past more than any firearms museum exhibit.

I just don't want anymore to get sold. Heck, that might already be the case. At least, that's the impression that I get from the NRA sorts, but they could be exaggerating a bit.
This is the case right now. As of 1986, no NEW full-auto machineguns can be manufactured for civillian sales. There are around 130,000 pre 1986 full auto weapons around that can be "transferred" from one owner to another. This is why the price is so high. (and the price is rising around 10% per year per gun)

[Harry Angel]

It's sort of amazing to see just how far this thread has drifted.

For the record, I like guns, I own several and think that they are just swell.

But how about we talk about the fact that the President of the United States has broken federal laws involving the privicay of American citizens for no apparent reason other then that he seems to think that the Execustive Branch does not answer to the other two.

What is wrong with you people?

This is really serious stuff that will affect the rules of how we are governed for the forceable future.

It really is time for us to decide if we want to be governed or ruled, and getting sidetracked onto other issues is pure foolishness.

I don't care if you are on the Left or on the Right, WAKE UP.

Our liberties are being eaten away a little at a time and all we can do is argue minutia.

[Nick Soapdish]

Sorry about derailing the topic.

[Harry Angel]

And how hard is it to convert semi-automatics?

harry starts to bang his head, slowly but methodically against the wall.

[Sam]

After a fair bit of reading on the topic, I've come to the conclusion that the phrase "well-ordered militia" was not intended to be limiting. It sets out one reason for supporting the right to bear arms but not the only one.

Nevertheless it IS the only enumerated one. So the original intent of the document was, in part, that "the people" should have access to military-standard weapons.

Whether that's still a sensible approach given changes in the interim to the destructive capacity of military weapons, I'm not sure.

But if it isn't, I'd suggest the Constitution requries revision.

Absolutely. People like to pretend the founders didn't want people to have military-grade hardware, but they were fairly explicit in their writings that that's exactly what they wanted. Thomas Jefferson couldn't shut up about it. He pretty much thought that an armed to the teeth populace was the best idea since the Enlightenment, on the basis that governments really should be more afraid of their people than the people are of their government.

He figured it would be impossible for a government to impose its will on an an armed citizenry if the citizens didn't want to go along with it. He also wrote at fairly great length about the fact that he wanted the people to be well armed enough to overthrow the government basically whenever they felt like it.

If modern America thinks that's a bad idea, by all means we should have the debate. But the framers of the Constitution wanted a civilian population capable of beating the federal army in a shooting war.

[BlairH]

And how hard is it to convert semi-automatics?
Depends on the gun. I shouldn't go into speifics though, but suffice to say, most semi-autos are reasonably hard to convert.

[Sam]

But how about we talk about the fact that the President of the United States has broken federal laws involving the privicay of American citizens for no apparent reason other then that he seems to think that the Execustive Branch does not answer to the other two.

What is wrong with you people?

It really is time for us to decide if we want to be governed or ruled, and getting sidetracked onto other issues is pure foolishness.

I don't care if you are on the Left or on the Right, WAKE UP.

Our liberties are being eaten away a little at a time and all we can do is argue minutia.

Yeah, the fact that we aren't already having riots in the street is a pretty bad sign for American democracy. If this is allowed to stand, we will no longer live in a Democracy as envisioned by the founders of the country. We will live in a police state where the executive branch can disregard the law as long as it waves security in our faces as an excuse (when it even bothers to make an excuse).

"But only during wartime!" I hear apologists cry. Ah, but you forget -- first, they were clever enough to put us into a perpetual, neverending war against a nebulous, ever-changing enemy who can never be completely defeated.

I'll say this for the neocons, they've certainly been reading their Orwell.

[Nick Soapdish]

harry starts to bang his head, slowly but methodically against the wall.

I went back and edited it!

Right away!

(See the time stamp?)

It wasn't my fault. Honest... I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD. :cool:


So anyone want to respond on Bush then vs. Bush now?

"a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." vs. "inherent authority of the President" (not an exact quote for the latter)

[Iangould]

I'll say this for the neocons, they've certainly been reading their Orwell.

Supposedly Babylon 5 is one of Bush's favorite TV shows.

Someone needs to tell him President Clark wasn't the protagonist.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Supposedly Babylon 5 is one of Bush's favorite TV shows.


Along with Barney?

[Iangould]

A dinosaur?

Dubya wouldn't support that secular humanist pro-evolution "man is just an animal" propaganda.

[Mike Smash!]

It's sort of amazing to see just how far this thread has drifted.

For the record, I like guns, I own several and think that they are just swell.

But how about we talk about the fact that the President of the United States has broken federal laws involving the privicay of American citizens for no apparent reason other then that he seems to think that the Execustive Branch does not answer to the other two.

What is wrong with you people?

This is really serious stuff that will affect the rules of how we are governed for the forceable future.

It really is time for us to decide if we want to be governed or ruled, and getting sidetracked onto other issues is pure foolishness.

I don't care if you are on the Left or on the Right, WAKE UP.

Our liberties are being eaten away a little at a time and all we can do is argue minutia.Amen, brother.

Why is it that we start a thread and argue about invasions of privacy and the erosion of our civil liberties and always fall into a three page gun control debate with Blair?

The government spying on it's citizens without probable cause or warrant is not only unethical, it's highly illegal. With this, the PATRIOT Act and the botched TIPS programs designed to have Americans spying on one another, looking for the "enemy within", I can't see how anyone but a total authoritarian could support this sort of action and try to retcon justifications on it.

This Administration has directed policies that has government and law enforcement infiltrating peace groups, including a number of Quaker groups, to spy on them and in a couple of instances they've been reported as unsuccessfully trying to provoke a group into violence. One peace group -- and I forget the name -- reported that one had come to a public meeting and suggesting they plant fake bombs. They shot the idea down and asked him to leave, but the affect is done. A person coming to a meeting for the first time might think that he's an activist other than an undercover cop and say "I want no part of a group that has people like him".

What scares me is that this activity is equating peaceful dissent and activism as criminal activity. Considering that there are activists from every end of the political spectrum.

It really chills me to see people actually say that invasion of privacy and erosion of civil liberties are alright because "they don't affect me".

[BlairH]

Amen, brother.

Why is it that we start a thread and argue about invasions of privacy and the erosion of our civil liberties and always fall into a three page gun control debate with Blair?
It's just the nature of civil liberties. Each distinct civil liberty does not run in paralell to the other, they intertwine, and can not be separated.


It really chills me to see people actually say that invasion of privacy and erosion of civil liberties are alright because "they don't affect me".
Indeed.

[Sam]

Supposedly Babylon 5 is one of Bush's favorite TV shows.

Someone needs to tell him President Clark wasn't the protagonist.

You missed the best part of that anecdote, which I will now relate for all the people on the thread who never heard it: Bruce Boxleitner was at the White House for some reason or other. While he was there, none other than Karl Rove poked his head in the door and glowingly praised Boxleitner's role as Captain Sheridan, telling him that it was both his own and the President's favorite science fiction show.

And given that Rove is supposed to be a huge geek, I can actually buy that.

(Though I tend to picture Bush more as a Londo figure. A foolish but well-meaning drunkard who rules as a puppet for darker, more sinister manipulators who want to cause a war.)

[Iangould]

It's just the nature of civil liberties. Each distinct civil liberty does not run in paralell to the other, they intertwine, and can not be separated.

So how come gun threasds never get hi-jacked into discussions of free speech or the right to vote?

[StoneGold]

So how come gun threasds never get hi-jacked into discussions of free speech or the right to vote?
Because you didn't win a contest.

[BlairH]

So how come gun threads never get hi-jacked into discussions of free speech or the right to vote?

Not so much right to vote, but I'm sure somebody "hijacked" the last gc thread from a 1st ammendment perspective. The first ammendment does not only apply to the printing press and quill pens etc. This then led to a debate on pornography and various limits on free speech (was this on another forum?)

[Noah Johnson]

It's just the nature of civil liberties. Each distinct civil liberty does not run in paralell to the other, they intertwine, and can not be separated.

C'mon, Blair. You just like talking about guns. Admit that, face it, try and manage it.

Anyway, the real issue here is how Republicans are going to avoid discussion of the word "impeachment". There's absolutely no way they can make any legal claim that Bush acted within the bounds of his office, and after the ludicrous stink they made about Clinton within recent memory, they're going to have a hard time claiming that that was worth impeachment and this isn't. Therefore, their best move is just to avoid the subject entirely, don't let the word be spoken out loud, and either pray for a change of subject or arrange one. The advantage they have is a completely cowed media that will parrot their talking points without question for fear of getting called liberal. Their disadvantage is that Bush really is guilty.