Gore & Barr Blast Bush on Surveillance

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
From Drudge: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1g.htm
GORE BLASTS BUSH FOR 'DANGEROUS BREACH'
Constitution Hall, Washington, D.C.
Mon Jan 16 2006 12:40:14 ET


Congressman Barr and I have disagreed many times over the years, but we have joined together today with thousands of our fellow citizens-Democrats and Republicans alike-to express our shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger.

In spite of our differences over ideology and politics, we are in strong agreement that the American values we hold most dear have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the Administration to a truly breathtaking expansion of executive power.

As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses.

It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.

So, many of us have come here to Constitution Hall to sound an alarm and call upon our fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences and join with us in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved.

<snip>

It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system.

We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.

Thomas Jefferson said: "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

<snip>

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

<snip>
The entire speech is posted on Drudge. Very interesting reading. I actually agree with a few of his points. :eek:
 
The hallmark of fairness is reciprocity.

If it were a Democrat President, with a Republican politico attacking him on this issue, would I be equally mad?

Dambetcha.

I hate to admit I agree with Algore and am most disappointed in my President.
 
The hallmark of fairness is reciprocity

Huh?



Here is Gore's speech in a nutshell: American's can no longer make overseas calls to their Al Qeada friends pen pals without the CIA listening

Now does that really weaken the Constitution?
 
Rediculous.

What Bush is doing, is peanuts compared to what Lincoln and FDR did during a time of war. More absurd liberal/left posturing, by a certifiable moonbat, which will only hurt the democrats in '06.
 
It dosen't bother me one bit as I'm not a terrorist and have nothing to hide.

Then you won't mind me kicking in your door at about oh say......3:00AM and having a look around just to make sure..........since you have nothing to hide of course.:mad:

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Captain Planet and Bob Barr.

The problem isn't necessarily with this administration. The problem is having this practice continue with a Hillary and future administrations.

The issue here is to not let govt have anymore power than you would want your worst enemy to have in a politically powerful position. At some point govt is going to be your worst enemy.
 
Then you won't mind me kicking in your door at about oh say......3:00AM and having a look around just to make sure..........since you have nothing to hide of course.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Captain Planet and Bob Barr.

NOBODY has done that. The CIA still have to get a search warrant even to wiretap Al Qaeda phone calls or enter a building. You're letting Gore get you all fired up with his silly demagoguery and partisan misimformation. Gore's speech wasn't even designed to fool people like you yet it did. Look at your own description of Gore(Cap Panet). You obviously called him that because you previously saw through his propaganda; so why believe him now? Gore did not suddenly become levelheaded just minutes before he gave todays speech.
 
A little drift here - -

Last week, for example, Vice President Cheney attempted to defend the Administration's eavesdropping on American citizens by saying that if it had conducted this program prior to 9/11, they would have found out the names of some of the hijackers.

Tragically, he apparently still doesn't know that the Administration did in fact have the names of at least 2 of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have easily led to the identification of most of the other hijackers. And yet, because of incompetence in the handling of this information, it was never used to protect the American people.

'scuse me Al.
Can you define "well before" a little better?
I mean if it was WELL before, wouldn't that have been on your watch?
Why didn't you and Clinton do anything about them?

Sounds like more of the same old BS - buck passing..
 
...I agree with Al Gore. What is the world coming to?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized
 
You forgot the footnote:

*unless they are terrorists, suspected terrorists, "enemy combatants", Muslims, Muslim-looking, or attempting to board a plane while having an Arabic surname. We are, after all, At War.
 
Wire Taps etc

  1. If it will help catch terrorist,please feel free to tap my line.DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE? Type your name in on the internet,and see what the world already knows about you. Most of our lives are an open book anyway.:rolleyes:
 
unless they are terrorists, suspected terrorists, "enemy combatants", Muslims, Muslim-looking, or attempting to board a plane while having an Arabic surname. We are, after all, At War.
How about on people and phone numbers found in Taliban and al queada strongholds? Is it ok to listen in on those?
 
I think the whole point is that it is not the spying on terrorist that is objectionable and perhaps unconstitutional but it is the fact that the innocent might also be spied upon. The fact is it is very easy and a warrant could be quickly obtained, in an acceptable manner, to evesdrop on anyone--especially a suspected terrorist.
 
Then you won't mind me kicking in your door at about oh say......3:00AM and having a look around just to make sure..........since you have nothing to hide of course.

They still need a warrant as others have said to conduct a search. Come on in and look around. Stevelyn do you have an example of this happening? Listen to my phone I don't care. I'm not involved in anything illegal or terrorist activites so I don't have anyhting to hide.
 
Gore...Oh wait...He invented the Internet! :rolleyes:

If it's at all possible for feces to have a pulse, it's AL Gore


.
 
If it will help catch terrorist,please feel free to tap my line.DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?
I agree completely and believe this type of thoughtful insight should be expanded to other areas.

Let's look at a War that's been around a lot longer than the War on Terror; one that's claimed far more lives; one that isn't taking place on foreign soil, but daily, in our own communities. I'm talking about the War on Drugs.

I think anyone suspected of being involved with Drug Sales should be subject to wire taps without warrant. No notice; no Judge; no warrant; no redress. After all what do you have to hide?

In fact, lemme take it a step further. Most of the firearms violence in this nation stems from illegal drug activities. It has to stop. I propose a National Registry of Firearms Ownership. FedGov needs to know who has what guns if they're gonna be able to win the War on Drugs against all these full-auto toting homies that are gunning our children down in the streets.

Anyone want to argue that a National Registry is a violation of your rights? Well then you just don't care about your children...or, perhaps, you have something to hide? After all, a simple Registry would NEVER be used to encroach on our Second Amendment rights. It's just a necessary tool.


I think the whole point is that it is not the spying on terrorist that is objectionable and perhaps unconstitutional but it is the fact that the innocent might also be spied upon. The fact is it is very easy and a warrant could be quickly obtained, in an acceptable manner, to eavesdrop on anyone--especially a suspected terrorist.

Bingo! In our Uber-Jingoist society, the very people who raise all hell every time a new firearms law is passed, or an illegal ATF action taken will be the first to give up their 4th Amendment guarantees in the belief that an omnipotent Executive Branch will use that power only to protect them.

Rich
 
I challenge you to find my phone number and address on the Internet.

All the Feds have to do is get your IP address trace it to your service provider and request your personal address and info either using the executive order or a national security letter. Which is logged whenever you sign onto the boards.

What has not changed is that is the basic principle that a person should be secure from unreasonable searches without a warrant. Mr. Bush has the FISA Court for such things.....
To me that is a worrisome sign whenever an elected official feels he has the power to do whatever he wants.
 
The hallmark of fairness is reciprocity.
Translation: if its fair, it would be fair going the other way, too. i.e. if a Republican politico were attacking a Democratic President on this issue, would I feel the same. And I would.

I think the whole point is that it is not the spying on terrorist that is objectionable and perhaps unconstitutional but it is the fact that the innocent might also be spied upon.
Let's try separating intentions from capabilities. The Gov't says they have no intention of spying on law-abiding citizens. But they have taken liberties with the Constitution that give them the CAPABILITY to spy on law-abiding citizens.
 
What Bush is doing, is peanuts compared to what Lincoln and FDR did during a time of war.

Rotten peanuts are still rotten. How does one justify a crime by simply comparing it to other crimes?

"time of war"

I thought only Congress could declare "war". :confused: Y'all say that it's not so bad what Bush is doing and that it's just a bunch of hippy propoganda...but I highly doubt you'd be singing the same tune if a Democrat was doing the exact same things that Bush is doing. In fact, it'd be labeled as demosocialfacism or some other nonesense term.

So what if the Democrats take power by the end of the decade? What if they suggest that the "War on Terror" needs to be expanded to US soil - "we'll fight them here so we don't have to fight them over there!" - and decide that firearm ownership is as much an indicator of terrorism as having a friend in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Kuwait that may or may not perhaps have a possible connection to the stinkin' terr'ists?

NOBODY has done that. The CIA still have to get a search warrant even to wiretap

Maybe they haven't done it recently (or maybe they have, do we really know for sure?) but less than half a century ago those "black bag" searches were not uncommon. Why give this or the next administration or the one after or any administration the ability to even consider doing that again?

"Nothing to hide." hah

Until the day that the second amendment is repealed and all of your guns are suddenly something to hide.
 
Back
Top