[quote]pookie wrote:
About that “ticking time bomb” scenario… can anyone give one historical example of that ever taking place? Anywhere, at any time?
If the only justification for abrogating rights is some fantasy scenario with about 0% chance of ever occurring in real life, then it might not be a good idea.
It seems more like a way of getting the judges out of the existing process for intercepting and reading mail. Getting rid of a “check and balance” in other words. A Judge can’t refuse if he’s not involved.
I also can’t imagine that anyone, if placed in an actual “ticking time bomb” scenario that he could avert by opening a piece of mail, would stand idly by with his thumbs up his ass while waiting for the warrant. Just open the letter and deal with whatever legal fallouts there is later on.
[/quote]
Agreed.
In the ticking bomb scenario, rip this fuckers fingernails out and be pardoned by the president later.
That make sure you really try to get the right Mofo.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Before 9/11, had planes been hijacked and used as bombs anywhere, at any time? Things change. [/quote]
That’s not a ticking time bomb scenario. The planes were not hidden with the location only known by one man or hidden in an envelope somewhere, which is what the “ticking time bomb” scenario entails.
Furthermore, the authorities had no knowledge of the plan at the moment the plane were being flown. The ticking time bomb scenario describes a situation where we know a bomb is ticking away, somewhere, but we don’t know where or for how long.
Like I said, it’s never actually happened. Ever.
Of course. But what about the case that are never brought before a court? What if you suddenly find yourself on the no-fly list because something the government finds in your mail?
Would you be okay with a bill that mandated that CCTV cameras be placed in every house? If it’s okay to tap phones and open mail, why not simply watch your whole life?
I think more than a few SWAT team members would go ahead anyway. You don’t really need policy to cover one ass for a situation that might occur once per millennia. You do need to cover your ass if you’re intending on doing the deed on a regular basis, though.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I think more than a few SWAT team members would go ahead anyway. You don’t really need policy to cover one ass for a situation that might occur once per millennia. You do need to cover your ass if you’re intending on doing the deed on a regular basis, though.
[/quote]
Pook, you are right on the money on this one… it’s insane.
Some of these jokers have a childs trust for authority… oh well, at least they have led idyllic lives and obviously have never been fucked over by someone.
That’s not a ticking time bomb scenario. The planes were not hidden with the location only known by one man or hidden in an envelope somewhere, which is what the “ticking time bomb” scenario entails.
Furthermore, the authorities had no knowledge of the plan at the moment the plane were being flown. The ticking time bomb scenario describes a situation where we know a bomb is ticking away, somewhere, but we don’t know where or for how long.
That’s not a ticking time bomb scenario. The planes were not hidden with the location only known by one man or hidden in an envelope somewhere, which is what the “ticking time bomb” scenario entails.
Furthermore, the authorities had no knowledge of the plan at the moment the plane were being flown. The ticking time bomb scenario describes a situation where we know a bomb is ticking away, somewhere, but we don’t know where or for how long.
[quote]pookie wrote:
doogie wrote:
Before 9/11, had planes been hijacked and used as bombs anywhere, at any time? Things change.
That’s not a ticking time bomb scenario. The planes were not hidden with the location only known by one man or hidden in an envelope somewhere, which is what the “ticking time bomb” scenario entails.
Furthermore, the authorities had no knowledge of the plan at the moment the plane were being flown. The ticking time bomb scenario describes a situation where we know a bomb is ticking away, somewhere, but we don’t know where or for how long.
Like I said, it’s never actually happened. Ever.
[/quote]
I can think of one example, of an Israeli soldier who was captured and later executed, and they had the man who could lead them to him, but it’s the exception that proves the rule. Justifying torture or surveillance on ticking time bomb grounds is fucking retarded.
Indeed. I’m surprised there aren’t more conservatives frightened by this. It will take a long time for the GOP to recover its principles after what Bush has done, I fear.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I can think of one example, of an Israeli soldier who was captured and later executed, and they had the man who could lead them to him[/quote]
I don’t think that’s a ticking time bomb scenario either. There’s no threat of massive loss of innocent life (like detonating a bomb in a stadium or subway, for example.) Sucks to be the soldier, but it’s simply an hostage situation.
[quote]orion wrote:
pookie wrote:
About that “ticking time bomb” scenario… can anyone give one historical example of that ever taking place? Anywhere, at any time?
If the only justification for abrogating rights is some fantasy scenario with about 0% chance of ever occurring in real life, then it might not be a good idea.
It seems more like a way of getting the judges out of the existing process for intercepting and reading mail. Getting rid of a “check and balance” in other words. A Judge can’t refuse if he’s not involved.
I also can’t imagine that anyone, if placed in an actual “ticking time bomb” scenario that he could avert by opening a piece of mail, would stand idly by with his thumbs up his ass while waiting for the warrant. Just open the letter and deal with whatever legal fallouts there is later on.
Agreed.
In the ticking bomb scenario, rip this fuckers fingernails out and be pardoned by the president later.
That make sure you really try to get the right Mofo. [/quote]
Exactly those people who want to base law off of the ticking time-bomb scenario are delusional. If such a situation occurred the President would pardon whoever didnt get a warrant or broke the law etc.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Dems don’t allow any Republican ‘interruptions’ during committee meetings now, so they can simply bring the issue to the floor without delay and revoke the bill.[/quote]
What are you talking about? The bill was already signed into law in mid-December. The president modified the bill after the fact, with a signing statement that awards himself new powers to open your mail without a warrant.
Bush has already exceded 800 signing statements, attached to various bills that he signed. At what point is that considered thumbing your nose at Congress?
I don’t see how any true Conservative could take this in stride… they say they want the federal government off peoples’ backs… that they don’t trust an unfettered federal government, and they want to reduce it’s size and influence. Yet when a Republican violates those principles, ho-hum: Nothing to see here folks. Most of you seem very non-plussed.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pookie wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
Can you smell it? Starts with an F ends with an “ism” I’ve been screaming the word for the past year now.
Fucking idiotism?
Perhaps fallibilism, or fogeyism.
Of course, ssn0, the KGB opened a lot of people’s mail, too. Were they fascist?[/quote]
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The president modified the bill after the fact, with a signing statement that awards himself new powers to open your mail without a warrant.
[/quote]
A signing statement does not ‘modify the bill.’ The law is the law, and courts will interpret cases under that law according to the Constitution and the legislation passed by Congress.
The signing statements say that Bush will use his own discretion to interpret the meaning of the law. In some cases, his interpretation differs from the actual bill by 180 degrees. In this way, the signing statements modify the bills.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The signing statements say that Bush will use his own discretion to interpret the meaning of the law. In some cases, his interpretation differs from the actual bill by 180 degrees. In this way, the signing statements modify the bills. [/quote]
No, they don’t. Signing statements indicate the his interpretation of bills to other members of the executive branch, who will administer the law as the President understands it. What is the problem with that? It is no different from Bush simply telling his subordinates how to execute the law. Again, signing statements have no force of law. The Supreme Court does NOT use signing statements to decide the legality of action by the executive.
I don’t know how much more clear this could be: if the President or any other person violates the law as it has been passed by Congress, the Supreme Court (or appropriate court for the jurisdiction) will find against that person. Signing statements are NOT considered by the court. Period.
If a court - any court - were to base a decision on a signing statement, THEN you would have a very legitimate gripe that the President was usurping legislative power. Signing statements cannot act as line-item vetoes, either. The signing statements make the President look impudent… but a President being so does not break the system.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
A signing statement does not ‘modify the bill.’ The law is the law, and courts will interpret cases under that law according to the Constitution and the legislation passed by Congress.[/quote]
You make it sound as if signing statements are without any effect. I don’t understand why there is a lot of concern about Bush’s propensity for using them, then.
Many people claim that Bush uses signing statements as a kind of “line item veto” since he doesn’t have the real thing.