[Machette]

I'm sorry I don't share the view you entail. And saying I follow the public opinion is wrong. I opposed Bush long before public opinion was changing.

Also the reason the NSA case isn't brought in congress (it has, briefly) is because the government won't release anything about the program. And as the whistle blower who broke spoke to the NYT said the program is widespread..who is to say someone calling from Dubai to call his family in America isn't being wire tapped? How does the NSA know who is and who isn't a terrorist..

[TGB!]

[quote:520c4]Also the reason the NSA case isn't brought in congress (it has, briefly) is because the government won't release anything about the program.[/quote:520c4]

The government has no obligation to bring ANYTHING before anyone in congress not on the proper committees. And why would it be brought before Congress anyway - they, ultimately, are not the people who determine the legality of the program.

[quote:520c4]And as the whistle blower who broke spoke to the NYT said the program is widespread.[/quote:520c4]

Unfortunately, terrorists arent all holed up in TERROR HOUSE. So of course the program is going to be widespread.

The Spy Program was reviewed and authorized by the President, Congressional members, and WH lawyers. Not whether they are all evil or not - I'm going to trust that they arent doing anything BLATANTLY illegal, if for no other reason than they dont want jail time or to be impeached. I'm sure internet pundits and junion college firebrands have alternate opinions, but until they research constitutional law, and presidential powers - I'm going to defer to the experts.

[Machette]

Experts like John Yoo? rolleyes:

[TGB!]

Originally Posted by Machette

Experts like John Yoo? rolleyes:

Wow - way to name drop! Three cheers for you! Now heres double the eye-roll! rolleyes: rolleyes:

Well since you seem so dismissive of Mr. Yoo's memo to the president, perhaps you can explain the ILLEGALITY of Mr. Yoo's assertions - I mean OBVIOUSLY you have an opinion since you can seemingly be flip and dismiss a Berkeley Law Professor out of hand with your electionic-emotions.

[Machette]

The State Department's chief legal adviser at the time called his analysis of the Geneva Conventions "seriously flawed." Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, in a critique of administration views espoused by Yoo, "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

"The idea that . . . Congress has no authority to impose limits on torture has little support in constitutional texts or history, or legal precedent," said University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein.

From washingtonpost.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32668

Best line "Yet by all accounts, Yoo had a hand in virtually every major legal decision involving the U.S. response to the attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice was virtually always the same -- the president can do whatever the president wants."

"According to this view, Congress's foreign affairs authority is largely limited to enacting domestic legislation and appropriating money. In other words, when it comes to foreign affairs, the president exercises unilateral authority largely unchecked by law -- constitutional or international."

It's not a issue of illegality it is a issue of CHANGING the law to further justfiy actions.

Also a lenghty piece by the Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/holmes/6

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... G01E31.DTL
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/anal ... 18memo.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/