Watada mistrial

[SecDef]

No, you very clearly beat it into me that those clauses "Don't Matter" with, if not citations for support, appeals to authority.

Either those clauses limit the president's power or they don't.


They also don't talk about WHERE, they talk about WHAT FOR.

Certainly defending US soil against aggressors from Iraq falls under this resolution.

 

[STAGE 2]

No, you very clearly beat it into me that those clauses "Don't Matter" with, if not citations for support, appeals to authority.

Either those clauses limit the president's power or they don't.


They also don't talk about WHERE, they talk about WHAT FOR.

Certainly defending US soil against aggressors from Iraq falls under this resolution.

I never said those clauses don't matter. I said that they were not controlling of the president's authority in that they don't address the specifics of how he is to accomplish stuff.

Look. All of this is bunk. You are ignoring the 3-4 other sections of the resolution which specifically define the objectives and extent of the resolution. The parameters are Iraq. You can't dispute this. Within these parameters the president has all the authority given to him by the resolution, which includes all of the parameters of his powers as commander in chief.

Thats it. Your nonsensical examples are just that. You originally wanted to talk only about the use of force and now you're jumping off into tangential stuff.

 

[Danzig]

The Founders intention was that the President never be all powerful. That idea do not only apply in times of peace.

War is no excuse for tyranny. War cannot be used as justification to destroy the Republic.

 

[STAGE 2]

Then why did they make him commander in chief of the military with no express limitation on his powers. With all of the careful drafting that these brilliant men did do you think they just forgot that? I don't think so.

 

[SecDef]

The founding fathers also said that the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. They didn't exclude who are in prison.
These brilliant men specifically didn't put a limitation on the 2nd amendment.

Obviously prisoners should have guns?!!??

Commander-in-chief doesn't make him military. He's a civilian. He does not have unlimited power.

 

[SecDef]

Stage2, I'm done, BTW. Don't worry about responding. I have reached to point where I am weary of your appeals to authority, and universal blanket statements. Your replies bring out the snarkiness in me, and I apologize to those reading this that take it the wrong way. I feel it is only through debate and testing the limits of what we believe in that we truly understand what we do believe in. If you use the word "unlimited" I must project pretty far down the spectrum to test that assertion.

So, I will end with this rant:
In this war, I feel that congress was lied to in terms of reasons for going into the war, military advisers that disagreed with the administration were removed, the 9/11 commission and the baker-hamilton Iraq Study Group findings were ignored, and the american people were repeatedly lied to in this administration (9/11 Iraq connection, WMD, ability to launch WMD, yellow cake words in the SOTU, outing of Plame and consequences thereof, Wiretapping still requires a warrant, etc) These are not trivial things to be ignored, they have aggregated to creating a perpetual state of UNJUSTIFIED fear in the populace.

During all this, there has been a negligence of duty by congress, specifically in providing oversight. Oversight to justifications for the war, oversight for auditing the spending in the war, oversight for ensuring we are negotiation proper contracts for contractors supporting the war - not just making deals with cronies, oversight for suspension of habeas corpus. All these things CAN be done, but should NOT be done simply at the will of a single person.

A blank check for $100 Billion dollars to the President, ANY President, to simply use as he sees fit is asking for trouble.

Just because it is legal, that doesn't make it right. If the 2nd amendment were appealed tomorrow (as the 18th amendment was), would that make things right? The whole point of amending the constitution is because the founding fathers knew that it needed to be able to change as needed. Through the will of the people. Not the will of a single executive (see oversight negligence above for details)

Hopefully the Watada trial will be reset, and double jeopardy will not be invoked. I think it is appropriate for this case to be tried. Maybe he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but maybe his point isn't to be found not-guilty.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage2, I'm done, BTW. Don't worry about responding. I have reached to point where I am weary of your appeals to authority, and universal blanket statements. Your replies bring out the snarkiness in me, and I apologize to those reading this that take it the wrong way. I feel it is only through debate and testing the limits of what we believe in that we truly understand what we do believe in. If you use the word "unlimited" I must project pretty far down the spectrum to test that assertion.

I've done nothing but present coherent legal arguments to you. I've cited to the constitution, the resolution and SCOTUS opinions. If these bring out the snarkiness in you then there is a much bigger problem than this simple debate.

Furthermore I don't feel that in a debate between adults that I should have to spell out every single minute point. I shouldn't have to say that the presidents actions can't violate the law. Its an assumed constraint. Bush has unlimited military power within the legal realm. This doesn't cover killing civilians or imprisoning senators. I never insinuated this nor do I think I should have to clarify it. Its common sense.

In this war, I feel that congress was lied to in terms of reasons for going into the war, military advisers that disagreed with the administration were removed, the 9/11 commission and the baker-hamilton Iraq Study Group findings were ignored, and the american people were repeatedly lied to in this administration (9/11 Iraq connection, WMD, ability to launch WMD, yellow cake words in the SOTU, outing of Plame and consequences thereof, Wiretapping still requires a warrant, etc) These are not trivial things to be ignored, they have aggregated to creating a perpetual state of UNJUSTIFIED fear in the populace.

Well, given the recent report out of the pentagon which stated that the administration did NOT lie and pre-war intelligence was not altered, I don't see what the gripe is. On the WMD issue, just about every single major member of congress was on record beating this drum as well, but I don't see their feet held to the fire. Its already been established that Plame (who wasn't undercover in any sense of the word) was outed by Armitage and her husband galavanting around washington's party circuit. Finally, there has been no evidence of the administration warrantlessly wiretapping any american citizen.

All I see here is a bunch of assumptions and people sitting around saying "it just doesn't feel right". Well this doesn't get you there. Tangible evidence is the standard. People and nations sometimes make mistakes. That doesn't mean there is some boogeyman somewhere who was acting under malicious pretenses.

Just because it is legal, that doesn't make it right. If the 2nd amendment were appealed tomorrow (as the 18th amendment was), would that make things right? The whole point of amending the constitution is because the founding fathers knew that it needed to be able to change as needed. Through the will of the people. Not the will of a single executive (see oversight negligence above for details)

If the 2nd amendment were repealed tomorrow by a valid use of the amendment process then there is nothing that you or I could complain about... except maybe apathy and ignorance on the part of our fellow americans. This is the way our system works. Legal is the standard. Sometimes it work well and sometimes it doesn't. But at the end of the day its still the best system in the world, and you can't pick and choose when you want to play in it and when you don't.

Hopefully the Watada trial will be reset, and double jeopardy will not be invoked. I think it is appropriate for this case to be tried. Maybe he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but maybe his point isn't to be found not-guilty.

If Watada wants to be a martyr in federal prison, let him. I hope he gets real cozy with his cell mate. Maybe if he's lucky, even though he never got to see Iraq, bubba will bring a little piece of abu ghraib home to the lieutenant.

 

[badbob]

Maybe if he's lucky, even though he never got to see Iraq, bubba will bring a little piece of abu ghraib home to the lieutenant.

??? This must be why they say that just 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

badbob

 

[STAGE 2]

Its a small price ot pay compared to his comrades that went over there and died because they followed orders and performed their duties.

 

[SecDef]

Well, given the recent report out of the pentagon which stated that the administration did NOT lie and pre-war intelligence was not altered, I don't see what the gripe is. On the WMD issue, just about every single major member of congress was on record beating this drum as well, but I don't see their feet held to the fire. Its already been established that Plame (who wasn't undercover in any sense of the word) was outed by Armitage and her husband galavanting around washington's party circuit. Finally, there has been no evidence of the administration warrantlessly wiretapping any american citizen.

This is getting up way off topic, but...

Pentagon report:
See brief clip from http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/14514/2/fox_fns_wallace_.mov
Feith altered intelligence.
Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the office headed by former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith took "inappropriate" actions in advancing conclusions on al-Qaida connections not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies

Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

So while what he did was not illegal per the Inspector General, what he did was still lying. He advanced conclusions that were not backed up by the intelligence agency. That's lying, dude.

WMD drumbeat: If congress was given incomplete or erroneous information, them beating the drum doesn't mean anything. They were given intel that the white house filtered. They don't get a direct feed from the intel agencies.

Plame: This was a matter of lying to the public. The white house lied when it stated that Rove never revealed Plame, yet he is the confirmation source according to Novak! (who had the decency to make his statements under oath) What are you smoking and why are you not getting real and/or current news?

Evidence of wiretapping: Obviously you are not up on your technology which is fine. However, all cell phone companies are required to have an undetectable way of recording calls, which I believe is the same with regular phone companies. Add in the Patriot Act, and that it is now illegal for these same phone companies to provide any evidence that a tap was asked for (assuming that they are even in the loop once they provide government access) What kind of evidence do you expect? Men in dark clothes wearing masks?
Here's some evidence, I'll cite a case for you: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/,
and here is the current appeal: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#004990

 

[STAGE 2]

Gimble said that while the actions of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy "were not illegal or unauthorized," they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers" at a time when the White House was moving toward war with Iraq.

So while what he did was not illegal per the Inspector General, what he did was still lying. He advanced conclusions that were not backed up by the intelligence agency. That's lying, dude.

Not illegal or unauthorized. Thats the only thing that matters. WE don't police morals we police the law.

WMD drumbeat: If congress was given incomplete or erroneous information, them beating the drum doesn't mean anything. They were given intel that the white house filtered. They don't get a direct feed from the intel agencies.

Congress had just as much access to unfiltered information as the executive did. From Hillary herself...

Hillary Clinton on the Larry King show April 20, 2004 (after it was clear that we would find no stockpiles of WMD's.)

She tells Larry: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Sadaam Hussein had been a real problem for more than a decade."

Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled", she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

Plame: This was a matter of lying to the public. The white house lied when it stated that Rove never revealed Plame, yet he is the confirmation source according to Novak! (who had the decency to make his statements under oath) What are you smoking and why are you not getting real and/or current news?

What Rove did or didn't do is irrelevant. The first person to reveal Plame worked at the CIA was Armitage. Furthermore, Wilson went all over town introdcing his wife as a CIA analyst. She wasn't covert, and even if she was, he is just as guilty as anyone else for destroying her cover.

Evidence of wiretapping: Obviously you are not up on your technology which is fine. However, all cell phone companies are required to have an undetectable way of recording calls, which I believe is the same with regular phone companies. Add in the Patriot Act, and that it is now illegal for these same phone companies to provide any evidence that a tap was asked for (assuming that they are even in the loop once they provide government access) What kind of evidence do you expect? Men in dark clothes wearing masks?

From your own link... "It remains the province and the duty of the courts to determine whether the spying program broke the law"

So once again there hasn't been any evidence of any law breaking. Thats why we have the trial.

 

[SecDef]

they "did not provide the most accurate analysis of intelligence to senior decision makers"

I never said the weren't legal or unauthorized as I do not have that authority, I said that there was misinformation and lies to create a false impression of the situation. The pentagon agrees.

Congress had just as much access to unfiltered information as the executive did. From Hillary herself...

Your statements do not support that conclusion. Yes, everyone thought so. Any evidence to the contrary was suppressed. People still thought so. That doesn't make it true. Congress absolutely didn't have the same intelligence available to the administration.

What Rove did or didn't do is irrelevant. The first person to reveal Plame worked at the CIA was Armitage. Furthermore, Wilson went all over town introdcing his wife as a CIA analyst. She wasn't covert, and even if she was, he is just as guilty as anyone else for destroying her cover.

Why the red herrings? The administration said to the american people that Rove was not involved at all. Novak has now confirmed his involvement. The administration knowingly told the american people something that was not true. What Rove did wasn't even against the law, which underscores the fact that this administration will lie about anything it damn well pleases for mere sport.

From your own link... "It remains the province and the duty of the courts to determine whether the spying program broke the law"

So once again there hasn't been any evidence of any law breaking. Thats why we have the trial.

If there were wiretaps (which I think was pretty much established since Bush said they were occurring) then AT&T's defense would be "there were warrants for these wiretaps, and here they are". They don't have them. They can't produce them because they don't exist.

The mere fact that you can put down such statement as "Finally, there has been no evidence of the administration warrantlessly wiretapping any american citizen." even though "President Bush confirmed in December that the NSA has been conducting the surveillance when calls and e-mails, in which at least one party is outside the United States, are thought to involve Al Qaeda terrorists.".

Of course the legality will be determined by the court system. Your statement that there is no evidence of warrentless wiretaps is simply asinine.

Apparently you have no problem with the administration saying someone that is simply not true as long as they are not under oath. That speaks volumes about you.

 

[Eghad]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.