26 total posts
1 wrong plus 1 wrong make a right?
Aside from McClellans effort at redirecting attention away from the Bush administration with a grade school argument of "they did it so why can't we?" I have to ask...
If Scott McClellan feels so strongly that Gore and Clinton was wrong here (else why raise this particular incident to begin with) then why doesn't the current administration reopen the Aldrich Ames investigation?
I'm rubber, Your Glue...
What you are missing,
is that the Bush Whitehouse isn't saying it was wrong to search Ames's house. So there NYAH,NYAH
I am still chuckling over the NYAH,NYAH... Give me a second...
Okay, I think I can type.
I just think it silly for the White House to raise such an issue. If they are attempting to suggest that this was a legal precedent of some sort then this should be raised in court or congress. But it's just an obvious spin doctoring, trying to discredit Gores remarks and label him as a hypocrite. Problem is that Gore, Clinton and Bush all come off looking bad in this comparison IMO.
I liked your rebuttal though !
It's not silly
Gore knew it was legal to do with Presidental power at the time 'they' did it, so why would he think it's illegal now that another Pres has used that power as well?
You can't have it both ways.......
Is it legal?
That's where we differ... I'm no lawyer but from all I've read it is not.
Just because a president says the sky is green does not make it so, no matter what party they belong to. The Bush administration is on record in it's exploration of extending its search powers after the legislation that Bush argues gave him the power to wiretap without warrant was passed. Why do this if he was confident that he was legally authorized to do this?
Until some one can convince me that they laws against unlawful searches and by extension, eavesdropping, can be circumvented... then no matter who did it... they broke the law.
Gore, is just a convenient distraction in this case... if you unthinkingly support Gore then the comparison my distract someone. I have no love for Gore and thus see Scott McClellan's raising of this issue as so much smoke screen.
The actual document
giving the ability to do so was posted here a couple of times already. I'm under the impression from all I'VE read that it was legal.....for both Presidents.
Sorry but I must have missed that one.
Still, I do have 3 books on the Constitution but it's all Colonial history. Constitution must have changed since then, right?
Article II Sections 1 (executive powers)...
and Section 2 (Commander in Chief) grant the Presidential Powers in question and the Congressional Debates as well as the Federalist Papers offer up the thinking of the founders with regard to those powers which are rather extensive.
Nice link for the Times article
what are these articles and sections quoted from specifically please?
The Federalist papers can be used as a window into the views of some of the founding fathers but keep in mind that the authors made some arguments against the provisions in the Bill of Rights as well.
About the article...
you will have to make use of the info to locate sources--I did way back when I first linked to them.
The Federalist Papers do offer up both pro and con arguments (then go to the Anti-Federalist Papers) which is understandable because of their limited authorship but both sides of the arguments are readily available even up to and including the ratification conventions of the states and the words and comments of their delegates. That is also why the Congressional Record is of great import when considering what the adopted language of a bill or amendment actually means. Both sides are important because then you can actually see how final versions came about because it was the most popular version accepted by the majority that became finalized and thus demonstrates exactly what was in the minds of the founders.
(NT) read war acts 1,2,3
Would it help you to be aware that...
there have been many court decisions that accept warrantless searches as a part of the President's war powers as granted by the Consitution?
Congress cannot legislate binding changes to the President's powers--that has to be accomp-lished through Constitutional Amendment.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants. (be sure to read the second page also)
In short, yes it is legal.
Because the law has changed, Toni.
To quote Mark's linked document, "at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed. (emphasis added). So there's no inconsistency -- McLellan's merely trying to confuse the issue by comparing apples and oranges.
The key issue here is the very same one as in Watergate -- is or is not the President subject to the law, or can he merely claim "national security" without any check on his power. That way lies the risk of dictatorship, because it strips away all checks and balances that prevent it.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
(NT) Where did you get that from?
where was the
outrage then seems your Dem's are so hypocritical, but then again they have a record of backing losers like gore, kerry, and whos next:D
You seem to be thinking I'm supporting Gore
if the accusations of illegal searches are true then any evidence taken from an illegal search that was used in convicting Ames should be reconsidered. eg a search warrant should have been secured because that is the law.
What's wrong is wrong. If Gore is a hypocrite then he is but the point I'm making is that IF Clinton side stepped due process in the search mentioned and in the process broke the law THEN comparing the Bush administrations actions as similar is self defeating.
Yeah, it makes Gore look like a yahoo... but in my mind it just makes Bush, Gore and Clinton three peas in a pod then. The association, IMO, doesn't make bush look any better
but where was the outrage then?
i forget its bush and if bush has it done then it must be bad:(
Where was the outrage?
I don't know Mark... I didn't have you around to point out to me this infraction so I wasn't aware of it. If I had known then I would have been outraged... or are you just voicing your frustration in general? Did it get much press?
I just don't fall for the "it's Us against Them" arguement.
i know you dont
just another reason to wonder.
when we get hit again what you would say if it takes a mem,ber of your famially and the evesdropping would have provented it?
What in the world
does that have to do with an asinine comparison and attempt to deflect attention from the White House by pointing a finger at a critic... Remember... thats what I commented on way back when. If the powers in charge are on such solid footing then they only belittle themselves by using the "I know you are but what am I" argument that this equates to.
Disagree with me on that point if you want but please drop the "Their out to get us and your just helping them" theatrics. In the history of mankind someone will always be out to get you and yes, sometimes they will do it by cutting off your head. Jeffrey Dahmer did that and he wasn't even a muslim... imagine that.
and why was it legal for good
old bill but not now, when were in a war.
try to answer that if you can as its just funny you dont find its scary that a weapon for our safty has been nutered.
And why, and why, and why
When did I say it was alright for Good Old Bill?
You keep appealing to emotion and fear Mark, and when that doesn't apply you the pull the "liberals are out to destroy the country" card.
I posted about my opinion that the administration did not help their cause by comparing their situation to Clinton and the Ames search. If you want to talk about that, fine.
I will give you this bit to criticize all you want.
Most liberals will admit their candidates can be wrong... Most conservatives can admit that liberal candidates can be wrong as well!
See ! We do have something in common
it was legal then and legal
Totally missed it.
McClellan was NOT saying the Clinton Admin was wrong...He was saying, how come it's okay for them but not okay for us?
(NT) and he's guilty.