[Rhodes22-list] political: CNN Poll Finds Rhodes 22 Owner As#1Political Irritant
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon May 5 22:33:22 EDT 2008
Uhuh, totally believable information coming from runamuckster
Sorry Robert, on this one, I'm going to say that's BS.
The truth is that the "jury is still out" on the constitutionality of
the law that allowed the wire-tapping in question. The lawsuit
originally brought was dismissed because those that brought it were
found to have no standing Further, the TRUTH is that the law
specifically allowed the actions.
Of course, you have a goal - prove the evil Bush did bad by trying to
find the terrorists. No need to let the truth of what's happened get in
the way.
I'd have to say though, that the "it's a living breathing changing
Constitution" are no better than what you're trying to portray President
Bush to be.
Robert Skinner wrote:
> Hank, I just wish that you were right about it being just my words.
> Actually, it is being attributed to Bush, which is far more alarming,
> hence the quotation marks. I would not say that myself, and I wish
> he had not, if indeed he did.
>
> http://runamuckster.blogspot.com/2005/12/scissorsrockjust-piece-ofpaper.html
> http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/A9073781-B928-4D16-8DF0-98D66E3016DB/
> http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Leupp1214.htm
>
> /Robert
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hank wrote:
>
>> Herb,
>>
>> Come on, even I recognize that he was talking "tongue-in-cheek". Relax,
>> take your meds.
>>
>> Hank
>>
>> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Robert,
>>>
>>> I personally find your views that the constitution is "just a piece of
>>> paper" to be disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>>>
>>> Robert Skinner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, Pete. You know that "The constitution is
>>>> just a piece of paper," and we must all back the
>>>> President without reservation, or foreign terrorists
>>>> will question our will to lay down our lives,
>>>> liberties, and happiness in support of the
>>>> military-industrial complex that keeps us free.
>>>>
>>>> We must be thankful that someone has taken on the
>>>> burden of deciding what is right and wrong. It
>>>> is abundantly clear that privacy and the right to
>>>> be free of arbitrary arrest and detention are
>>>> intolerable impediments in our death struggle with
>>>> those foreigners who threaten our exercise of our
>>>> freedoms.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps you get back on the right track.
>>>> You need to stop challenging those who have a
>>>> perfectly clear picture of that way things should be.
>>>> Your questions could weaken the resolve of citizens
>>>> to support our war with global terrorism, wherever it
>>>> is, and however our leadership chooses to define it.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get this idea that we could or
>>>> would actually impeach a sitting president?
>>>> Or even prosecute after him leaving office?
>>>>
>>>> Presidents do not commit crimes. They may be a bit
>>>> overzealous in pursuit of the national interest,
>>>> which naturally coincides with their own, but they
>>>> are not criminals, no matter what they do. They are
>>>> national father figures, and are automatically
>>>> pardoned so that their actions do not embarrass or
>>>> divide the nation.
>>>>
>>>> And remember, our leadership has decided that the
>>>> old namby-pamby restrictions on interrogation methods
>>>> do not apply to terrorists. If you are not for our
>>>> leadership, you are against it -- and could be
>>>> declared a terrorist.
>>>>
>>>> Remember that.
>>>>
>>>> /Robert (cum grano salis)
>>>>
>>>> petelargo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Just got back from 3 day cruise in the florida keys. It was awesome.
>>>>>
>>> Then,
>>>
>>>>> Herb, I saw your posts. You ask me for my sources (verbally denigrating
>>>>>
>>> me
>>>
>>>>> and doubting that I even have them). Then when I give them to you, you
>>>>>
>>> don't
>>>
>>>>> like them or go "so what". It seems as if you are just going to hide
>>>>>
>>> behind
>>>
>>>>> the 3 monkeys rule and regurgitate your views (while acting like you
>>>>>
>>> are the
>>>
>>>>> only one without an agenda-laughable by itself).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don;t know what it means that the troops supported Ron Paul as their
>>>>> number one candidate. I just thought it was interesting that they did.
>>>>> Don't you think it's interesting that they supported a fringe candidate
>>>>>
>>> like
>>>
>>>>> him? It's open for discussion. But it's true as I said it was. Why,
>>>>>
>>> why,
>>>
>>>>> why.
>>>>>
>>>>> When ANY politician hides their past records it is a red flag for
>>>>>
>>> concern.
>>>
>>>>> Lack of transparency in politics is the road to ALL evils. And again it
>>>>>
>>> is a
>>>
>>>>> fact that Bush made his service records confidential. Why, why why.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not up to date on the illegality of Bushes DOMESTIC
>>>>>
>>> wiretapping. Or
>>>
>>>>> again you are hiding behind the 3 monkeys rule (see no..hear no.. speak
>>>>>
>>> no..
>>>
>>>>> about Bush). And yes I am doing something about it as a supporting
>>>>>
>>> member of
>>>
>>>>> IMPEACHBUSH.ORG. However, I have made it clear that if Bush is caught
>>>>>
>>> in a
>>>
>>>>> proper sex scandal I will immediately drop my membership.
>>>>>
>>>>> data for all your illegal domestic wiretapping reading needs:
>>>>> http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/house_nsabrief_docs_012006.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) "Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President ordered in
>>>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>>> case was a crime.... and we have to deal with that as citizens and,
>>>>> unfortunately, You have to deal with that as Members of
>>>>>
>>> Congress....Now,
>>>
>>>>> Members that stay silent are making a choice. Very few Members have
>>>>>
>>> faced
>>>
>>>>> this type of test of Faith. But You are facing it now, and as Citizens
>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>> as Members, it's now up to us. We are called to account to the many
>>>>> benefits that we have gotten from this system. We are called to account
>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> do something, and not to remain silent."
>>>>> Jonathan Turley
>>>>> Professor of Constitutional Law,
>>>>> George Washington University
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) "...so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion
>>>>>
>>> into
>>>
>>>>> the private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on
>>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>>> unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth
>>>>>
>>> Amendment
>>>
>>>>> 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches
>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>> seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of constitutional
>>>>> power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the
>>>>>
>>> President
>>>
>>>>> by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I......the argument
>>>>> goes... Invasion of that citizenâEUR^(TM)s privacy was, alas, but one
>>>>>
>>> of warâEUR^(TM)s sad
>>>
>>>>> side effects âEUR" a species of collateral damage. The technical legal
>>>>>
>>> term for
>>>
>>>>> that, I believe, is poppycock. âEUR?
>>>>>
>>>>> Laurence H. Tribe
>>>>> Professor of Constitutional Law
>>>>> Harvard University
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) "...it is not simply a claim that the President has the sole power
>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> decide which laws to violate and when to go outside the judicial power,
>>>>>
>>> but
>>>
>>>>> that he has the power to do so in secret....until the New York Times
>>>>> reviewed this program, he withheld the fact from the American people
>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>> his view was that FISA did not limit his powers. He secretly believed
>>>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>>> he had broader authority than was laid out in the public statutes, but
>>>>>
>>> he
>>>
>>>>> withheld and misled the American people about that view of his own
>>>>> powers......examine what kind of misleading statements, if not
>>>>>
>>> deception,
>>>
>>>>> were put before the Congress in connection with thisâEUR?
>>>>> Kate Martin
>>>>> Director
>>>>> Center for National Security Studies
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) "...when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
>>>>>
>>> in
>>>
>>>>> 1978, it expressly rejected the PresidentâEUR^(TM)s claim of inherent
>>>>>
>>> authority to
>>>
>>>>> conduct warrantless wiretaps. It then went further and made it a crime
>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> conduct such wiretaps. The President has acted contrary to the express
>>>>>
>>> will
>>>
>>>>> of the Congress. The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of
>>>>> presidential authority to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress.âEUR?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kate Martin
>>>>> Director
>>>>> Center for National Security Studies
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) "...under his interpretation ... he could suspend the writ of habeas
>>>>> corpus, ... saying: This authorization enabled me to do anything in
>>>>> furtherance of the war effort. I can suspend the writ of habeas corpus
>>>>> unilaterally even though Congress hasn't ...He could authorize breaking
>>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>>> entering of homes in order to secure intelligence to fight the war
>>>>>
>>> against
>>>
>>>>> terrorism, despite the fact that there is an authorized procedure in an
>>>>> amendment to FISA that governs physical searches......the principle
>>>>>
>>> that the
>>>
>>>>> President has established here, if gone unchecked, will, as Justice
>>>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>>> Jackson said, lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any
>>>>>
>>> future
>>>
>>>>> incumbent who claims a need. And the history of power teaches us one
>>>>>
>>> thing,
>>>
>>>>> that if it's unchecked, it will be abused.âEUR?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce Fein
>>>>> Deputy Assistant Attorney General
>>>>> Reagan Administration
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) "In each case the presidentâEUR^(TM)s answer has been the same ...
>>>>>
>>> Courts and
>>>
>>>>> Congress have little or no place to question his decisions....it is
>>>>> nonetheless a dangerous path for our nation. Our laws provide ample
>>>>>
>>> tools
>>>
>>>>> for fighting terrorism without eroding basic liberties. No one, not
>>>>>
>>> even a
>>>
>>>>> wartime president, is above the lawâEUR?
>>>>> Michael S. Greco
>>>>> President, American Bar Association
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>
>>> http://www.nabble.com/political%3A-CNN-Poll-Finds-Rhodes-22-Owner-As--1-Political-Irritant-tp17068794p17068794.html
>>>
>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list