Where's the moral outrage?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

once again, the constitution prescribes powers and limitations to the federal government ONLY. It tells them what they can and cannot do. The constitution affords protections to citizens of ANY nation if they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, expressly because the constitution limits the power of the government. The US system of Justice would apply to Assange IF he ever falls under the jurisdiction of the US.

Show me where the constitution delegates power to the CIA.

Assange is not subject to US jurisdiction, the United States does not have jurisdiction over Australia. Assange did not commit a crime in the jurisdiction of the US, so US legal jurisprudence can not be applied. His actions could be determined (very easily) to be an 'act of war' against the United States. The Constitution firmly grants the Federal Government authority, most specifically through the military and CIA, in dealing with acts of war.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

once again, the constitution prescribes powers and limitations to the federal government ONLY. It tells them what they can and cannot do. The constitution affords protections to citizens of ANY nation if they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, expressly because the constitution limits the power of the government. The US system of Justice would apply to Assange IF he ever falls under the jurisdiction of the US.

Show me where the constitution delegates power to the CIA.

Yeah, I have no idea where these people are getting that rights only apply to citizens. Unless the constitution specifically mentions "citizens", it's rules apply to all people, EVEN if their presence here isn't legal.

 

[Bonestorm]

how did congress get permission to ignore the 4th Amendment?

Congress didn't get permission and need not get permission. Congress can pass all the unconstitutional laws it wishes. It is up to the courts to invalidate them. I'm not aware of any principle of separation of powers the suggests that Congress needs to get permission of anyone before passing a law.

My point is simple: a president that is acting in accordance with a bad law is in my view better than a president that is acting in violation of a good law.

 

[Damocles]

Congress didn't get permission and need not get permission. Congress can pass all the unconstitutional laws it wishes. It is up to the courts to invalidate them. I'm not aware of any principle of separation of powers the suggests that Congress needs to get permission of anyone before passing a law.

My point is simple: a president that is acting in accordance with a bad law is in my view better than a president that is acting in violation of a good law.

My point is simple. A president doing the same thing as the other but getting a pass because they are supposedly "better", one who actually greatly expanded assertions of immunity for the Executive in an argument long before any law was passed has expanded the strength behind Warrantless wiretapping, isn't "better", they are expanding and making worse those things that were most grossly abhorrent in that previous president's actions.

And lastly, you are deluding yourself in an attempt to make yourself feel better. The authority to violate the 4th doesn't exist simply because you say it is a "bad law."

And it isn't up to the courts, they all took an oath to uphold that constitution, not only when the courts make them, but all the time. That Congress is willing to give up our rights isn't surprising, that you are so willing to support them in that action is beyond repulsive.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Assange is not subject to US jurisdiction, the United States does not have jurisdiction over Australia. Assange did not commit a crime in the jurisdiction of the US, so US legal jurisprudence can not be applied. His actions could be determined (very easily) to be an 'act of war' against the United States. The Constitution firmly grants the Federal Government authority, most specifically through the military and CIA, in dealing with acts of war.

you are currently advocating a slippery slope whereby american citizens could be targeted for assassination based solely on the word of a bureaucrat.

If Assange is assassinated in a foreign country, like England, would the assassin then be guilty of murder?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Congress didn't get permission and need not get permission. Congress can pass all the unconstitutional laws it wishes. It is up to the courts to invalidate them. I'm not aware of any principle of separation of powers the suggests that Congress needs to get permission of anyone before passing a law.

you're currently suggesting that congress can pass a law that mandates ALL people turn in ALL weapons, in complete violation of the 2nd Amendment, and we would have to comply until the courts intervene. do we have that right?

My point is simple: a president that is acting in accordance with a bad law is in my view better than a president that is acting in violation of a good law.

then your view is kind of wrong. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land, provided they are constitutional. HE is but 1 of the 3 checks on a tyrannical congress. A president who ignores blatantly unconstitutional laws is a far better president than one who enforces them.

 

[Bonestorm]

They didn't. He deludes himself. I believe I may have mentioned that. And his "evidence" that there is no torture is that he simply believes it rather than thinking his way through it. GWB said there was "no torture", there were people who believed him too.

Actually, I was incorrect. FISA was amended in 2008, not 2007. Here's the ACLU reaction:

WASHINGTON – Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69 to 28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...-bill-and-grants-sweeping-immunity-phone-comp

And, while GWB said there was no torture, he did say that there were "harsh interrogation methods" that included things known to be torture and we also knew that GWB's administration defined torture in such a way so as to exclude everything from its definition. This administration, by contrast, has made is quite plain that all of that stuff is no longer permitted. Again, while it may not be good, it is better.

Under any scrutiny that they would give Bush, this is not good. Nor was there "Congressional approval" when Obama filed his arguments for that lawsuit that greatly expanded the immunization enjoyed by the Executive. But we'll ignore what really happened for our own self-delusion, as long as it isn't Bush it must all be "better"...

I never said any of this stuff that Obama is doing is good, only better. And yes, there was congressional approval when the DoJ filed that particular legal brief. The brief was filed in 2009. The FISA amendments passed in 2008. Basically, the Obama DOJ was filing legal brief to support the illegal activities of the Bush Administration that, while illegal when the Bush Administration performed them, were legal at the time the breif was filed.

I'll ask those same questions again.

What do you think Nigel has done to protest these violations?

Who do you think he believes should replace Obama? Who does he support to run against Obama in the primaries?

Did you ask those questions a first time? If so, I missed them. On the FISA issue, there's nothing I can really do. At the time the FISA Amendments were passed I opposed them and I criticized Obama at the time for voting in favor of them. (Look it up it you're so inclined). There really isn't much sense in protesting them now. I may as well bang my head against this here wall. It'd be a better way to spend my time.

On the rendition front, as long as people aren't being disappeared and tortured I don't really have a problem with it. Before Bush got his hand on it rendition was a fairly non-controversial thing (kind of like signing statements).

And lastly:

What have you done to protest this other than to just say he's "better than Bush" whenever you are confronted with your own delusions?

Again, I don't recall the question being asked previously. In any event, I don't know what "this" refers to but for the record, I'm not really the protesting type. I've participated in two protests in my lifetime, against the Iraq War and in favor of a labor union at my place of business. I didn't protest against the Bush Administration when it was doing worse shit so why should I protest now?

 

[Bonestorm]

you're currently suggesting that congress can pass a law that mandates ALL people turn in ALL weapons, in complete violation of the 2nd Amendment, and we would have to comply until the courts intervene. do we have that right?

Congress can pass a law like that. And then you can sue for redress in the courts and get an preliminary injunction barring enforcement of such law. Neither you nor anyone else couldn't require Congress to get permission before passing a law like that.

then your view is kind of wrong. The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land, provided they are constitutional. HE is but 1 of the 3 checks on a tyrannical congress. A president who ignores blatantly unconstitutional laws is a far better president than one who enforces them.

Well, that's like, your opinion, man. In my view it is not the proper role of the president to pick and choose among the laws he or she must faithfully execute.

 

[Damocles]

Actually, I was incorrect. FISA was amended in 2008, not 2007. Here's the ACLU reaction:



http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...-bill-and-grants-sweeping-immunity-phone-comp

And, while GWB said there was no torture, he did say that there were "harsh interrogation methods" that included things known to be torture and we also knew that GWB's administration defined torture in such a way so as to exclude everything from its definition. This administration, by contrast, has made is quite plain that all of that stuff is no longer permitted. Again, while it may not be good, it is better.




I never said any of this stuff that Obama is doing is good, only better. And yes, there was congressional approval when the DoJ filed that particular legal brief. The brief was filed in 2009. The FISA amendments passed in 2008. Basically, the Obama DOJ was filing legal brief to support the illegal activities of the Bush Administration that, while illegal when the Bush Administration performed them, were legal at the time the breif was filed.




Did you ask those questions a first time? If so, I missed them. On the FISA issue, there's nothing I can really do. At the time the FISA Amendments were passed I opposed them and I criticized Obama at the time for voting in favor of them. (Look it up it you're so inclined). There really isn't much sense in protesting them now. I may as well bang my head against this here wall. It'd be a better way to spend my time.

On the rendition front, as long as people aren't being disappeared and tortured I don't really have a problem with it. Before Bush got his hand on it rendition was a fairly non-controversial thing (kind of like signing statements).



Again, I don't recall the question being asked previously. In any event, I don't know what "this" refers to but for the record, I'm not really the protesting type. I've participated in two protests in my lifetime, against the Iraq War and in favor of a labor union at my place of business. I didn't protest against the Bush Administration when it was doing worse shit so why should I protest now?

The questions were the ones most consistently asked of those who voted for Bush, but were against certain policies. So I asked the same ones, and I find that the answers are pretty much the same.

It's all good Nigel. You ignored certain facts.

2008 wasn't Obama's Presidency. That started in 2009. No new law giving any legality had passed when Obama filed those explanations where he greatly expanded on anything Bush had said as to Executive Immunity thus extending the power of the Executive above and beyond anything Bush had applying Sovereign Immunity in ways never even expected or applied by those "terrible conservatives"...

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that changes to the Patriot Act protected the government from lawsuits surrounding eavesdropping. But he says that this is the first time that they've made the case that the Patriot Act protects the government from all surveillance statutes.

This wasn't due to PATRIOT Act changes, it was simply the way that Obama applied it in his argument. They are "immune" from any and all lawsuits, unless there is "willful" disclosure. Not leaks, not accidental, only WILLFUL...

That wasn't from any expansion or change in the PATRIOT Act extension in 2008, it was created wholly to support an expansion of a program he had promised to add "oversight" to, which has never been added, not even once even in the PATRIOT Act extension in 2010...

There is nothing that is "better" than what was in place when Bush was in office, other than your view of it because of who is in office, certainly he has done nothing through action to make any of it "better".

So... Laws that were in place when Bush was President were only extended since Obama has taken office, the only thing that changed was how Nigel saw those laws. Now they are just "bad laws" not "illegal wiretapping" and they are Somebody Else's Problem, not "violations against civil liberties" and only the courts can make determination though previously that wasn't the case...

I'm seriously disappointed, Onceler, it's weak argument taken to the extreme you have presented herein.

 

[Bonestorm]

My point is simple. A president doing the same thing as the other but getting a pass because they are supposedly "better", one who actually greatly expanded assertions of immunity for the Executive in an argument long before any law was passed has expanded the strength behind Warrantless wiretapping, isn't "better", they are expanding and making worse those things that were most grossly abhorrent in that previous president's actions.

But your argument is severely factually challenged. Warrantless wiretapping has been legal since 2008 when FISA was amended. The lawsuit is about pre-amendment illegal warrantless wiretapping. My point is even simpler, a president that engages in legal warrantless wiretapping is superior to a president that engages in illegal warrantless wiretapping.

Your argument is basically that Obama's after-the-fact legal justification for Bush illegal warrantless wiretapping is worse than Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping. That's stupid.

And lastly, you are deluding yourself in an attempt to make yourself feel better. The authority to violate the 4th doesn't exist simply because you say it is a "bad law."

Um, what the fuck are you babbling about?

And it isn't up to the courts, they all took an oath to uphold that constitution, not only when the courts make them, but all the time. That Congress is willing to give up our rights isn't surprising, that you are so willing to support them in that action is beyond repulsive.

Yes, it is up to the courts. A president can veto a bill presented for his or her signature but cannot effectively veto a bill signed by one of his predecessors because he doesn't like it.

And I don't and didn't support it. I realize you want to demagogue and all, but you've picked the wrong target. Here:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7363&highlight=fisa

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=12919&highlight=fisa

 

[Bonestorm]

The questions were the ones most consistently asked of those who voted for Bush, but were against certain policies. So I asked the same ones, and I find that the answers are pretty much the same.

It's all good Nigel. You ignored certain facts.

2008 wasn't Obama's Presidency. That started in 2009. No new law giving any legality had passed when Obama filed those explanations where he greatly expanded on anything Bush had said as to Executive Immunity thus extending the power of the Executive above and beyond anything Bush had applying Sovereign Immunity in ways never even expected or applied by those "terrible conservatives"...



This wasn't due to PATRIOT Act changes, it was simply the way that Obama applied it in his argument. They are "immune" from any and all lawsuits, unless there is "willful" disclosure. Not leaks, not accidental, only WILLFUL...

That wasn't from any expansion or change in the PATRIOT Act extension in 2008, it was created wholly to support an expansion of a program he had promised to add "oversight" to, which has never been added, not even once even in the PATRIOT Act extension in 2010...

There is nothing that is "better" than what was in place when Bush was in office, other than your view of it because of who is in office, certainly he has done nothing through action to make any of it "better".

So... Laws that were in place when Bush was President were only extended since Obama has taken office, the only thing that changed was how Nigel saw those laws. Now they are just "bad laws" not "illegal wiretapping" and they are Somebody Else's Problem, not "violations against civil liberties" and only the courts can make determination though previously that wasn't the case...

I'm seriously disappointed, Onceler, it's weak argument taken to the extreme you have presented herein.

Did you have a stroke or something? I'm concerned about your health with this muddled garbage.

 

[Damocles]

But your argument is severely factually challenged. Warrantless wiretapping has been legal since 2008 when FISA was amended. The lawsuit is about pre-amendment illegal warrantless wiretapping. My point is even simpler, a president that engages in legal warrantless wiretapping is superior to a president that engages in illegal warrantless wiretapping.

Your argument is basically that Obama's after-the-fact legal justification for Bush illegal warrantless wiretapping is worse than Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping. That's stupid.

Total and abject disingenuous application of reality. The argument itself applying Sovereign Immunity in a far broader concept than any proposed by the previous administration is a huge grasp of power, nothing in the PATRIOT Act provided such Sovereign Immunity.

What was "wrong" before is still "wrong", just now you are assumed (by the same guy required to enforce law) to have no way to petition your government for redress.

Now he attempts to violate two of our constitutional freedoms rather than just one. Thankfully he has your support because there was this "bad law" passed that had nothing to do with this Sovereign Immunity that he asserts making it so you cannot petition government (1st Amendment) and he can violate the 4th at will....

Just ignore everything and apply your delusion to reality. His legal argument had nothing to do with any of the extensions of the PATRIOT Act passed in 2008. It applied something new, and even worse than Bush applied to the same.

 

[Damocles]

What's even worse? If his assertions in that argument are taken as Truth, and Nigel's assertions that the courts are the only body that can make decisions based on it, nobody can challenge the law at all. The only people who could have brought cause against the government for violation would be incapable. They could not bring action due to the Sovereign Immunity that the Executive applied.

If the courts supported this, they have given the Executive Branch full and complete power and have conclusively removed the 4th Amendment from existence. The government would have the power to seize any property whatsoever per the PATRIOT Act so long as they labeled it as "tangible things related to a terrorism inquiry"... They'd be able to listen to any conversation at any time with zero capability for anybody to bring action for violation of rights.

It's a gross grab of Executive power that should never be willfully allowed by any person convinced that we have any sort of Rights.

 

[Bonestorm]

Total and abject disingenuous application of reality. The argument itself applying Sovereign Immunity in a far broader concept than any proposed by the previous administration is a huge grasp of power, nothing in the PATRIOT Act provided such Sovereign Immunity.

You're argument is beyond fucked. First, Obama doesn't need to come up with creative reasons to spy on Americans, Congress authorized him to do it. There is no power grab. Congress gave him all the powers that Bush illegally exercised. The lawsuit is about whether the government can be sued for what the Bush Administration did, not about anything Obama has done. That the DOJ came up with a more creative defense of the Bush Administration that the Bush Administration came up with themselves is just evidence that Obama's DOJ is smarter that the Regent Law School dumbasses.

What was "wrong" before is still "wrong", just now you are assumed (by the same guy required to enforce law) to have no way to petition your government for redress.

Right and wrong have little to do with it. It's a matter of illegal versus legal. Up until the FISA Amendments passed in 2008, warrantless wiretapping was illegal. After those amendments passed, warrantless wiretapping was legal.

Now he attempts to violate two of our constitutional freedoms rather than just one. Thankfully he has your support because there was this "bad law" passed that had nothing to do with this Sovereign Immunity that he asserts making it so you cannot petition government (1st Amendment) and he can violate the 4th at will....

Obama isn't violating shit. He's providing legal justification for Bush Administration violations of the law. Frankly, I wish the DOJ wouldn't contest the lawsuits so I wouldn't have to listen to your ignorant shit about it.

Just ignore everything and apply your delusion to reality. His legal argument had nothing to do with any of the extensions of the PATRIOT Act passed in 2008. It applied something new, and even worse than Bush applied to the same.

This is awesome. I try to throw "projection" around too much on this board because it's overused, but the above is projection in the classic sense.

 

[Canceled1]

What's even worse? If his assertions in that argument are taken as Truth, and Nigel's assertions that the courts are the only body that can make decisions based on it, nobody can challenge the law at all. The only people who could have brought cause against the government for violation would be incapable. They could not bring action due to the Sovereign Immunity that the Executive applied.

If the courts supported this, they have given the Executive Branch full and complete power and have conclusively removed the 4th Amendment from existence. The government would have the power to seize any property whatsoever per the PATRIOT Act so long as they labeled it as "tangible things related to a terrorism inquiry"... They'd be able to listen to any conversation at any time with zero capability for anybody to bring action for violation of rights.

It's a gross grab of Executive power that should never be willfully allowed by any person convinced that we have any sort of Rights.

Nigey. Owned, operated, sliced and diced by Damo!

 

[Bonestorm]

What's even worse? If his assertions in that argument are taken as Truth, and Nigel's assertions that the courts are the only body that can make decisions based on it, nobody can challenge the law at all. The only people who could have brought cause against the government for violation would be incapable. They could not bring action due to the Sovereign Immunity that the Executive applied.

If the courts supported this, they have given the Executive Branch full and complete power and have conclusively removed the 4th Amendment from existence. The government would have the power to seize any property whatsoever per the PATRIOT Act so long as they labeled it as "tangible things related to a terrorism inquiry"... They'd be able to listen to any conversation at any time with zero capability for anybody to bring action for violation of rights.

It's a gross grab of Executive power that should never be willfully allowed by any person convinced that we have any sort of Rights.

Step down from the soapbox, Damo. You don't get bonus points for random capitalization, invocation of apple pie and excessive use of good ol' fashioned frontier gibberish.

 

[Damocles]

You're argument is beyond fucked. First, Obama doesn't need to come up with creative reasons to spy on Americans, Congress authorized him to do it. There is no power grab. Congress gave him all the powers that Bush illegally exercised. The lawsuit is about whether the government can be sued for what the Bush Administration did, not about anything Obama has done. That the DOJ came up with a more creative defense of the Bush Administration that the Bush Administration came up with themselves is just evidence that Obama's DOJ is smarter that the Regent Law School dumbasses.

It wasn't "more creative" it was a power grab plain and simple. The full application of such "Sovereign Immunity" would clearly make it impossible for anybody to sue for redress.

Right and wrong have little to do with it. It's a matter of illegal versus legal. Up until the FISA Amendments passed in 2008, warrantless wiretapping was illegal. After those amendments passed, warrantless wiretapping was legal.

However, real and delusional do. It is delusional to say that such a powergrab was not an expansion of already assumed powers that you were against from a previous Administration following the exact same law.

Obama isn't violating shit. He's providing legal justification for Bush Administration violations of the law. Frankly, I wish the DOJ wouldn't contest the lawsuits so I wouldn't have to listen to your ignorant shit about it.

This is awesome. I try to throw "projection" around too much on this board because it's overused, but the above is projection in the classic sense.

I know you "try" to throw that around as much as possible, too bad it doesn't apply here.

 

[Bonestorm]

Damo:

The lawsuit where Sovereign Immunity was invoked was a lawsuit about the illegal activities of the Bush Administration. It wasn't about anything Obama is doing or was doing. To call it a power-grab is just a very basic misunderstanding of what that lawsuit was about.

And, unlike Bush prior to 2008, Obama doesn't have to rely on creative legal theories to conduct warrantless wiretapping since Congress expressly authorized it under the FISA Amendments of 2008.

Lots of heat out of you on this, but exceedingly little light.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It wasn't "more creative" it was a power grab plain and simple. The full application of such "Sovereign Immunity" would clearly make it impossible for anybody to sue for redress.


However, real and delusional do. It is delusional to say that such a powergrab was not an expansion of already assumed powers that you were against from a previous Administration following the exact same law.



I know you "try" to throw that around as much as possible, too bad it doesn't apply here.

Here is Nigel's way of supporting Obama's behavior:
"It was illegal, before it was legal; ie: I voted for the war, before I voted against the war"
All he wants to do is play antics with semantics.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Damo:

The lawsuit where Sovereign Immunity was invoked was a lawsuit about the illegal activities of the Bush Administration. It wasn't about anything Obama is doing or was doing. To call it a power-grab is just a very basic misunderstanding of what that lawsuit was about.

And, unlike Bush prior to 2008, Obama doesn't have to rely on creative legal theories to conduct warrantless wiretapping since Congress expressly authorized it under the FISA Amendments of 2008.

Lots of heat out of you on this, but exceedingly little light.

obama's admin is arguing bush's position and then some....

nice try, but your bullshit don't fly