High Crimes and Misdemeanors

[dhermesc]

Actually I'm trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. Anyone that didn't know that ALL overseas phone calls and emails are subject to monitoring hasn't been paying attention for the past 30 some years.


The current monitoring abilities of the NSA have been common knowledge for 6 or 7 years in MSM. I read about this in a Tom Clancy book years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/library...ticles/27network.html


The issue of "monitoring" overseas phone calls goes back 30 years, first reported in Newsweek in 1975!!!!
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/newswk9-8-75.html


England has developed a system of its own that it shares with NSA.
http://www.danbrown.com/secret...ss/europe_spying.html


Reported by no less then 60 Minutes in 2000.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm


My sister was in Sweden in mid 1990s and joked about the monitoring of overseas phone calls and electronic mail. The electronics company she worked for used encryption for all electronic mail for this very reason. Actually I thought everyone knew that all overseas phonecalls were recorded and monitored.

[dhermesc]

Originally Posted by troylaplante

That is where we differ. If the man lied, so what? I expect worldy men to lie. However, he lied in court, under oath and committed perjury. THAT is a big deal. It doesn't matter if it is connected to his position of Chief Exec. or not. That is not a requisite for impeachment.

So instead they should have let him serve as president while serving 3-5 years in prison?

[troy2000]

...for perjury, if we had done what Clinton did. It simply isn't true.

Walk into divorce court, small claims court, or any civil court where income, assets or sex is being discussed, and you'll hear bigger lies than his before the midmorning potty break.

At the time of the Clinton debacle, there was a handful of people in prison who had pled down to perjury from a more serious charge. But there wasn't a single one serving a sentence solely for perjury in a criminal case, much less in a civil court.

And I remember what my wife said at the time: "if you ever stoop low enough to do something like that behind my back, you'd better at least have the decency to lie about it."

[dhermesc]

Originally Posted by troy2000

...for perjury, if we had done what Clinton did. It simply isn't true.
Walk into divorce court, small claims court, or any civil court where income, assets or sex is being discussed, and you'll hear bigger lies than his before the midmorning potty break."

Scooter Libby might have a differant take on this, isn't he looking at 2-10 years?

[Stopper]

I'm blown away with what I'm reading "if your a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear"??? !!!!!!! is that all about - sounds like a properly brainwashed nazi - papers please - Oh please keep me safe from these made up terrorist!!??!! What panzies you all are - you couldn't handle a bacon bit sized of FREEDOM or LIBERTIES if you had the testicles to fight for them. Some gun owners you sad sacks turned out to be.

Your so frick'n scared the only thing you know what to say is the old worn out "the gummit up will keep me safe" Bullcrap - safe from whom???? Not alot of ships in the terrorist navy, not alot of airplanes in the terrorist airforce???
Whose at our borders waiting to invade???? Anyone?? Buhler???

NOBODY, except some migrant workers - not an ARMY of terrorist waiting to invade to take your women and children - good gawd you folks can't see the forest for the trees

Now fall in line you nazi's - or brownshirts - more like panzies!

Now let's here it - come on, your safe behind your computer, the boogie man isn't hiding under your bed - I wanna here more of your slave mentalities at work -

[Rave]

It is unpatriotic to disagre with Bush,much less criticize him. if you don't agree with him they immediatly start harping that you hate our troops,same old Demo crap,but the characters have changed.
I served my country from '62-66 and am proud of it,even if it was a stupid war,I still served and did as I was told.
I love and respect our troops and tell them that every chance I get,but our leadership sucks.
I have never voted Democrat in my life,and voted for this fool twice before I saw the controling puppet strings,hope we get a deceant choice in 2008.

[Jesse]

Klinton committed perjury and obstructed justice... that's why he was impeached. I seem to remember him also lying to the American public on national TV about his affair. President Bush is guilty of warrantless wiretaps, shame on him... but the precedent was set by many presidents prior to him, going all the way back to FDR in WW2. Constitutional issue... violation of civil rights?... yes, but no president has been impeached for such when the reasoning involves national security. (Watergate was for political gain, so it doesn't fall under the same issue.) Did the wiretaps post 9/11 prevent further attacks? It seems so, I watched 3 different networks last night all share information that would support that information.

I'm upset with alot of things the President has done with broad strokes disregarding the civil liberties given us by our Contitution... like the Patriot Act; but the bottom line is Al Gore or John Kerry could easily be in the Oval Office making the same decisions. I can promise you this, if either of these clowns, or the Iron Maiden of '08 were in charge, the least thing any of you as firearms owners would be worried about would be if wiretaps are Constitutional. The Patriot Act under the previously mentioned administrations would have a mega-Crime Bill AWB2 and possibly National Firearm Registration upon purchase. The "terrorist" would fit your profile as a firearms owner, because in their eyes, you are more of an enemy to them than the Islamic terrorists.

I too am hacked off at some of the things that our President has done, but when I consider the alternative, I'm willing to give the man some slack. I don't condone his actions, but it could be much, much worse.

[dhermesc]

The legality issue was settled during the JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION. Presidence has been established for almost 40 years.


"Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present [Johnson] Administration would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable."
-Byron White, Katz v. United States (1967), conccurring


To be honest I don't agree with the idea that every international phone call is recorded, but then I don't agree with the BATF keeping a record of every firearm I purchase (anyone know if they ever started complying with the law?). Apparently the Supreme Court has held that "national security" gives the executive branch more power then I ever dreamed they had. What would really piss me off is if they were doing this and then NOT USING THE INFORMATION gathered to go after terrorist organizations (you know like the justice department rarely goes after felons that attempt to buy firearms).

[Stopper]

Sorry to go off like I did. I just hate to see good men take such a soft stand when it comes to liberties. The wire tapping is BS, but I can understand the international part of it. But to just sit back and say the gummitup will take care of it, is too rest on your lowrell's. Your rights are like muscles, if you do not excersize them you WILL LOSE them.

PS - I meant no ill feelings towards anyone - just wanted to fire ya'll up is all and hopefully help you get yer heads fastened on straight!!!!

Like dhermesch says - Liberty is for those who claim it!

[dhermesc]

Originally Posted by Stopper

- Liberty is for those who claim it!

Until the moderators removed it.

[troylaplante]

Originally Posted by dhermesc

Actually I'm trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. Anyone that didn't know that ALL overseas phone calls and emails are subject to monitoring hasn't been paying attention for the past 30 some years.

I was wondering the same thing. Even the movie "Enemy of the State" brought up this concept. This is nothing new.

[ShooMac]

Originally Posted by dhermesc

Until the moderators removed it.

Who uttered the incantation which has awoken me from my slumber? Oh, it was dhermesc. Getting on to the thread:
I believe that, by virtue of being a "law abiding citizen", one has all the more reason to expect that the Government will respect their Civil Rights. Just because one does not have anything to hide does not give the Government carte blanche to stick its nose where it has no business. The Fourth Amendment is two doors down from the Second.
"The War on Terror(tm)" is the Conservatives' version of the Liberals' "Think of the Children(tm)": a jingo tacked on to anything and everything in an attempt to deflect scrutiny. Using the McWaronterror to justify the erosion of individual liberties cheapens the real War.
If a couple of BATFE agents showed up at your home today and said "May we please look around your house and rummage through your belongings? We have no indication that you've done anything wrong, but it can't hurt to check!” would you let them, just because you have "nothing to hide"?
OK, now imagine that same scenario except that they don't ask, that you do not know that they are doing so, and that they have zero accountability for their actions. I find that troublesome.

[Outriderdark]

I was very happy to see the initial post spark some good discourse among the members of this forum. It's always good to fan the flame of free speech. I have many responses to what has been posted and I think most of us put alot of thought into what we post.
However, it seems according to the most recent Sticky in the Powder Keg, that they are not welcome.
So, it's back to the "Would you buy a used Raven" posts for me.
I'd rather just stay out of the Powder Keg. I'm not looking to set an example for anyone. I am my own example of myself.

[dhermesc]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

.
So, it's back to the "Would you buy a used Raven" posts for me.
I'd rather just stay out of the Powder Keg. I'm not looking to set an example for anyone. I am my own example of myself.

You're a fool if you buy a Raven.


:full:

[Outriderdark]

Lol....

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by dhermesc

Scooter Libby might have a differant take on this, isn't he looking at 2-10 years?

Looks that that was just part of the mix with Libby: the federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

If he goes down for any of that, it'll be because the prosecutor is convinced he's guilty of something much more serious, not just for commiting perjury.

I would also point out that he's involved in a criminal case involving the outing of a CIA agent, not a civil one about his sex life.

By the way, I'm not saying that lying in court is fine, or that Clinton did the right thing. I'm just pointing out the need for a little perspective and sense of proportion.

The hypocrisy demonstrated by some of the lowlife Congressmen who postured and carried on about Clinton's depravity was ridiculous. I'm thinking specifically of Henry Hyde, who took a married woman from her husband and three children and set her up in an apartment for several years. When confronted with his hypocrisy during the Clinton hearings, he dismissed it as a "youthful indiscretion", although he had been in his forties at the time.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Outriderdark

I was very happy to see the initial post spark some good discourse among the members of this forum. It's always good to fan the flame of free speech. I have many responses to what has been posted and I think most of us put alot of thought into what we post.
However, it seems according to the most recent Sticky in the Powder Keg, that they are not welcome.
So, it's back to the "Would you buy a used Raven" posts for me.
I'd rather just stay out of the Powder Keg. I'm not looking to set an example for anyone. I am my own example of myself.

...is how the Powder keg is labelled. Because of that, and because I don't see anyone getting particularly rancorous or personal in this thread, I'll continue the conversation unless I'm specifically told not to. If that happens I'll also stop visiting the Powder Keg, rider.

[BattleRifleG3]

I think the issue is that people are condemning Bush and calling for his impeachment when weakening his position is the last thing any of us would need.

How many people here would go back and vote for Al Gore or John Kerry with the idea that they'd be more concerned with the Constitution than GW? The President is not above criticism, but our criticism should be more thorough than just picking the biggest target and attacking it just like the media does.

What's sad is that one of the better presidents I can think of still has allowed the weakening of the Constitution. But rest assured Klinton or Kerry would throw the whole thing at the feet of the "International Community."

We need to motivate the Repubs to adhere to the Constitution instead of empowering the Dums who falsely claim to care about it when they have something for which to accuse the Repubs.

[troylaplante]

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by BattleRifleG3

I think the issue is that people are condemning Bush and calling for his impeachment when weakening his position is the last thing any of us would need.
How many people here would go back and vote for Al Gore or John Kerry with the idea that they'd be more concerned with the Constitution than GW? The President is not above criticism, but our criticism should be more thorough than just picking the biggest target and attacking it just like the media does.
What's sad is that one of the better presidents I can think of still has allowed the weakening of the Constitution. But rest assured Klinton or Kerry would throw the whole thing at the feet of the "International Community."
We need to motivate the Repubs to adhere to the Constitution instead of empowering the Dums who falsely claim to care about it when they have something for which to accuse the Repubs.

...I disagree straight down the line.

When a leader is going the wrong way, we don't need to strengthen his position. We need to straighten him out and keep him in line.

I think Bush is one of the worst Presidents, not the best. His administration, like Nixon's, seems to consider laws and the Constitution simply as obstacles to be surmounted or avoided whenever they get in the way, rather than as guidelines for behaviour. IMHO they literally have no honor, in the sense that their word is simply another weapon in their arsenal, rather than something sacrosanct. I wouldn't trust them enough to play Monopoly or Go Fish with them, unless I hired a fulltime referee.

I don't remember Clinton letting the international community rule this country, and I see no particular reason for believing Gore or Kerry would, either (no, "Kerry looks French" doesn't cut it). I do doubt either of them would go around deliberately poking that community in the eye, as Bush seems to enjoy doing. I voted for both of them, because the alternative I saw is what the rest of the country is just now catching on to.

And my biggest point: why would you assume that Democrats (including myself) love their country and its constitution any less than Republicans do? The last time I checked the Republican Party hadn't yet managed to secure a patent on patriotism, although they're surely trying.

The proposition that Republicans are driven purely by love of country, and Democrats only by self-interest, is nonsense on its face. Both sides are driven by a complex mix of beliefs and motives. I don't doubt that Bush and his cohorts are doing what they think right; I'm just aghast at their ideas of what "right" is.