Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski You continue to avoid the main issue, that of National Security. |
Like you continue to avoid the main issue of what IS the law?
But along the lines of your accusation, I am not avoiding that issue at all. I would support some of these wire-taps, but the wire-taps must be AUTHORIZED through the PROPER CHANNELS. I think I've already stated that.
No short cuts.
No usurpation of unauthorized power.
There are means to obtain warrants, and if those warrants are obtained, these illegalities would disappear while "National Security" would be maintained.
It's just that simple.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski It is a simple premise and one that the Court has maintained time and again, that the President has vast authority when it comes to matters that regard national security. Just earlier today, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a citizen against the administration under the auspices of national security, stating that when it comes to national security the court has no authority over the president. |
Could you give more details about this case?
The devil is often in the details, and you have given essentially none.
But regardless, that isn't a blank ticket for the president to do as he pleases.
At the heart of things, your response sounds like a means to ignore the fact that the president is acting in an ILLEGAL manner, just because he claims to be acting in the interest of "national security".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski The problem with Congressional resolutions is that they are often broad. Case in point the Joint Resolution passed by Congress authorizing the President the use of force in the war on terror. Since this law is the newer law it outweighs the older law passed by Congress. |
Oh. Silly me.
So this "Joint Resolution" authorized "the use of force in the war on terror" AGAINST U.S. CITIZENS???
It authorized the president to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant?
You keep trying to generalize this issue to avoid the specifics.
I can't help but note that you aren't even trying to argue that he has the "legal" power to wire-tap U.S. citizens anymore.
Is this implicit acknowledgement that the President's actions are illegal, but should be ignored because of "national security"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Congress is no claiming that if they wanted the president to have this authority that they would have specifically given him the power, however, because the resolution was broad the president enacted the program. |
Giving the power to act in a "war on terror" does not negate our U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS.
Quick quiz. Which is more powerful.
Our CONSTITUTION and it's amendments, or a "joint resolution" passed by congress?
Can congress just negate our Bill of Rights by a "joint resolution"?
Tell me you don't believe that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Time and again you analysis of the Fourth Amendment is correct, however, you show no cases that involve national security. That is the problem. The court has always given the president broad powers to act in the interest of national security. Once again, the Court has upheld the Gitmo detention camps under the Joint Resolution passed by Congress authorizing the president to use force, the resolution did not specifically give this power to the president, however, because it is overly broad, the Court recognized the presidents authority in matters of national security. |
It is true that the Fourth Amendment has not truly been tried against "national security". It has been used to ensure the rights of murderers, child molestors, gangsters, etc...
But it has not been really used (in my observation) on the issue of U.S. citizens who HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ACCUSED of being terrorists...
But along the lines of Gitmo...
How many "Gitmo" prisoners are U.S. citizens?
I think the issue of "Gitmo" should be re-examined to see if any actual effect on National Security has actually been seen. If a President claims that a person must have his rights denied because of "National Security", shouldn't there be some mechanism to ensure that his claim is actually accurate?
Judging by results, I would say Gitmo is essentially a failure.
"The United States is holding
about 500 men at the U.S. naval base on the southeastern tip of Cuba. The detainees are accused of having links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or al-Qaida, though
only 10 have been charged since the detention camp opened in January 2001."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/.../un_guantanamo Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski This is the road block that one faces. If this goes before the Court, as it most likely will, you can more than expect the Court to uphold the presidents actions. No amount of Congressional hearings can determine whether the President broke the law, only the Courts can do that. Hearings at this time are mute.
dmk |
Part of the problem is that this IS NOT a "road block".
The president DOES HAVE the power to wire-tap U.S. citizens, WITH A WARRANT.
The issue at hand is the president is being too lazy to observe the proper channels. He COULD get LEGAL search warrants, but he just is not using the proper channels.
Why is that?