Domestic spying

[DanS]

I wonder how organizations like MI5 do it. Do they need warrants to surveil? Anybody know?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Sure we are, we are at war with remnants of the Iraqi and Afghan regimes - both authorised by congressional resolutions. Have we signed some treaty ending hostilities with these groups? No, so I'd say we are still at war with them.

No were are not. The taliban was not the recognized regime in Afghanistan, the uS had no formal relations with them. Congressional resolution is not the same as a Declaration of War. Its a go ahead saying we won;t pull the funding later. Very different. As for Iraq, the regime we were at war with fell after 6 weeks.

So what the **** are you going on about???

The courts aren't in charge of deciding which civil liberties may be suspended during wartime.

Actually, the courts do say what is constitutional, including what powers the state can take unhto itself during war time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I wonder how organizations like MI5 do it. Do they need warrants to surveil? Anybody know?

Does anyone care? Cause last time I looked this ain't Britain, so who gives a ****?

[DanS]

I'm interested, so piss off.

[GePap]

Just making sure you are not making some utterly irrlevant, inane and worhtless comparison in order to rationalize or justify the admin. actions.

[Odin]

HEY DAN, READY TO TURN YOU BACK ON THOSE CRIMNINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE YET!?!

[Zkribbler]

Could we include words in this debate which contain more than four letters??

Merry Christmas and good will to all.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Merry Christmas and good will to all.

Santa better drop a ton of coal at the White House.

[Berzerker]

No were are not. The taliban was not the recognized regime in Afghanistan, the uS had no formal relations with them.

According to Michael Moore we had plenty of relations with them. We were giving them oodles of money to wage a drug war and general aid, I'd call that recognition.

Congressional resolution is not the same as a Declaration of War.

It is when the resolution authorises the President to use force

Its a go ahead saying we won;t pull the funding later. Very different. As for Iraq, the regime we were at war with fell after 6 weeks.

So what the **** are you going on about???

You mean Congress did not pass resolutions authorising Bush to use force in Afghanistan and Iraq? And of course Congress can always pull funding, thats been the case since the Founding. Just keeping it real...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Odin


Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

DOWN WITH KING GEORGE!!!



Is this why Hillary, Lieberman, and McCain are sucking up to Bush? Is Bush collecting person information to BLACKMAIL them?

A better question: why are two likely presidential front-runners from different parties, who are better informed on the entire situation than any of us, supporting an unpopular president's unpopular moves?

[Berzerker]

if they were better informed, why did they tell us about WMD? Some of us got our info elsewhere and reason to dis-believe them

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


According to Michael Moore we had plenty of relations with them. We were giving them oodles of money to wage a drug war and general aid, I'd call that recognition.

Being pragmatic does not equal legal relations. De facto vs. de jure mater.

It is when the resolution authorises the President to use force

It isn;t , because that is still not a declaration of war. That seems simple enough to explain.

You mean Congress did not pass resolutions authorising Bush to use force in Afghanistan and Iraq? And of course Congress can always pull funding, thats been the case since the Founding. Just keeping it real...

In the Iraq case, the COngress said using force was OK, but it did not mandate the use of force. That is different from a declaration of war, in which the Congress states that a state of open warfare exists, period.

Again, is that difference beyond your ability to comprehend, or something?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


A better question: why are two likely presidential front-runners from different parties, who are better informed on the entire situation than any of us, supporting an unpopular president's unpopular moves?

An even better question: who cares what "two likely presidential front-runners from different parties" think, specially right now?

Their opinions are no more valid than those of the people outraged.

[Berzerker]

Being pragmatic does not equal legal relations. De facto vs. de jure mater.

Giving money to the Taliban to enforce laws is legal recognition of the Taliban's authority to enforce laws, i.e., they were the governing body in charge. Before the US invaded the Bushies demanded they hand over Bin Laden, that was a demand from one governing authority to another.

It isn;t , because that is still not a declaration of war. That seems simple enough to explain.

A resolution calling for the removal of Saddam's regime (under Clinton) and a 2nd resolution authorising the President to use force against Saddam's regime sure is a declaration of war.

In the Iraq case, the COngress said using force was OK, but it did not mandate the use of force.

They authorised the use of force, thats all that matters. I used to agree with your argument, but its just semantics.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Giving money to the Taliban to enforce laws is legal recognition of the Taliban's authority to enforce laws, i.e., they were the governing body in charge. Before the US invaded the Bushies demanded they hand over Bin Laden, that was a demand from one governing authority to another.

NO, no more than a demand that a hostage taker give up thier hostages or else is a demand form one authority to another. Again, de facto vs de jure.

A resolution calling for the removal of Saddam's regime (under Clinton) and a 2nd resolution authorising the President to use force against Saddam's regime sure is a declaration of war.

Actually, NO, ITS NOT. A declaration of war is a very distinct act of Congress. For example, the president would haveno right to cancel Habeas Corpus for citizens, while theoretically during a War or insurrection he could.

They authorised the use of force, thats all that matters. I used to agree with your argument, but its just semantics.

The law is all semantics, given that it is nothing more than a collection of words. The fact that Congress may authorise the Executive branch to resolve some problem, possibly with the use of military force, is not, nor shall it ever be, equal to the Congress authorizing a state of war with another state.