TREASON

[therealUT]

The Buck Stops Here Liberal America

The NY Times will be probed concerning 3 incidents, the NSA Interception of International phone calls, NSA reviewing phone records, and just recently the government program which tracks international money transfers. One can only hope that the investigation leads to the Times not only losing their government credentials, but also, ends with a treason conviction. What was the maximum penalty for treason again? Oh, yes, death.

 

[hatvol96]

The Buck Stops Here Liberal America

The NY Times will be probed concerning 3 incidents, the NSA Interception of International phone calls, NSA reviewing phone records, and just recently the government program which tracks international money transfers. One can only hope that the investigation leads to the Times not only losing their government credentials, but also, ends with a treason conviction. What was the maximum penalty for treason again? Oh, yes, death.

Good to see you really believe in the First Amendment. I suppose you're a fan of state run media. It worked so well for the Soviet Union.

 

[volinbham]

Interesting that the press views itself as a "check" to the government but claims that it polices itself - serves as it's own check.

 

[therealUT]

Good to see you really believe in the First Amendment. I suppose you're a fan of state run media. It worked so well for the Soviet Union.

I believe in the First Amendment, I also believe that treason exists. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, and that is what the Times has in effect done by limiting our governments LEGAL rights to pursue terrorists.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I believe in the First Amendment, I also believe that treason exists. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, and that is what the Times has in effect done by limiting our governments LEGAL rights to pursue terrorists.

Who said any of this was legal? There is no oversight and no review of this in the courts....hard to call something legal when only one branch of government says so. Executive Branch is supposed to execute law and constitution....where in either is this legal?

 

[hatvol96]

Interesting that the press views itself as a "check" to the government but claims that it polices itself - serves as it's own check.

It doesn't work any other way. Do you think the Nixon administration would have allowed reporting on Watergate if they could "check" the press? Would Iran-Contra or Whitewater/Lewinsky ever have seen the light of day? I'm sure those in power would absolutely love to have the ability to muzzle open discussion and exposition of their actions.

 

[therealUT]

where in either is this legal?

Since you asked.

the Supreme Court held nearly 30 years ago that records in the hands of third parties — including financial records maintained by banks — are not private, and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, to the extent Congress later supplemented privacy protections by statute, those laws regulated disclosures by financial institutions. SWIFT is not a financial institution.

NEXT PLEASE!

 

[smokedog#3]

somebody has to keep W and the rest of the traitors in washington in line. the news is doing just that.

 

[volinbham]

It doesn't work any other way. Do you think the Nixon administration would have allowed reporting on Watergate if they could "check" the press? Would Iran-Contra or Whitewater/Lewinsky ever have seen the light of day? I'm sure those in power would absolutely love to have the ability to muzzle open discussion and exposition of their actions.

I'm not suggesting the government serve as the check - just pointing out that the press operates without a check but often claims it's role as check to the government.

I understand the system and am not suggesting it be any other way -- however, whenever one entity claims that other entities can't be trusted but it (the press) can be trusted I'm skeptical.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Since you asked.
NEXT PLEASE!

So you're telling me the 1996 Telecommunications Bill upheld by the SCOTUS is unconstitutional? WRONG! Nice try. I'll give you a point for effort though.

 

[hatvol96]

Who said any of this was legal? There is no oversight and no review of this in the courts....hard to call something legal when only one branch of government says so. Executive Branch is supposed to execute law and constitution....where in either is this legal?

Don't ask that question. By attempting to vindicate the rule of law and Constitutional protections this nation has been built on, you are committing treason and aiding terrorists. In fact, I hope the government is tapping your phone right now. I think you should be banned from this board for suggesting the separation of powers explicitly laid out in the Constitution be followed. By not agreeing that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Al Gonzalez should decide what is and isn't legal in America today, you have exposed yourself as an obvious Al Quaeda sympathizer.

 

[therealUT]

Not at all. All the survellaince, phone records, and financial records are used to track non-American citizens who are terrorists. They are not admissable in American courts as evidence. So, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

[volinbham]

Who said any of this was legal? There is no oversight and no review of this in the courts....hard to call something legal when only one branch of government says so. Executive Branch is supposed to execute law and constitution....where in either is this legal?

At least 2 branches have been involved in this one.

Congress has been consulted as have outside entities (e.g. 9/11 Commission).

Not only did the administration request that this classified information not be published, but several Congressional members (including democrats that have been critics of the administration) did as well. Additionally, the two chairs of the 9/11 Commission (who rated this program as highly effective) also tried to convince the Times and others to hold off on the story.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

The Buck Stops Here Liberal America

The NY Times will be probed concerning 3 incidents, the NSA Interception of International phone calls, NSA reviewing phone records, and just recently the government program which tracks international money transfers. One can only hope that the investigation leads to the Times not only losing their government credentials, but also, ends with a treason conviction. What was the maximum penalty for treason again? Oh, yes, death.

realUT, you really crack me up sometimes. If you had your way, everybody who disagrees with you would be rounded up and locked in prision for life. SIEG HEIL

 

[CSpindizzy]

I just love how people think just because W does something, it must be legal. People have forgotten Watergate and similar scandals where executives have abused their authority all in the name of their own agenda. I guess unchecked power in this country no longer means tyranny. The government spies on you with phone calls, emails, and financial transactions.....20 years ago that would have been the USSR. Now it is in the name of the 'war on terror'.

Few realize that the precedents being set by this man are now set for life. Unchecked powers of the presidency will continue to become larger and be abused even more. And the people will just follow along like good little patriots as their government erodes their rights.

 

[volinbham]

Don't ask that question. By attempting to vindicate the rule of law and Constitutional protections this nation has been built on, you are committing treason and aiding terrorists. In fact, I hope the government is tapping your phone right now. I think you should be banned from this board for suggesting the separation of powers explicitly laid out in the Constitution be followed. By not agreeing that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Al Gonzalez should decide what is and isn't legal in America today, you have exposed yourself as an obvious Al Quaeda sympathizer.

:lol: as surely as the sun rises, you always offer one of these ridiculous mischaracterizations of a position.

 

[smokedog#3]

I just love how people think just because W does something, it must be legal. People have forgotten Watergate and similar scandals where executives have abused their authority all in the name of their own agenda. I guess unchecked power in this country no longer means tyranny. The government spies on you with phone calls, emails, and financial transactions.....20 years ago that would have been the USSR. Now it is in the name of the 'war on terror'.

Few realize that the precedents being set by this man are now set for life. Unchecked powers of the presidency will continue to become larger and be abused even more. And the people will just follow along like good little patriots as their government erodes their rights.

i agree 100%, preach it brother.

 

[therealUT]

I just love how people think just because W does something, it must be legal. People have forgotten Watergate and similar scandals where executives have abused their authority all in the name of their own agenda. I guess unchecked power in this country no longer means tyranny. The government spies on you with phone calls, emails, and financial transactions.....20 years ago that would have been the USSR. Now it is in the name of the 'war on terror'.

Few realize that the precedents being set by this man are now set for life. Unchecked powers of the presidency will continue to become larger and be abused even more. And the people will just follow along like good little patriots as their government erodes their rights.

Funny, I thought FDR had similar surveillance programs, and set plenty of precedents regarding it.

 

[hatvol96]

:lol: as surely as the sun rises, you always offer one of these ridiculous mischaracterizations of a position.

Funny, other than the Bushophiles posting in this thread, everyone seems to think it was on the mark.

 

[volinbham]

I just love how people think just because W does something, it must be legal.

Or how people think if he does something it must be illegal? :ninja:

Since we are arguing the Constitution, shouldn't we be concerned with due process? As I've stated repeatedly in these discussions, IF the programs are found to be illegal then I'll have a different opinion. Until then I'll reserve judgement.

 

[volinbham]

Funny, other than the Bushophiles posting in this thread, everyone seems to think it was on the mark.

New definition of everyone: Hatvol96 and Smokedog

 

[CSpindizzy]

At least 2 branches have been involved in this one.

Congress has been consulted as have outside entities (e.g. 9/11 Commission).

Not only did the administration request that this classified information not be published, but several Congressional members (including democrats that have been critics of the administration) did as well. Additionally, the two chairs of the 9/11 Commission (who rated this program as highly effective) also tried to convince the Times and others to hold off on the story.

Are you only referring to one out of three mentioned or are you referring to all 3? I am responding to the original post. And a few members of Congress, not even the full committees as required by law, are not my ideal of consulting Congress. The fact they cannot say anything even if wrong was committed is even more a joke.

And why did the GOP merely say 'hold off'? Why say hold off, implying to try later, if this was so wrong? And why is W waiting until Monday to come out attacking?

Last I checked the 9/11 COmmission was not a branch of government. Who cares if they were consulted? And that still avoids the courts. What about review by the courts? Or can we now ignore them?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Since we are arguing the Constitution, shouldn't we be concerned with due process? As I've stated repeatedly in these discussions, IF the programs are found to be illegal then I'll have a different opinion. Until then I'll reserve judgement.

So by your logic a President can do what he wants until he is told it is illegal?

 

[hatvol96]

Or how people think if he does something it must be illegal? :ninja:

Since we are arguing the Constitution, shouldn't we be concerned with due process? As I've stated repeatedly in these discussions, IF the programs are found to be illegal then I'll have a different opinion. Until then I'll reserve judgement.

That's not how it should work. The Bush administration is attempting to act under the theory that forgiveness is easier to get than permission. Once the rights of citizens have been violated, you can't unring the bell. "We're sorry" won't suffice. The Bush administration could have easily applied for the wiretaps from the federal juduciary. They didn't because they don't believe in the strength of the legal arguments undepinning their policies.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Funny, I thought FDR had similar surveillance programs, and set plenty of precedents regarding it.

Did he? Like? Perhaps he actually pursued a proper path to obtain said info. W would be fine if he went the perscribed path. I think it's pathetic that FISA courts give you a retro 72 hour period to get warrants and Bush still can't do that. He'd rather say it takes too long and the courts tie his hands...HOW???

And are you now defending the great 'socialist' FDR?