Rudy's tough road with conservatives

This is the point I was making yesterday.
Guiliani is pro everything that they are against,
has no stance on immigration or social security, and yet he is ahead. "Americas' Mayor"
acted well on 9/11, but if not for that, nobody would be considering him for anything.

bill r,

Yeah, he gets mileage out of the "America's Mayor" thing, but I think there's something more.

I might be wrong here, but I'm guessing that some conservatives are gravitating to him simply because he's the most winnable of the 3. Rudy is the R's best shot to take the White House right now because he appeals to the political center.

[Cue: the 500th reference to Rudy in drag]

I really think it is too early for these people to be campaigning. Maybe they want to get it over early so they can go back to their "regular" lives?

As far as the self proclaimed "America's Mayor" that's all he was...a mayor. The spin doctors will make sure his marital problems will factor in as well as his buddy Kerik.

I wonder if any candidate be they a republican or democrat really looks at all the skeletons in their closet and at this point in time, thinks the "swiftboaters" will just let things be? Surely they must know every aspect of their life will be scrutinized, placed under a microscope and then covered with mud.

It's like I've said before. Conservatives are a much smaller minority then they've ever lead themselves to believe. They will not find their "Reagan" & even the one or two Republican primary candidates that do toe the conservative line can't make any headway.

There will never be a conservative president, just like there will neve be a liberal one.

McCain really blew it.

He's been kissing up to the Hate Wing of the Republic Party forever, and he had the chance to seal the deal by speaking at this Hate Fest, or whatever it's called.

Instead, he blows it off. Dumb.

acted well on 9/11, but if not for that, nobody would be considering him for anything.... Bill R.

Bill ...I got a feeling all the mobsters he locked up in the 80s' would
take issue with you on that..

I love how the Loony Lefters diss Rudy as just a mayor (NYC mayor has a lot more to deal with than did a governor of a lame state like Arkansas). Hmmm, isn't New York's City's population about five times that of Arkansas? Bigger budget too? Even deals with more foreign diplomats than the governor of Arkansas would ever see.

Anyway, as a trueblue conservative, Rudy is the guy who has my support. If Fred Thompson was to run, that could change, but on many issues Rudy is a conservative. On most of those he is not, I can live with it.

Giuliani-Michael Steele ticket looks pretty darn good to me!

Guliani is the most qaulified man in the race. Taking McCain as his VP will only make him even more qualified, because McCain has the military experiencce that Rudy lacks. Rudy Guliani is the only TRUE MODERATE in this entire race. I do not care about him being married and divorced. Every one has things in their personal life. Obama used to do coke, Hillary stuck by a man that made her look like an idiot. Everyone has their issues, but it should be about where they stand on the issues. How is being divorced any worse than doing coke. How are you going to tell kids to stay off of drugs when they can see that the Pres Obama has used them and he turned out ok.

The conservatives will have no problem with Guiliani if he gets the nomination.

Remember, Bush ran as a fiscally conservative, small government, anti-nation building, Republican.

Now we have huge deficits, bigger government, and Iraq, and the conservatives don't have a problem with it.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia....

Bill ...I got a feeling all the mobsters he locked up in the 80s' would
take issue with you on that..

Posted by: Don B | Mar 2, 2007 8:13:22 AM

There are a lot of inmates waiting to die in Texas also, but that didn't help Bush to be a good president.

I'm new to Rudy '08 but I like what I see. I'm actually new to being an all out republican, I'm done with the Dummycrats.
How does a midwesterner get involved with republicans out east?

A big conference right in Washington DC, featuring all the GOP contenders, and the "Swamp" has to borrow an article from a NY newspaper?

Why isn't the Trib's Washington Bureau (aka "Obama for president") covering this conference? A couple month's ago, they did blanket coverage of an equivalent Dem conference that was held out west. But they can't be bothered to attend a GOP conference right on their front doorstep?

Once again,when the Republican right looks at the dems running....

Obama...Muslim father(with more info coming out),smoker,shady land deals and big ears.
Edwards...a 2 America's fraud,a leftist slip and fall lawyer and a Christian basher.
Clinton...Vote flip-flopper,if she can't take care of her husband needs,how can she take care of America's needs.....list is too long to go into....
The Republican right will Flock to Rudy after they look at these 3 duds.
Paulo

Everyone has their issues, but it should be about where they stand on the issues.
Posted by: Bill | Mar 2, 2007 8:58:07 AM

The man is pro-choice, Pro gay marriage, and Anti-gun. He has no official stand on immigration, nor Social Security. Which stand on the issue do you like best?

Hey Paulo:

Why aren't you busy researching to provide the support for your post:

Swamp thread: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/02/rapid_fire.html

[quote]
[quote]
This is just the start of the "slow bleed" on B.Hussein Obama....and the Clinton's are behind it,just like they were on the Muslim Madrassa story.
Stay tuned...more to come.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Feb 19, 2007 10:44:03 PM
[/quote]

CAN YOU PROVE THIS PAULO? THAT THE CLINTONS ARE BEHIND THIS STORY? PLEASE POST YOUR PROOF HERE IN THE SWAMP ASAP!
Posted by: BC | Feb 20, 2007 10:59:39 AM
[/quote]

It's only been TWELVE days - how much time do you need? Or are you AFRAID to provide the support for your posts?

Pauline Bostron, you need to do a lot of praying. Another Ronald Reagan? What was so great about his presidency? What you need is to pray for someone who can act better in real life than he did in the movies. The so-called "America's Mayor" he no be a Ronnie Reagan. He be the great 911 pimp who's made almost as much money from 911 as Bernie Kerik, his police chief. Sure, sure, he was a media darling. Who can forget those dramatic walk-throughs in the New York smoke, dust mask in hand, we'll never see the end of em, trust me. John D. says he's a trueblue conservative. Big Deal. What the (expletive deleted) is so special about conservatives? All they know how to do is tear things down, grab everything for themselves, and prevent others from getting anything. They be a big bunch of hypocrits. Once they get everything they want from government they drop the government like a hot load of cat pee. They stink, they whole bunch of em. It cracks me up to see the great Rudy say "gawrsh, I'll appoint strick constructionist justices like Clarence, Tony, Bob, joe. What does that mean? Clearing the way for religious institutions to get public money? Sad thing about it numb brained conservatives think it means something, and will perk up and march in step. They no got creativity, like Rudy G.

John D.,

"I love how the Loony Lefters diss Rudy as just a mayor (NYC mayor has a lot more to deal with than did a governor of a lame state like Arkansas). Hmmm, isn't New York's City's population about five times that of Arkansas? Bigger budget too? Even deals with more foreign diplomats than the governor of Arkansas would ever see."

Yeah, that's right. Governing TX makes you much more qualified. Anyhow, Rudy G. seems like a decent moderate Republican. Almost what McCain used to be before he started pandering to Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell.

None of these polls mean a thing until primary season starts. If McCain can win more conservative votes in places like South Carolina (where he's building a vast get out the vote network) and New Hampshire he can easily beat Rudi. Rudy can do the same but he's just starting to get organized. It's going to be an interesting season.

Giuliani-McCain or McCain-Giuliani is an unstoppable ticket no matter which way it goes.

This is great news!!!

I can't describe how much I want the Republicans to nominate Rudy for President.

I am a pro-life conservative. If it comes down to McCain or Giuliani, I will probably vote for Giuliani. Why? Giuliani believes judges should interpret the law, not create new laws. McCain was the leader of the group of Republicans who compromised so that the Democrats could continue to filibuster Bush's excellent, well-qualified judicial nominees. So I have more confidence in Giuliani to appoint conservative judges.

In addition, I think Giuliani did a great job cleaning up New York.

There are a lot of inmates waiting to die in Texas also, but that didn't help Bush to be a good president.

Posted by: bill r. | Mar 2, 2007 9:09:12 AM

That's your "OPINION" bill.

McCain is digging himself a pretty big hole and I think is now a long shot for the nomination.
Conservatives need to put aside Abortion and Gay marriages and look at where we are as a Country.
In an attempt to cater to "his base" we find ourselves in a situation that is "grave and deteriorating." Conservatives need to wake up to the real problems that face us as a nation.
I was always suspect of people who say they are pro life and anti gun control. Rudy is the R's only hope. He is a leader. McCain is a follower.

Billy/Jeff is already conceding McCain to the Vice-Prez job spot behind Rudy.

Rudy will grab a younger candidate for Vice President,not some guy who is 70 yrs old and supports sending a surge of troops into a civil war in Iraq.

I can't tell you how happy it makes me that Rudy is leading in the polls for The Angry Old White Guy's Party(GOP).

After the primaries, we'll all still have only two candidates to choose from (two that are likely to win, that is). So, if you want to choose one of these two you will most likely have to compromise on your positions on the issues. The likely choice will be the candidate closest to your positions. In my own history of voting none of the two major party nominees has ever been 100% in line with my postion on the issues of the day.

Ron Paul should be added to the Republicans to watch list. He has formed an exploratory committee, and is one of the few candidates anyone is excited about supporting.

There's one thing that Guiliani has that not one of the other candidates have (Republican or Democrat). It's something that even most of the Presidents over the last few decades did not have, and that is a presence of leadership. Guiliani is a man, that without even agreeing with all of his stances, gives you the confidence that he is right to lead the country, especially after the current disaster of an administration. I used to be a Democrat and am now much more centrist, but I would vote for Guiliani in a heartbeat.

I LOVE Rudy Giuliani and am a Republican and his PRO CHOICE AGENDA GETS HIM MY VOTE. I will SWITCH parties in a SECOND over the ABORTION topic and VOTE DEMOCRAT for a candidate that is not trying to take rights away from me.

I have a child and I know what pregnancy is like- and if a law were to ever go into effect- do they really think they can tell a women what to drink and not drink and how to work out and now work out to cause a miscarriage? Give me a break! Bottom LINE-people will ultimately do what is the right thing for their OWN life. I'd never be willing to have a child who is a product of rape- that child HAS no rights to me-as the pregnancy cannot sustain itself without M BODY-- I am not willing to reproduce WITH a rapist's child and share a GENE pool with one and more or else, put my body out of commmission for 9 MONTHS! So- again- Republicans like RUDY have MY vote- and the others who all go on hot button topics like abortion- are all women haters. If any of them has a daughter and god forbid the girl to be raped- can you imagine how they'd feel passing a law on such a thing and then watching their own daughter go through misery- or perhaps even suicide on herself from being so miserable -it is all so stupid, the dumb issues people focus on- we have REAL problems in the world here! Not abortion!

As far as my vote, ANYBODY BUT CLINTON!

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...."

Tony, I fear that very few people will get the reference, let alone the ideas behind it...

Good post. Conservatives need to be reminded of what they used to believe in, way back in the year 2000.

I think Giuliani would make a great President or Vice President. The way it is now you either have to be only Democrat or only Republican. I would say most Americans have views that are down the middle of both the parties but then they have to pick one to vote for. Giuliani and McCain would make a great President/Vice-President because they both have views that are not always with their party.

(NYC mayor has a lot more to deal with than did a governor of a lame state like Arkansas). Hmmm, isn't New York's City's population about five times that of Arkansas? Bigger budget too? Even deals with more foreign diplomats than the governor of Arkansas would ever see."

You bead-brains cooking up a McCain/Guiliani ticket or the reverse are showing how little you know about either one. First off, those are two megawatt egos, neither of whom would sit second chair. Besides, wait til things heat up a bit and they start attacking one another. Neither one has a reputation for his "cool" so, for me, I can't wait to watch the spectacle when one or both loses it! Maybe then y'all will see why it might not be such a good idea to have either one of these two jamoches anywhere near the nuke trigger.

I suggest all of you Giuliani fans spend a few moments finding out about him. If you 'google" Rudy Giuliani you will get more information than you might want. Jimmy Breslin called him " a little man looking for a balcony" His secret name around city hall was "IL Duce". You will find your research a lot of fun.

The GOP needs to find it conservitive roots and let the religious types go back and be Blue Dog Democtrats!

I'm a New Yorker. Eight years of Rudy was all I ever want to see of him. He's an ego-manical, power-hungry self promoter. He's petty, vindictive, and vicious. And racist to boot. In his eight years as mayor he would not once meet with the black leaders of New York. Before he was elected mayor, he led a police riot against city hall. When his first police commissioner William Bratton got too much credit for cleaning up the city, Rudy fired him and took the credit himself. Plus Rudy himself is responsible for many lost lives on 9/11 by insisting that the emergency command center be put in the World Trade Center although everyone was warning him it was foolish. It's ironic that the images of him running around the street like a chicken with its head cut off after the attack are what make people think of him as a hero.

GW said " I'll appoint strick constructionist justices like Clarence, Tony, Bob, joe. What does that mean?"

Basically when a conservative crackpot uses the term "strict constructionist", translated, it means he'll appoint judges that are ultra-conservative, you know, the Scond-Amendment loving First Amendment-hating types....I laugh every time I hear that f-ing term, it's just a creative way to say a conservative will appoint a far right lunatic on the Supreme Court who will in turn, take away a woman's right to choose, & will also be pro-censorship books/TV/film/music....There is nothing good about far-right justices, unless of course, you WANT the govt. to control your life??...And I thought Republicans were about LESS govt?....

Doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is - he will appoint far-right justices to the court...I will support the Democratic nominee without question...

The Republican party would be better off if it was composed of more FISCAL conservatives, and SOCIAL liberterians.....The social conservatives, ie; the ones who go around preaching to everyone morals & values non-sense, have absolutely destroyed the party....

GW said " I'll appoint strick constructionist justices like Clarence, Tony, Bob, joe."

Every time I hear the term "strict constructionist" (translated from the misspelling above) I want to lose my lunch. Someone please show me where in the Constitution it states or even implies that the essence of the Constitution is to remain the same from the late 1700's into perpetuity. And this is a serious plea, not some rhetorical slight of hand. I assume that Scalia and Thomas base their "strict constructionist" theories on something.

It seems that there is ample evidence to suggest that the Founders new that the world would continue to change in ways that they would be unable to predict, and that the spirit of the Constitution is to be the light guiding this nation.

Do people think that the 3/5 Compromise was meant to be the final word on slavery in America? No, it was an expedient political act necessary to get past in order to enact the other elements of the Constitution. Do Scalia, Alito and Thomas believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended that blacks and women NEVER get the right to vote because they were not explicitly granted in the original document?

To me, the Ninth Amendment is the smoking gun that renders "strict constructionism" as the fraud that it is. It reads:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it is not explicitly laid out does not mean imply that those rights do not exist. The Framers were infinitely smarter than "strict constructionists" give them credit for. They foresaw all of this, and created a document that would be firm enough to establish the rule of law and flexible enough to change appropriately with the times. "Strict constructionists" simply deny this heritage.

"you know, the Scond-Amendment loving First Amendment-hating types...."

So you don't like the Second Amendment?

How do you get to choose which parts of the Constitution are the 'good' parts?

Hypocrites like you are all for destroying the constitution as long as it serves your (left leaning) interests.

I myself am against abortion. regardless if you are raped or cant keep your legs closed. you dont kill a child. there are other options like adoption, or taking the morning after pill. I think its selfish for women to wait til they are 3 or more months pregnant and then rip the prescious innocent life from their protective womb.

"Hypocrites like you are all for destroying the constitution as long as it serves your (left leaning) interests.

Posted by: Stan | Mar 3, 2007 2:49:50 PM"

Whhhaaaaaa!!??

Political correctness, the darling of the left.

Because of it, people have watch what they say, what they write, and what they think. If they use the wrong word, a word denounced (by the left) as offensive or insensitive, they are called racist, sexist, homophobic, or elitist.

It can be seen every day here at the Swamp. Where in the Constitution does it say freedom of speech is only allowable if it's PC speech?

Hypocrites like you are all for destroying the constitution as long as it serves your (left leaning) interests.

Posted by: Stan | Mar 3, 2007 2:49:50 PM

As opposed to supporters of this Administration, who only have problems with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendements.

"As opposed to supporters of this Administration, who only have problems with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendements."

I support all the ammendments, I don't support the PC thought police.

You've accused me of hating Iranians, Arabs, I've been accused of hating the poor. You and others have out-and-out lied about what I've written. You are the last person that should be lecturing someone on the 1st Ammendment.

Look up the origins of Political Correctness, look at what happens to people that aren't politically correct.

Stan, I hate to break it to you, but Freedom Of Speech means I am also free to criticize what you have to say. It means I am free to call something you say offensive.

Stan, do you really support the 4th amendement? If so, then you think that Bush was wrong to tap phone calls of persons within the United States without warrant.

Stan, do you really support the 5th and 6th amendments? If so, then you think Bush was wrong to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citzen, in custody without charges or due process of law.

Stan, do you really supoort the 8th amendement? If so, you think the Bush Administration is wrong to torture persons in U.S. custody.

"Stan, I hate to break it to you, but Freedom Of Speech means I am also free to criticize what you have to say. It means I am free to call something you say offensive."

Tony, you lie. Pure and simple. You cover it up by saying you have the right to say anything.

Unless you've been calling AlQaeda, no one is listening to your phone calls.

The courts have ruled that the President has the power indefinitely to detain Jose Padilla, because he is an unlawful military combatant. The courts ruled that, not President Bush

What does the Constitution say about the judicial system, one of the three branches of the US government, I guess you want to ignore that part of the Constitution too.

Torture is against the law. People have been punished for torturing prisoners. If you believe it is still going on, expose it.

Stan,

If torture is against the law, and we punish people for it, why does the Military Commissions act specifically allow testimony that was coerced by torture?

Please show me where in the Constitution that it say the Fourth Amendment does not apply if one side of the party is alleged to be a terrorist.

Please show me where in the Constitution that it says that the Fifth amendment can be voided by the declaration of the President without due process of law. I personally believe the decision on Padilla is as dead wrong as the Dred Scott decision.

Stan, you mention that Padilla's holding has been approved by the courts, but why didn't you mention that the warrantless wiretapping has not? A bit selective, aren't you?

You support all the amendments, and the courts, except when you don't, right Stan?

"Stan, you mention that Padilla's holding has been approved by the courts, but why didn't you mention that the warrantless wiretapping has not? A bit selective, aren't you?"

Unless you've been calling AlQaeda, no one is listening to your phone calls.

That's my answer I guess you missed it.

"Please show me where in the Constitution that it say the Fourth Amendment does not apply if one side of the party is alleged to be a terrorist"

President Bush and the courts acted under a provision in the Uniform Code of Military Justice enacted under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the CONSTITUTION to hold Padilla.

Like I said the courts have upheld the decision inspite of what you personally believe.

Tony,
You free speech-ed him real good.

No, Stan, sorry you're just plain wrong on the warrentless wiretapping.

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."

U.S. District Courts Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in ruling against the NSA wiretapping.

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf

Quote is on page 33.

It's Unconstitutional. Period.

Now, as for Padilla, if he was not a member of the armed forces, he does not fall under the UCMJ, correct? Or did martial law get declared and I missed it?

It's the 5th and 6th amendemnt issues that apply to the Padilla case anyway. In addition, the courts never fully ruled on the Padilla case since the Bush Administration transfered him to the civilian courts prior to the Supreme Court hearing the appeal of the 4th Circuit of Appeals ruling which appears to have conflicted with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hamdi case, which required Habeus Corpus hearings in cases of enemy combatants.

"President Bush and the courts acted under a provision in the Uniform Code of Military Justice enacted under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the CONSTITUTION to hold Padilla"

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
....

(Clause 10)To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

Civics 101

Article 1 of the US Constitution defines the Powers of Congress, NOT the President.

Here's a definition of the "Law of nations" as expressed in section 8, article 10.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/40.html

No where does this section of the Constitution negate or overide the rigths enumerated in the Bill of Rights, or limit Habeus Corpus.

Padilla is a United States citizen. The only conditions underwich the Constitution allows the suspension of Habeus Corpus is "rebellion or invasion", and even under those cases, it is a power of Congress, NOT the President. (Lincoln screwed that one up.)

Tony,

Read and learn.

http://www.law.siu.edu/research/28springpdf/burnsnewest.pdf

Here are a couple of quotes:

"in light of the court’s affirmation of presidential authority to designate and detain indefinitely American citizens as enemy combatants during war time."

"Article II declares the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” ((thus providing the constitutional basis for Congress’ delegation of its war-making authority under Article I, Section 8.68...)) The powers granted to the President to conduct military operations under the relevant clauses of Article II “must be reconciled with the congressional war
power.”"

It's long. Ask C. Morris to help you with the big words.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program only monitors communications when one side of the conversation is outside the US and suspected of being AlQaeda related. Completely legal.

If you have evedence of 'domestic' spying, let's have the evidence of copied communications between US citizens.

General Hayden, the director of the CIA, was in charge of the NSA when this program was initiated. General Hayden Congress on the details and there was no outcry. Certain Dems became aware of the program and saw it as a political issue to hurt the Republicans, especially after the way the press misrepresented it. Not one congressman or senator that had been briefed, or was briefed after it was leaked, on the program asked for it to be stopped.

Last year President Bush nominated General Hayden to be the new CIA director. Hayden went before Congress to be questioned about his qualifications. Do you remember the uproar concerning his tenure at NSA, the domestic spying scandal? Do you Tony?

There was no uproar. He was confirmed in near record time. How could congress confirm the man that was illegally spying on everyone to be head of the CIA? Did all the Democrats forget what this evil man had done to us after 9/11.

Hey, Stan, from now on read at least through the first page of your links...

"The courts in both cases have determined these military detentions to be lawful exercises of Executive war-making powers under Article 2 of the Constitution. However, each also affirmed that these cases fall "squarely within the Great Writs purview" becuase as the Fourth Circuit said of Hamdi, "he is an American Citizen challenging his summary detention as a state necessity". The court in that case emphatically declared "the detention of American citizens must be subject to judicial review."

And if you had bothered to read to the last page...

"Mukasey determined that Padilla's pursuit of Habeus Corpus review requires consultation with counsel so that he might effectively present facts to counter the government allegations of enemy combatant status. Such a need for counsel cannot be grounded merely in statutory right, the exercise of which is ultimately subject to the courts discretion. The application to Padilla's case of procedural due process "balancing" under the standard of Mathews vs. Eldridge, reveals the right to counsel for individuals in Padilla's stituation logically arises from the dictates of constitutional due process. While the court reached esentially the same conclusion via a statutory alternative, the "liberty interests' at stake warrants a broader, more enduring, constitutional foundation."

I know that's alot for you to understand Stan. However, in the end it means one thing...The writer of the article agrees with me, not you. The Bush administration's position that Padilla's detention was not subject to judicial review was in error. The Bush administration violated Jose Padilla's constitutional rights to due process under the law.

"The Terrorist Surveillance Program only monitors communications when one side of the conversation is outside the US and suspected of being AlQaeda related. Completely legal.

If you have evidence of 'domestic' spying, let's have the evidence of copied communications between US citizens. "

Stan- You said it yourself - "where ONE side of the conversation is outside the US"

The other side is WITHIN the US ( Do you understand what the word Domestic means?) and therefore covered by the 4th Amendment.

I linked you to the Federal court decision that clearly stated that the program violated the fourth amendment. It's that simple Stan.

"There was no uproar."

Wrong again Stan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-hayden-confirmation_x.htm

15 senators voted Nay to his confirmation based largely on his tie to the illegal program, including both Durbin and Obama thankfully. Should more have voted against him? You bet.

"The other side is WITHIN the US ( Do you understand what the word Domestic means?) and therefore covered by the 4th Amendment."

It's not considered domestic spying according to the law. Never has been when one side is outside the US. It's been that way for decades.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2006/intell-060123-dni01.htm

You are a fool if you think the goverment should not listen to AlQaeda/terrorist communications.

15 Senators out of 100. That's an uproar?

Nice try

"Hey, Stan, from now on read at least through the first page of your links..."

I read the entire article. One of the first pages says:

//in light of the court’s affirmation of presidential authority to designate and detain indefinitely American citizens as enemy combatants during war time.//

"The writer of the article agrees with me, not you. The Bush administration's position that Padilla's detention was not subject to judicial review was in error."

The writer says Padilla should have the right to counsel, he may get that, but the writer also says Padilla's detention is legal.

From 1st page to last page, you're wrong again.

"It's not considered domestic spying according to the law. Never has been when one side is outside the US. It's been that way for decades."

Nope. Wrong. The text of the Foreign Intelligence Surviellance act-

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;

See what B says? "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". Therefore a warrant IS required if a United States person is a party.

The Federal Courts agreed. They struck down the program and clearly stated that the Fourth Amendment applied.

"You are a fool if you think the goverment should not listen to AlQaeda/terrorist communications."

Listen all you want. Just get a court order. That's the law.

"The writer says Padilla should have the right to counsel, he may get that, but the writer also says Padilla's detention is legal."

Agreeing with me. I argued that Padilla's Due Process rights had been compromised in his detention, not that he should not be detained.

"Stan, do you really support the 5th and 6th amendments? If so, then you think Bush was wrong to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citzen, in custody without charges or due process of law."

The courts and the article all agree that Padilla had the right to a writ of habeus corpus review, with the assistance of outside counsel, which the Bush administration denied, wrongly.

FISA didn’t apply to the Terrorist Surveillance Program when it was first initiated. The President bypassed FISA legally. (As referred to in the link I provided above)

The CIA procedures are covered in (H.R.) 7-1 entitled, "Law and Policy Governing the Conduct of Intelligence Activities." NSA is governed by Department of Defense Directive 5240.1-R, "DoD Activities that May Affect U.S. Persons," including a classified appendix particularized for NSA. The guidelines are further enunciated within NSA through an internal directive, U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18.

I had to review USSID 18 once annually while I was in the Air Force. The Attorney General can authorize collection on US persons without a court order.

NSA is still bound legally to collect ONLY information that has foreign intelligence value.

From General Hayden:

“Inherent foreign intelligence value is one of the metrics we must use. Let me repeat that: Inherent foreign intelligence value is one of the metrics we must use to ensure that we conform to the Fourth Amendment's reasonable standard when it comes to protecting the privacy of these kinds of people..... These decisions were easily within my authorities as the director of NSA under and executive order; known as Executive Order 12333, that was signed in 1981, an executive order that has governed NSA for nearly a quarter century."

General Hayden specifically talked about FISA and why it was legally bypassed. FISA was created before the threat-warning aspect of collecting terrorist communications existed. That’s something you forgot to mention. Congress was briefed. Go back and reread the Generals comments.

“The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.

...The intelligence community has neither the time, the resources nor the legal authority to read communications that aren't likely to protect us, and NSA has no interest in doing so.“

Your quote of FISA implies that the CIA and NSA can’t collect intelligence unless there is a warrant or it is approved by the Attorney General. This is false. FISA only covers electronic surveillance WITHIN THE UNITED STATES for foreign intelligence purposes. Most intelligence operations do not have anything to do with FISA.

The President has, with in the last month or so, placed the Terrorist Surveillance Program under FISA authority. FISA has been changed to reflect the changes brought about due to the war on terror.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2007/01/doj011707.html

"Stan, do you really support the 5th and 6th amendments? If so, then you think Bush was wrong to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citzen, in custody without charges or due process of law."

Saying I don't support the 5th and 6th ammendments because I (along with the courts)believe the President can legally hold Padilla is the same as saying the courts don't support the 5th and 6th amendments.

Cute word games, but not very intelligent.

"Your quote of FISA implies that the CIA and NSA can’t collect intelligence unless there is a warrant or it is approved by the Attorney General. This is false. FISA only covers electronic surveillance WITHIN THE UNITED STATES for foreign intelligence purposes. Most intelligence operations do not have anything to do with FISA"

Stan. we're talking about intelligence gathering within the United States, remember?

It was found to be unconstitutional, that's why Bush has now placed it under FISA. The courts did not agree with Haydens assesment of the leaglity of the program. I linked you to the court opinion.

And again, I did NOT say that Padilla could not be held. I said he could not be held without this 5th and 6th amendment due process rights, a position with which the the courts have agreed with me.

It was when Bush tried to prevent him from being able to file a Habeus Corpus writ, and denied him outside counsel that the Constitutional issues arose. Get it now?

"And again, I did NOT say that Padilla could not be held. I said he could not be held without this 5th and 6th amendment due process rights."

Obviously he can and is.

"Stan. we're talking about intelligence gathering within the United States, remember?"

We're talking about monitoring AlQaeda communications, and like I said, FISA didn't apply. I added that paragraph to show how FISA only applies to a very limited segment of intel collection. Something you failed to grasp.

"It was found to be unconstitutional, that's why Bush has now placed it under FISA."

Wrong, it was placed under FISA a month and a half ago when FISA was changed.

"Obviously he can and is."

Wow, you are really uninformed aren't you? Padilla has since been charged with an actual crime and is being held in full accordance with his due process rights.

"We're talking about monitoring AlQaeda communications"

No, we're talking about monitoring the communications of persons within the United States.

Stan, I linked to the ruling that the wiretapping program was unconstitutional. That's it. Nothing more to say. The courts ruled, Bush gave in. End of story.

"That's it. Nothing more to say. End of story."

Don't throw a fit Tony.

Just a simple statement of fact Stan, not a fit. Unlike your name calling in the other thread.

Find that 90% yet? Does the Pentagon have a lost and found?

"Unlike your name calling in the other thread."

Like you said, just a statement of fact.