It isn't Republicans vs. Democrats. It's Washington vs. everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Printable View
It isn't Republicans vs. Democrats. It's Washington vs. everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
There have been votes on amending the laws the allow the NSA to do this going on, and the party lines are going haywire.
They can amend the laws all they want, but it doesn't seem as though it would be constitutional without an amendment.
LOL constitution. like that thing means anything anymore.
Ramona Lisa sent me this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...e-program.html
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I thought it was clearly illegal that Bush was wiretapping Americans without a warrant, but apparently there was some super secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that made everything legal and okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
And... here's the thing... the courts agreed. Including FISA but not only FISA. So that interpretation has been given the blessing of the one institution that could stop it.
That is what I find most disturbing about all this. Every totalitarian country had or has judges that interpret laws and set precedents and all that. Many of them also have constitutions that guarantee basic freedoms (seriously - read a translation of North Korea's constitution one day, it's a good laugh). So we have a judiciary that is all set to give the government ultra-broad spying powers while claiming everything is constitutional and legal. That's the real problem.
"Mr. President, no one is saying you broke any laws, we're just saying it's a little bit weird you didn't have to." -John Oliver
I have a recentlly retired family member that worked at the pentagon. They've been in the secret meeting rooms that play the buzz noise and other such things for anti wiretap crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I've talked to them about this stuff in passing. About how I don't think it is constitutional and that there is no checks and balances on it because the public doesn't know. Because we can't vote people out or let our feelings be known about the unknown. About the secret meetings, about unknown wire taps, etc.
You know what their response was? That there was checks and balances because governing bodies meet and discuss these things. They have a very sterile, academic idea of what checks and balances mean. The populace isn't a part of it after they cast their votes, ito.
Their biggest gripe was that what we had wasn't working. It doesn't catch people. It didn't catch the last bomber. They didn't come out and say it, but they probably felt that we should actually do more.
Thats how people on the inside feel about this garbage. Its all ok because its business as usual for them. They're all meeting about it and keeping records. Thats checks and balances right? It isn't our job to worry about it.
Yea, if the court basically says all this stuff is kosher, then sure, we have judicial review, it's just meaningless. Actually worse than meaningless - dangerous.
It just so happens that the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS appoints the FISA court, and Roberts has been staffing it with authoritarian crazies.
I remember how NY Times held out news about the Bush warrantless wiretapping until after the 2004 election. Even though we were talking about an administration that, as you point out, believed in one "accountability moment" and that was the 2004 election. It was a betrayal.