No matter "what" Specter says. he is NO repuplican or a conservative. Those of us who live here know better. At best he is a stinking RINO!

Hey now, I'm not opposed to hearings on the matter. All I am saying is that calls for impeachment are premature. And claims that it was illegal are also premature. Please let the hearings begin. Despite the posturing and grandstanding on both sides of the aisle, much will be revealed in hearings and investigation, young Grasshopper.

And yes, Arlen Specter is a tool.

All this says is that two Senators are calling for hearings into the matter. Where's the contraversy in that? I'm all for hearings myself. Hearings will put the question up for discussion and a decision will be made, once and for all.

The thing of it is, both of these opportunists have known about the wiretaps for a long time. They could have called for hearings then, without even breaking the security laws protecting ongoing operations. But they didn't. So what changed between now and then? The ONLY difference is, now that it's out in the press, their is press and face time with cameras to be had.

Still the bigger crime here is the leak of classified information. Are you for investigations into that?

oh and btw, just because someone has an "R" after their name, does NOT mean they are Conservatives.

Intersting, when stories like theses come out, they are ignored later when libral critics claim that all Republicans are lock stepping drones or sheeple.

All I am saying is that calls for impeachment are premature. - singrdave

I don't believe this to be an impeachable offense unless it serves as a contributing element or cap to a pattern of abuse of power.

And claims that it was illegal are also premature.

We both agree this will be settled within the hearings unless the hearings become bogged down in people playing politics instead of dealing with the issue at hand.


Still the bigger crime here is the leak of classified information. Are you for investigations into that? - ParaTed2k

No, I am not for investigating who leaked the 'classified' information. Whomever the leak was should be commended for their patriotism.

Furthermore, shifting the focus from the issue (the executive order itself, the legalities of it and it's impact upon our democracy, etc.) to the leak is a disservice to the American people and a distraction from the actual problem.

All this says is that two Senators are calling for hearings into the matter. - Parated2k

'This' being...what? One of the numerous links provided? Two? All? What is being shown here is that many Republicans are expressing concern over this issue - as they should. Hopefully it is not simply lip service as you imply (though that is very possible).

oh and btw, just because someone has an "R" after their name, does NOT mean they are Conservatives.

I'm very much aware of that, just out of curiousity, who in the legislative branch would you deem 'conservative', ParaTed2k?

Intersting, when stories like theses come out, they are ignored later when libral critics claim that all Republicans are lock stepping drones or sheeple.

I think the GOP has been a bit 'in lock step' with the Bush Administration agenda but that deep freeze has begun to thaw following post-election euphoria.

My biggest belief in the GOP utilizing in-party debate and operating non-collectively involves the annual debate regarding the anti-abortion / pro-life 'plank'. Democrats don't engage in this debate as an annual habit (annually being each Presidential election without a GOP candidate already in-House).

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

Hardly suggestive of an open mind, def. I kind of doubt that was the objective, covert or otherwise, using the war as "cover" as your statement implies.

No, I am not for investigating who leaked the 'classified' information. Whomever the leak was should be commended for their patriotism.

So the charges against Libby should be dropped in your opinion? I believe a re-reading of Fitzgerald's press conference statement would be in order. Unless you are indeed in favor of selective enforcement of the law - "outcome-based" enforcement, to use your term.

instead of the 'close ranks around our captain' thinking that so often permeates from today's Washington.

Like the Democrats have been doing since 2000?

Spector is a political chameleon and not worthy of use to support you argument, def. Graham, on the other hand, is a solid guy deserving of respect and I believe his concerns are legit and sincere. I also believe the legality of the surveillance remains undetermined. There are respected legal minds on both sides of the issue, it appears. You, on the other hand, have charged, tried and convicted Bush already.

Cheers,
Daiwa

No, I am not for investigating who leaked the 'classified' information. Whomever the leak was should be commended for their patriotism. Furthermore, shifting the focus from the issue (the executive order itself, the legalities of it and it's impact upon our democracy, etc.) to the leak is a disservice to the American people and a distraction from the actual problem

That is the difference between you and me Deference. I do think there should be an investigation into whether or not Prs. Bush overstepped his authority (since no one should be beyond oversight).

I also know that it costs lives when people put politics ahead of national security. There are legal channels that the traitor could have used to challenge the wiretaps. Channels that would have been able to investigate the authority of the president to do so without jeopardizing national security. Whoever the traitor was may have known about this for years, but said nothing. Then it went to the press, putting lives and ongoing intel operations at risk.

You would really congratulate a traitor, merely because you hate Prs. Bush so bad? Having been in situations where secrecy kept me alive, would you be equally excited to have seen that secret exposed? How deep is your hate, and how do you live like that?

Hardly suggestive of an open mind, def. I kind of doubt that was the objective, covert or otherwise, using the war as "cover" as your statement implies.

I think I'm seen as somewhat open-minded on many things here, Daiwa. I know in my heart of hearts, untried by the public, that there are some things I'm not 'open minded' about - uncompromising adherence to the original Bill of Rights being one of them (oh, yeah, and I support that 'twenty dollars' thing).

What seems to be escaping many individuals is that regardless of the intent of the many authoritarian laws, secret laws, and clandestine executive orders is that the affect has deprived American citizens of the gift of certain liberties granted us by the signers of the Constitution. To bring us closer to the arms of big brother comes the cost of individual autonomy (defined by the limitations of those liberties).


So the charges against Libby should be dropped in your opinion? I believe a re-reading of Fitzgerald's press conference statement would be in order. Unless you are indeed in favor of selective enforcement of the law - "outcome-based" enforcement, to use your term.

Apples and Oranges. 'The Leak' serves the American citizen the ability to peak through an otherwise non-transparent and civil liberty depriving action committed by goverment officials. If the Libby incident follows the same course, then I support it.

"Outcome-based" enforcement is the term used by Sen. Graham. I support his assertation in the context of which it is used.


Spector is a political chameleon and not worthy of use to support you argument, def.

Okay.

He was among a total of eight Republican legislators who vehemently gave voice to this issue thus he was mentioned. Note that I attributed no quote to him or bothered finding a link prominently displaying his royal anti-JU-ness.



I also believe the legality of the surveillance remains undetermined.

Sure. Depending upon which view you take; the original law supposedly violated or the new administration rhetoric. I agree it will be sorted out during the hearings which I support but hold my breath by...

You, on the other hand, have charged, tried and convicted Bush already.

Hardly. Refer yourself to post #6, first reply line.

If you would care for an explicit remark you can refer to Bakerstreet's thread, Link

, post #69 where I make reference to an even earlier post stating that Pres. Bush isn't the issue in this case.

End Daiwa Response
-------------------

That is the difference between you and me Deference. I do think there should be an investigation into whether or not Prs. Bush overstepped his authority (since no one should be beyond oversight).

I support the hearing(s). I also think there should be as much investigation and debate about this issue as possible - I don't believe the issue is whether or not President Bush 'overstepped his authority'. The hearings will either grant him that he did or didn't. The fact that we are having to debate this and hammer this out now tells me that there is a question as to whether or not he did. I err on the side of caution. How 'bout you?

I also know that it costs lives when people put politics ahead of national security.

We've put 'lives in jeopardy' for years before this type of action, guess what - I LIKED IT BETTER. How's that for the difference between me and you? You want a bigger government - I want it smaller.

You would really congratulate a traitor, merely because you hate Prs. Bush so bad?

You think of a whistleblower as dangerous to the current agenda, I think of it as heroic and true (patriotic even) to our original American way. Some people like a cock in their ass, other's don't, nothing wrong with it either way, it's just...y'know, there's some traditional matters to contemplate.



How deep is your hate, and how do you live like that?


The Bee Gees were a great band....

"How deep is your love, how deep is your love, I really want to know..."

Seriously, please, brand me an irrelevent 'Bush Basher'. Please. That way you can simply totally write me off and never pay any attention to anything I say.

Gotta' love labels, gotta' love short-circuited thinking.

Come on. Let's not play that game.

I guess we all agree that telling the press about secret information is a No No . That includes the actions of Bush as well as outing our CIA Agents by Rove and Libby.

Deference:

What seems to be escaping many individuals is that regardless of the intent of the many authoritarian laws, secret laws, and clandestine executive orders is that the affect has deprived American citizens of the gift of certain liberties granted us by the signers of the Constitution. To bring us closer to the arms of big brother comes the cost of individual autonomy (defined by the limitations of those liberties).

No one here is questioning that the rights of Americans should be stomped on. However, when a person (American or otherwise) decides to conduct their war against the U.S (combat or electronic), why would they be afforded any more rights than they would doing the same thing outside our borders? The U.S. Constitution is the basis of our nation, but it is not a weapon to be used against us.

Colon Bin Gangrene:

I guess we all agree that telling the press about secret information is a No No . That includes the actions of Bush as well as outing our CIA Agents by Rove and Libby.

{{{Yawn}}}} Not even the special prosecutor, and two years has been able to show enough evidence that Plame was covert to bring up charges against anyone. However, I'm glad there was an investigation. So far all it has shown is that Plame and Wilson look pretty stupid.

You think of a whistleblower as dangerous to the current agenda, I think of it as heroic and true (patriotic even) to our original American way. Some people like a cock in their ass, other's don't, nothing wrong with it either way, it's just...y'know, there's some traditional matters to contemplate.

YES, if that "whistleblower" reveals ongoing operations as a means of playing politics. I say again, this traitor could have challenged the wiretaps without exposing the operations, but they chose the COWARD'S way out and ran to the press. I wonder what the traitor's 30 pieces of silver was?

The difference between you and me is, you only want hearings when it suits your purpose. You couldn't care less about national security. I'm glad that traitor wasn't there to flab his or her lips when I was avoiding the cross hairs.

Seriously, please, brand me an irrelevent 'Bush Basher'. Please. That way you can simply totally write me off and never pay any attention to anything I say.

Actually Deference, I don't think of you as irrelevant, but then again I can't remember if you've ever said you support anything Prs. Bush has done.

Colon Bin Gangrene is the only "irrelevant Bush Basher" I know of here at JU. Most others seem to be willing to admit that Prs. Bush has done some good.

Apples and Oranges.

Hardly. Either the law was broken or it wasn't. If Libby ideed leaked Plame's name and that turns out to have been a crime, then whoever leaked this classified information is just as guilty.

Hardly. Refer yourself to post #6, first reply line.

Doesn't exactly jive with this (or the title of your article):

the Bush Administration's secret government agenda to undermine civil liberties.

Cheers,
Daiwa