It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Cheney Defends Domestic Spying

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Returning from a trip to the Middle-East, US Vice-President Dick Cheney is defending the President's decision to skip the FISA courts stating that He and Bush are only trying to regain Presidential powers curtailed as a result of Nixon, Watergate and the Vietnam War.
 



www.truthout.org
President Bush's decision to bypass court review and authorize domestic wiretapping by executive order was part of a concerted effort to rebuild presidential powers weakened in the 1970s as a result of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday.

Returning from a trip to the Middle East, Cheney said that threats facing the country required that the president's authority under the Constitution be "unimpaired."

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam, both during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs... the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy."

"The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat," Cheney said, calculating that "the vast majority" of Americans supported the administration's surveillance policies.

Cheney dismissed the idea that Americans were concerned about a potential abuse of power by the administration...


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So the VP is yearning for the good old Nixon days?

I like this quote: "Why is it that President Bush went in front of the American people and said that a wiretap 'requires a court order' after having approved a wiretap program without a court order two years earlier?"

The idea that these men feel they need unimpared power should give people pause.
.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Secret Court Judge Resigns
Documents Show FBI Surveilled Protest Groups
Bill in Ohio Will Allow Arrests For No Reason
The National Clandestine Service (NCS)




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
LOL! That's rich. He's referring to the War Powers Act of 1973. And this is why they want to "fix it"...

Fixing the War Powers Act


In 1973, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto.1 Supporters viewed the law2 as an effort to prevent another Vietnam...

In short, the War Powers Resolution applies to everything that involves hostilities or that develops into hostilities. In our uncertain world, that covers a great deal.




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
what it amounts to is that the president should be above the laws, whatever ones he feels are in is way....except of course, if the transgression of these laws involve a cute little intern...then they should be a capitol offense.

I can't believe that Cheney brought up one of the grossest abuses of those powers as he tried to justify Bush claiming them! ya, he should have the right to wiretap whoever he wishes, with no oversight, then the republican party can wiretap those who stand in their way and well...remain in power forever.

the president broke the laws!!! many laws, in many different areas. every danged time, he cites national defense as the justification. let me ask you something.......if a president can place himself above the laws by simply starting a war, isn't that one heck of an incentive to start wars to begin with?

he could have tapped any international call, without informing anyone for close to a half of month before he even had to try to justify it to anyone. but, that infringed on this great power he feels he has, he shouldn't have to justify his actions to anyone. what a crock!



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Occurs Mr. Cheney will defend Mr. Bush he has not choice.

But what it concern me the most is that . . . if Mr. Cheney was behind the Iraqi war then I wonder if he was also behind the spying also.

I have always suspect like many here that Mr.Cheney is the one with the brains while Mr. Bush just tag alone.

So I can only imagine that Mr. Cheney may have been the one with the idea and then he may had come out with a way to justified it.

Now. . . isn't Nixon one of the biggest shame in American history? Why then is Cheney using references to laws enacted in his time? and claiming that they has weakened America.

So that perhaps means that what Nixon did was justify?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
How many people have co-workers that when they do the right thing (and they no-it) push the issue to try to justifie the fact that they never thought,
or they went out of the non union or Union clause of it , or could not care less .Same deal ,just on a higher level.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by vertol]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I'm beginning to think Bush's little joke a few years back about being a dictator wasn't a joke at all...



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
well, i guess the Cheney attitude has allowed some VA employee
to assume it would be ok to tale home sensitive information....

the breaking news is that a disk was stolen from somebodys' home
that should of been kept in a secure area.
The disk contained the names, SSNs, probably mailing addresses,
and disability ratings for some 24 million veterans.

msnbc.msn.com...
"Veterans Affairs Computer Disk Stolen"



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Why wouldnt he defend it? It was HIS brainchild! Let him defend himself all he wants-
Anyone with the yearning he has for so much power hasnt even reached the top of the ladder yet- He's still climbing...I only wish someone would knock him off that ladder.
At this point, its OUR fault. Shame on US.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   
He might as well have been saying

Gee well the President and I were just trying to figure out a way to get around
all these pesky checks and balances.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Waitaminute, so he thinks that after the 'imperial presidency' of nixon, when congress curtailed some of the powers of the office of the president, that that was bad, and that basically him and Bush are acting to restore those powers.

Um. Thats, de facto, illegal. He disgaress with Congresses restriction on presidential powers, so he is ignoring those restrictions.

Thats illegal.

If this is true, and depending upon the specifics of course, we might have an actual "constitutional crisis".



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Ummmmmm .... the powers the Constitution gives to the president are many. And using the term "domestic spying" is crap-ola. Actually, it's the FISA court, itself, that is un-Constitutional, and it was put in place by, who else, the Dems.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Waitaminute, so he thinks that after the 'imperial presidency' of nixon, when congress curtailed some of the powers of the office of the president, that that was bad, and that basically him and Bush are acting to restore those powers.

Um. Thats, de facto, illegal. He disgaress with Congresses restriction on presidential powers, so he is ignoring those restrictions.

Thats illegal.

If this is true, and depending upon the specifics of course, we might have an actual "constitutional crisis".


It's not exactly "illegal." That would be for the Supremes to decide. The War Powers Act itself might be "illegal."

The reason it's not de facto illegal is because it involves powers vested in the executive by the constitution. Congress does not have the authority to restrict presidential power outright. It takes a constitutional amendment to do that.

The link in Valhall's post above "Fixing the War Powers Act" explains the situation quite well. Heritage Foundation or not. And the same argument has been made by both sides since the law was enacted, so it's not a political thing, it is a constitutional thing.

Harte



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
It's not exactly "illegal." That would be for the Supremes to decide. The War Powers Act itself might be "illegal."


Doesn't the very fact that he (George W. Bush) broke the law make it illegal?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president has the right to break the law.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by Gools

"....after having approved a wiretap program without a court order two years earlier?"

REPLY: A president does not have the authority to "approve" such a policy. For what it's worth, FISA, itself, is un-Constitutional, as it puts a roadblock in front of a presidents Constitutional obligations and duties in times of war.

Edit for content



[edit on 11-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I'm getting pretty tired of excuses based on " A Time of War" and the extreme measures this administration has taken to undermine the separtion of powers and the Constitution.

THIS president's war powers should be revoked!

He and his cronys lied to involve the U.S. in an avoidable military conflict.
Congress voted to allow " emergency powers " after 9/11.

It was not meant to be a permanent authority to ignore or circumvent consitutional guidelines.

"The War On Terror" was created to justify trillions in military and security industrial spending.

It might as well be a permanent state of war against people who do bad stuff.

9/11 was a criminal act and should have been dealt with as a criminal act.

Internationally most allied countries completely accepted the U.S. going into Afghanistan to
hunt down OBL, but the actual War In Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Cheney is now defending his own corrupt butt and the political life of the Bush administration.
It has NOTHING to do with "national security".



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


Now. . . isn't Nixon one of the biggest shame in American history?

Yes, he is right up there, but not as bad as Clinton, who threw away all shreds of decency by luring those less fortunate to satisfy his carnal needs.

"Only a bj ". What happened to loyalty and fidelity to your spouse? As well as an example to our youth?

Remember, when you condone Clinton's actions, you are saying that it is OK for your husband/wife to commit adultery.

Is that the kind of society you want?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by marg6043


Now. . . isn't Nixon one of the biggest shame in American history?

Yes, he is right up there, but not as bad as Clinton, who threw away all shreds of decency by luring those less fortunate to satisfy his carnal needs.

"Only a bj ". What happened to loyalty and fidelity to your spouse? As well as an example to our youth?

Remember, when you condone Clinton's actions, you are saying that it is OK for your husband/wife to commit adultery.

Is that the kind of society you want?


no offense jsobacky but it was ONLY a BJ. His infidelity was between ONLY him and HIS WIFE not any of the rest of us. Startiong two wars, on the other hand IS EVERYONES business. As much as I think old Bill shoulda kept it in his pants, that was a personal affair and not of the publics concern. And to say that Clinton was worse than Nixon(because of a BJ) is absurd. Besides, I think, ole Dick here has em both beat by a long shot.

I love the "national security" arguement.... Translation:"Saving our illegal asses"

Theres something to be said of those that preach and fight for: the value of saving the constitution, while simultaneously, thwarting it at every turn. And that "something", that is to be said is this: Hypocrisy. If the leaders break the rules then what are the follwers to do but emulate it.
Ive never been a fan of "do as I say, not as I do" and these people who we have placed in power are doing just that. The laws only apply to the rest of us.. but they are above the laws? they just disregard any that they dont agree with(bush's 750 signing statements)

BTW NSA spy on this



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Originally posted by Harte
It's not exactly "illegal." That would be for the Supremes to decide. The War Powers Act itself might be "illegal."


Doesn't the very fact that he (George W. Bush) broke the law make it illegal?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president has the right to break the law.

I guess I wasn't being all that clear.

Let me use an extreme example. What if Congress were to pass a law that dissolved the Supreme Court? If the Supreme Court met in session after this law was passed, would the Supreme court be "breaking the law?"

Harte



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Without checks and balances we simply would have a dictatorship. I would never vote for Bush for head dictator or Cheney for that matter. When you look at what Nixon and Reagan did as presidents you can see why presidents were put back in line. What they did pales in comparision to Bush, however. Future presidents will pay for Bush's errors.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by polanksi
Without checks and balances we simply would have a dictatorship. I would never vote for Bush for head dictator or Cheney for that matter. When you look at what Nixon and Reagan did as presidents you can see why presidents were put back in line. What they did pales in comparision to Bush, however. Future presidents will pay for Bush's errors.


Are you actually American?

The part about being "put back in line" made me wonder. See, Reagan came after what was once considered Executive power was usurped by Congress in the War Powers Act.

I guess our educational system is as bad as is claimed!

Harte




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join