Censure
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=151725
Printed Date: 04 May 2026 at 1:08pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Censure
Posted By: mbro
Subject: Censure
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 7:09pm
|
I was just watching cspan and saw this. (taken from wikipedia)
"On March 13, 2006, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a resolution in the Senate to publicly admonish President Bush for approving domestic wiretaps on American citizens without first seeking a legally required court order. [1] In the resolution, Feingold asserts the president, "repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States." [2]" What censure is for those who don't know (also wikipedia) Censure in the United States is a congressional procedure for reprimanding the President of the United States or a member of Congress for inappropriate behaviour. News and other media often use the term "censure" incorrectly, confusing their viewers. When used to condemn the President, however, it serves merely as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of presidency. Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the constitution, or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. It derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Replies:
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 7:14pm
|
ok wait, court order right? then where's the problem? blame the federal court, it falls under their branch not the executive. unless maybe someone would like to explain what Senator Feingold meant by "repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the
National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his
Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected
terrorists inside the United States."
------------- 
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 7:21pm
|
Huh? Methinks you have no clue what the wiretapping issue was. But - I am disappointed in Russ for this move, which looks to me like a pure political grandstanding moment that will accomplish nothing except get Feingold invited back to the Bill Maher show. |
High Voltage wrote:Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 7:56pm
|
Seems like this would have been smarter for a person from a more liberal state to pull that wasn't planning on running in 08. Looks like it's just an attempt to screw up republican re-election attempts this fall to me. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 8:33pm
LIEK ZOMG, TEH PREZ SHUD T377 US WHAT THE INTEL. COMMUNITY IS DOING BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. Geez, I'm a strong beliver in the fact that sometimes you have to act first, ask questions later. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 9:42pm
|
The President has broad powers granted to him to "ensure" the security and defense of the country. Simply put, if he wants to do something and there is a question of it's legality, he can make it legal with his word alone. If the president says it's legal, it's legal. That doesn't mean that he could get away with declaring himself "Emperor of North America", but there is alot that he can do. President Lincoln suspend the writ of habeus corpus during the civil war, and 70,000 American citizens were imprisoned without ever be charged with a crime. The Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed on the operation from beginning to end, and the law the way it is written doesn't require the president to inform anyone else, including the courts. Most Democrats will not pursue censuring the President, fearing that many Americans think that the "spying" program was in the best interest of the country at large. Senator Feingold's main objective in this move was to put a squeeze on the President while putting himself in the media spotlight. Unfortunately for him, he's only marginalized himself. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 9:46pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 9:50pm
|
That's a bit of an overstatement. The executive branch does have some limited right to quasi-legislation by Executive Order, and can of course promulgate regulations pursuant to laws enacted by Congress, but the executive branch is at its heart executive. It cannot willy-nilly declare something legal, nor can it directly counteract an act of Congress or a ruling of the judicial branch. Various "war powers" acts of Congress have granted the President broad discretion within certain parameters during times of duress, but those parameters apply, as well as the Constitution. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 9:52pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:13pm
Lincoln also convienently arrested those who protested the suspension on such grounds, including the the Governor of Maryland, I believe? Removing liberties from a border state was a dangerous game. ------------- 
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:16pm
Terrorists are using disposable cell phones and changing telephone numbers, a lot of the time, by the time they get any information, its already become obsolete and out dated. In the intel comunity, things need to be done QUICKLY, by the time the FISA court rules on anything, whatever they ruled on is most likely out dated. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: TRAVELER
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:17pm
After the fact. ------------- For I will wander to and fro, I'll go where I no one do know, |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:17pm
Amen |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:20pm
Way to sidestep what mbro said. The president acted first, go him, we are all way safer now. Great. But he did not follow up. Didn't ask whether what he did was legal. if I followed the gist of the discussion... -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:24pm
|
DBib - FISA allows for searches/taps first, and then you obtain the warrant three days AFTERWARDS. It was set up specifically to address the need for speed. The administration has pretty much admitted that the reason they haven't sought FISA warrants under this program is because they know they couldn't meet the burden of proof (probable cause) required by the Fourth Amendment. USAF, Monk - same. FISA exists specifically so that we can act first, ask later. Bush just didn't want to ask later either. Traveler - Lincoln's actions were ruled unconstitutional. That makes them illegal, Lincoln just didn't know it yet. He did not have the power to suspend Habeus Corpus, no matter how much he wanted it to be legal. Presidents can't "make" something constitutional that isn't. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:27pm
|
Well thats something that the CIA has been doing for YEARS, along with the NSA, its nothing new.
IE. Black Bag Jobs, its when you search for intel and change nothing, no one knows youve been looking. I think the intel people should be let alone to do their jobs and be secret about it. And i think they do, i think we only know about 10 percent of what the intel comunity does. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:29pm
|
I'm sure it happens - and it is unconstitutional and against the very principles upon which this country came to be. The Founders didn't make the Fourth Amendment optional to the federal government.
That is a horrifically frightening thought. |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:30pm
|
So dbib, did you just pull an OS?
-------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:32pm
|
Well thing about whats going on right now. Theres a huge spotlight on the intel comunity right now. But did you know that some parts of the state department still pour over and study old cold war documents?
Watch, a lot of documents pretaining to current events will be declasified in about 50 years, we will be literaly shocked once these documents are declassified. Frozen, no. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:39pm
Dbid: Facism rocks doesn't it? -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:42pm
|
Thats not facism, weve been doing this for at least a hundred years.
The amount of spying and wiretaping we are doing right now cant hold a candel to the amount of spying we did during the cold war. Its really nothing to get upset about. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:44pm
I agree. It seems to me some people have this vision of Bush taking out the big yellow "US Phone Book of Arabs" and picking random numbers to tap. Would the government really bother to tap you if there was NOT probable cause? I don't think they would. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:44pm
|
Then explain to me why they aren't getting FISA warrants. EDIT - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/25/MNGCEGD95C1.DTL - Here is the answer. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:47pm
|
We get these numbers from call paterns that the NSA picks up, from Army intell sources, CIA intel sources, and Navy Intel. We arent just indescriminantly listening into your convorsation if you happen to call Peshawar Pakistan once a month.
Yeah, they might not be able to get the burden of proof for an after the fact warrent, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a good idea to tap the phone. Is it hurting anyone? No not really, is it an invasion on your privacy if you dont know about it? Who knows, its debatable. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:47pm
|
You guys are missing the central issue. Most people don't care about
the tapping. What the trouble is, is that this agency/dept/thing was
set up to make sure this stuff was done in an expedited and LEGAL
manner, which the pres. et al are failing to follow through on by
sidestepping the system.
-------------
|
Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:47pm
|
So much goes on behind the scenes that we civilians have no idea about... I don't know why they didn't get warrants, but I'll bet it wasn't just because they didn't feel like it. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:50pm
|
No, there are lots of civilians that work intel. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:53pm
Well by civilian I meant not associated with the government... I just meant to say that just because we watch CNN and have the internet, we don't know all the details of everything that happens with our gov.
So all Al Qaeda needs is a middle-man and they can do as they please huh? Oh, and I see the word dozens in there too. US Population is like 250 MILLION. Chances are, IT'S NOT YOU. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:54pm
|
Wrong question. The issue is not whether or not it is effective, but whether or not it goes against one of the central underpinnings of the nation - that you don't have to simply rely on the government's "trust me". It's all about oversight. The entire system of checks and balances assumes that no branch take take drastic action alone - two branches must act in concert. What Bush has done is to cut out the oversight from the other two branches, and that is much more dangerous than any harm done by any particular wiretap. This is a big deal. It is a really really big deal.
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:55pm
|
Civilians know next to nothing about the inteligence world.
Hmm. Im glad im not a politician. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:55pm
|
Yes, and because we can't know what the government is doing sometimes,
we should have some assurance that it is doing those dark and secret
things legally. Too late, eh? edit: What CK said up that way^. Yeah. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:57pm
|
Under the FISA statute, arguably yes - but THE LAWS CAN BE CHANGED, if Bush would only ask. Numerous Congressmen and Senators, from both parties, have REPEATEDLY said that they will work with Bush to change the law to get him the powers he needs. It is the CIRCUMVENTION that is the problem. Not the wiretaps.
And when they came for the Jews, you didn't mind, since you weren't a Jew? |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 10:58pm
|
Well, for instance, in the army, when CID runs and investigation, and nothing is found, all the documents pertaining to said CID investagion are then shredded and destroyed.
It never happened. Same thing in the inteligence world. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 11:01pm
|
Not the same. Not even close. That CID investigation was authorized by proper channels and conducted within rules, carefully documented and re-authorized as needed along the way. At the end, documents were destroyed per those same rules. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 11:03pm
|
Well the wire tap is one quick thing, it began perfectly legaly, they just didnt have the warrent drawn up after the fact. I would chalk that up to not caring or just being too busy.(its one thing you should really really make time for if thats the case.) ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 13 March 2006 at 11:10pm
|
Clark, aren't you too smart to post here? With your insight I'd have thought you'd have given up on Tippmann by now...
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: PaintballkidEPS
Date Posted: 14 March 2006 at 6:06am
way too many big words for me in that one, can somebody translate in english |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 March 2006 at 6:18am
| Russ Feingold say to G.W.: G.W., you bad man. |