Sure.. there are always shades of grey. And also depends a lot on what side your on - the people in the UK never exactly considered the IRA "freedom fighters" when they went on a bombing runs to kill innocent people - no different to what is happening in Iraq.

The history of Ireland is a sad mess and it's easy to simplify tho :)

I am not a constitutional scholar either, but I have paid attention to the hearings that have been held about the "phone taps" and in one of the hearings I paid particular attention to what a half dozen former FISA Court Judges had to say. When congress passed FISA they added the language "the exclusive way" and each of the former FISA judges agreed that the lanquage would limit the power of the President provided to him by the constitution and thus is unconstitutional and not binding upon the President unless or until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

In other words all of the former FISA Court Judges agreed that the President not only has the constitutional right to ignore the FISA Court when "phone tapping" but in addition has an obligatory right to "phone tap" and would be derelict in his duties of the Presidency if he did not "phone tap".

In other panels before the committee the majority consensus among constitutional scholars was that the President had the constitutional authority to "phone tap" without going through the FISA courts and that the "exclusive" lanquage in the passing of FISA was not constitutional in that it limits the power of the President.

As for other crimes maybe you could be specific as to what the crimes are?

Interesting info. To be honest, I have already learned a lot from reading all these posts.

As for other crimes, its not easy to just say he did it. Just like a lot of Americans, I see things happen and even though he has not been proven guilty of it, well that doesn't mean he isn't.

Let me give you an example. My father runs his own law firm. He is also a Judge. I know in this country a person is innocent untill proven guilty. But that doesn't mean they aren't guilty. And even if they are proven innocent in a court of law, there are many that are guilty and get off due to a technicality. I have seen with my own eyes this very thing. When I was younger, I used to go to court to see my Dad being a judge. I've seen people that I know go before him and get a not guilty verdict even though they were guilty. I know they were because it was people I know on a personal level. The judical system is as fucked up as anything. Thats why I never finished law school.

Now thats only on a state level. When you have as much power and money as the president and administration, its not that hard to have things overlooked and swept under the rug. There are payoffs, threats and blackmail.

For example, Bush went to Iraq because he wanted to get rid of WMD. All bullshit. He wanted control of oil .. period. I have family in the middle east and our media in the US sugar coats everything. You only see what they want you to see. That is just one small example. The whole 911 is a story in itself.

I very much appreciate your input and information. Learning and education are the only things that can truly make one better and more powerful. But one must open their eyes and realize that things aren't always what they seem to be. When it comes to the government, these things are usually not even close to the truth.

No, but it is illegal to tap an Americans phone in the US without a warrant.

FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting ?surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.? [50 U.S.C. § 1809]

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." :1orglaugh

GW - April 20th, 2004

A bigger issue than the wiretapping is we damn well know Bush/Cheney was behind revealing the identity of a CIA agent in a smear campaign. That is treason.

You apparenlty have not read the posts in this thread. The President apparently is not obligated to go through FISA. Congress cannot pass laws that limit the power the constitution provides to the President, unless or until the Supreme Court rules that the law is binding upon the President. Thus at this point in time it is not illegal for the President to "wire tap".

No it is not. The President can legally leak any information that he chooses to. It is a part of his constitutional power. When the President leaks info it automatically falls into the declassified category.

Oh, okay. I'll pay more attention to the posters here than the actual FISA law. :1orglaugh

You have your head so far up Bush's ass your eyes are blinded by shit.

Isnt Bill O'Reilly on or something?

Wrong. I will be pleased to see President Bush become Citizen President Bush.

Since when did the name of a CIA agent become "declassified" and public knowledge before that employee was even advised and for what purpose did this individual differ under the law from other CIA employees?

Does Bush have a list of CIA agents and play Russian roulette for fun in who will be "declassifed" each day??

And.. it sure as fuck is not "legal" - fuck the "legalities" - it's not only immoral but treason.

It is not illegal and certainly is not treason and is within the Constitutional powers of the Presidency. In addition it is my understanding the CIA agent involved was not a covert agent and apparently had not been for the five year period allowed by the (I think) agency for her name to be made public by whomever.

As for being "immoral": I am not comfortable with the term but I do think it was a bit outrageous.

I don't know what case you are thinking of, Clinton committed the perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial.

Fuck the constitution in that case - it's obviously shit. But doubt (and I mean no offence) that you have a clue on this.

Your "understanding" of what is and what is not a covert agent is irrelevant. It's not your or my business nor that of the general public.

It does not matter one toss whether it's a US CIA agent, some other govt officer or a law enforcement officer in a covert scenario - or whether it's the President of the US or the manager of McDonalds. It can be, and often is, *highly* risky to even indicate the possibility that an individual may be "not as it seems".

There is little doubt the President of the US has one single clue about the contacts an indivdual has had over her career and what may be harmful if known to *someone*. There are things people just don't talk about - or ask questions. It is clear you have no knowledge of either the dangers or the lengths to which folks go to protect situations - I do.

For the President of the US to come out with his slimebag and smear shit over one of the people working on behalf of the US in an attempt to "get at" her husband because he does not like his report - is the height of utter amateurism and shows how utterly stupid, warped and incompetent he actually is. Tho doubt he was alone in playing these pathetic party-political games.

I may be critical of "agencies" at times, but never would dream of "declaring up" an individual under risk - I got more respect than that and that's only me - for the US President to get into that swamp is extremely damning and says a lot about him.

Yes it does and also about dirty politics. It was the CIA agent that recommended to the agency that her husband be sent to Africa. He went and came back with a negative report (some in Great Briton insist to this day that his report was wrong but the truth will probably never be known) and went public stating that the Vice President sent him which was a lie. He was out to get the President and the President retaliated for political reasons.

What the President did, as I stated was a bit outrageous, but what he did was legal as whatever the President leaks automatically becomes declassified information.

BTW...it is "OUR" constitution and we Americans are rather proud of it.

Some of these folks have done shit in their careers that no politician would ever come near to and deserve some respect for stuffing their necks out to remedy a problem at great personal risk to themselves - even when operating within the US in leafy suburbia. Odd they never have a rap sheet despite being jailed and committing plenty "offenses" :winkwink:

Seriously.. the Bush shit ain't funny and is not in the interests of the US or anyone involved. It simply means the govt can't be trusted even by their own officers.

You are correct that the President can declassify information when he chooses however we give him that power to protect the country and not for his personal gain. Just because it's legal does not make it right. He spent years telling the public that the information becoming public was outrageous. We all know the reason that information was made public.

While I'll admit there was no crime committed are you willing to admit that it was more then a bit outrageous?

Haven't members and friends of the administration profited from questionable policies and actions? I'm not talking a few million $$$ here and there either.

No. There are other things that have happened in this administration and past administrations that were more than a bit outrageous.

I don't know. I am not privy to the "members and friends" transactions and bank accounts. Maybe you can let me know what "members and friends" have made millions or more from "questionable policies and actions". Also maybe you can let me know what "questionable polices and actions" you are speaking of.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You hear some crap on FOX News and run around repeating it like a fucking parrot.

From the July 2003 edition of Newsday:

A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said.
'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.' 'We paid his [Wilson's] airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. (Newsday article "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover," dated July 22, 2003).

Another right wing lie. Please look up facts before you continue spewing out your bullshit. This is right from the article Joe Wilson wrote in the NY Times which brought all this about:

'In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake.'

'After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip.'

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

BTW.. On trust - there is no second chance for Bush and his "leaks".

It is little surpise the husband of the "declassified" individual got kinda mad. If that happened to friends of mine, I'd sure have a great desire to twist George's balls off and remind him how to spell loyalty. But "redemption" comes in all forms and patience is a virtue - and all that cliche crap.

100........

Those are some of the releases about the subject but not all of the releases by far and as with most events of any type there are contradicting reports so it is left up to the readers to pick and choose the "truth" and the real "truth" will probably forever remain unknown.

By the way I do not watch Fox news. It is not my news station of choice and in addition I watch very little TV, news or otherwise other than I do watch most congressional hearings. I prefer the printed media.

WTF are you talking about?? There are other versions of Joe Wilsons article??

Your ability to survive this long is a marvel of nature.

Yep, sure buddy. Just like you'll be glad when Bush is out of office. :1orglaugh

Honestly, I've been just sitting back and reading your posts and others. You are digging yourself a whole. I'm starting to think you are 18 years old and surfing yahoo for articles and then just copying and pasting words.

Bush is a puppet and his whole administration is full of evil power hungry assholes. Its pretty much that simple. They lie, cheap, steal and manipulate laws to get what they want.

To be honest, I'm completely surprised that no one from our country or another country has not tried to knock him off. One might think with all the billions of dollars that the terrorists have, they might train someone to do just that.

Joe Wilson says what he says and others have contradicted his side of the story as well as his wifes side of the story. There has been multiple stories about this event, since and ongoing, and as I said one can pick and choose what the "truth" is but you and I will never know the "real truth".

You are an insulting bastard and I am not into arguing with bastards. The end of the discussion with you from my side.

Here's my other question. I don't understand how the president is the only person that is allowed to do what he wants. He can manipulate the laws and the constitution as much as he and his administration desires.

How is this possible? Why doesn't he have to follow all the same rules and laws as every other American?

What "whole" would that be? Has it occured to you that the people that serve in the upper echelon of goverment are by nature power hungry and all that seek power are in fact assholes (I am not comfortable with the term evil so I will not use the word). Administrations past and administrations of the future have been and will continue to be pretty much the same.

BTW...I have not copy and pasted anything. My words are my words and my thinking is my thinking as garnered from what I read, what I see and what I hear.

As to my age: I have lived through many administrations and this is the worst one in my opinion but that is not to say that past administrations were much better.

The power of all that are in the current administration will end in 2 1/2 years and the new power structure will begin and the same complaints will be heard from many of the same citizens no matter who takes the reigns of power.

The constitution outlines the powers of each of the three branches of government. Any President cannot manipulate the laws or the constitution. But what the Congress cannot do is pass laws that limit the power provided the President by the constitution unless or untill the Supreme Court rules that a Congressional law limiting those powers of the President is in fact constitutional. With the FISA Courts the Congress in fact passed a law that is designed to limit the powers of the President and the President with advice from his legal counsels decided that he did not have to go through the FISA courts as it violates his Constitutional powers so he does not legally have to go to FISA Courts unless or untill the Supreme Court decides that the Congressional law is in fact constitutional. This will probably never happen.

You are contradicting yourself. You said:

I proved that to be bullshit and your response is 'others have contradicted his side of the story'. :1orglaugh

Don't blame ya. I usually will stop debating someone when I've been proven wrong. :)

BTW. What do you think would be accomplished by "knocking" off the President? It would not improve anything in our country and would damn sure have some serious affects for another country or countries.

Are you privy to the bank accounts of the terrorists? If you are you should report the accounts to the government. If you are not how is it that you the terrorists have billions of dollars?

I have spent way to much time on this board. I have business to attend to. Have a good night.

Terrorists may have good reason to leave George exactly where he is right now - he doing a reasonable job from their angle :)

Why you want to waste good terrorism funding training folks to eliminate a prime asset? :1orglaugh

I don't think it would accomplish anything. Try reading what I post. I said I'm surprised it hasn't happened. I know it wouldn't accomplish shit. But seeing that the same people that do suicide bombings and kill innocent people are also the same people that pretty much hate Bush and his administration, well, I'm just surprised that none of those radicalists haven't tried anything.

Second, where have you been? Everyone knows that Osama has billions. Thats just one example. Its not a secret that their are plenty of terrorists that have billions of dollars. Hello .. Earth to Sexy Sites ... anyone there?

That is actually a good point. Bush is doing a great job of fucking up our country. They might hate him but if he's ruining the USA then I guess they are loving it. Didn't think of it like that. :thumbsup

I am not aware of anyone ever saying that Osama has billions. I have heard that originally he may have been worth between two hundred and three hundred million but that these funds have probably been seriously depleted. As to other wealthy terrorists: I am not aware of any. Please name them for me. I have a need to be, at the least, as knowageable as you.

Doubt they could get any better than their own agent in the Whitehouse. :)

That's what I was thinking - screwing the place up on all levels. I never actually paid a lot of attention to whoever was in the Whitehouse - the very first time was 10 days after Bush's election. He appeared on TV for a few minutes and within that time he literally reversed a substantial amount of his election policies. There were a couple of folks in the room and there was silence and disbelief. I thought then, sheesh, the US is gonna get screwed by this guy. And... gradually that's exactly what happened.

I'd hate to see the full extent of the damage by the time he pisses off back to Texas to be a candystore cowboy.

I'll be sure to put the full list of terrorist names together for ya:thumbsup

And acutally it was Osamas father that had most of the lute to start. His pops was worth a boat load.

So you really don't think that their are terrorists that have billions? Stop and think before you answer that.

Get a grip on reality for a moment?? :)

Support for Osama has increased far more than existed on 9/11. Recruitment into the Al Queda org was up between 8 and 15 (estimated) fold at the time Bush spewed his "bring em on" cowboy act and there is sure no reason to believe there is any serious depletion in funding. If there is any funding shortage, Al Queda are obviously better at managing/funding their activities than US Treasury is in managing the ecomony.

Anyways... how much does it cost to fill a bag or explosives or fly someone else's plane into a building?

For this, you have the US government to thank for stepping in and playing right into their hands and aiding recruitment around the world.