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.

 

Turning a blind eye to an impeachable offense.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
the President has exhibited whining childness in calling the whistleblowing "shameful".

The case is clear. The President broke the law. He has got to go.
That is if you beleive the government has to have any integrity.


Did you say these same things when Clinton broke the law and
lied under oath in a sexual harrassment law suit? When he
committed purgery and when he was intangled in an adulterous
situation that could have been cause for him to be blackmailed
if found out by foreign powers. Clinton whined about being
investigated. Did you say the same things about Clinton, who
clearly broke the law, or are you saving it all for the current
republican president who could be operating in a shady area?

Just wondering.



Yes I felt Clinton deserved to be impeached. I felt that more then I currently think President Bush should be impeached.

I voted for Bush.

I am not being bias against the President because he is republican. I am an independant (A Constitutionalist).

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
In all fairness, yes, Clinton should have been impeached also....

If we all took the idea of Presidents circumventing the law and their powers more seriously....then perhaps we'd see some better men as our President.... Just a thought.



That would clean up both sides of the isle in Washington!!
D.C. would be a ghost town ... all the politicians would be sent packing!


No problem with that here....let's get some third parties in there!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Splitting hairs over the letter of the federal law in this case is really a useless waste of time.

By its very nature, impeachment is a political process done by politicians, so the letter of the law is not as important as it might be in a court of law.

And, if this issue ever does become before a court, the more important issue I think will be whether the president as commander-in-chief has the inherent power to intercept these communications directly from the constitution, in which case any law passed by congress attempting to circumscribe that power would be unconstitutional anyway.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Splitting hairs over the letter of the federal law in this case is really a useless waste of time.

By its very nature, impeachment is a political process done by politicians, so the letter of the law is not as important as it might be in a court of law.

And, if this issue ever does become before a court, the more important issue I think will be whether the president as commander-in-chief has the inherent power to intercept these communications directly from the constitution, in which case any law passed by congress attempting to circumscribe that power would be unconstitutional anyway.


The Constitution says that the President MUST be impeached for conviction of a crime. It is not at the discretion for Congress to decide wether they want to impeach the President, they HAVE to. It is clear the President has commited a crime. I expect the laws to be enforced and the Constitution to be upheld.

If Bush is not impeached that will be to me something that I could not forgive. Just like I cant forgive the disarmament of the United States militia. Just like I cant forgive the censorship of the press. Just like I cant forgive the Supreme Court trying to dictate that the first amendment is not an abolsute right. Just like I cant forgive the United States for making it a crime to state that you think the United States government should be overthrown (which totally ignores the history of how the United States was founded on activism). The list goes on.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
All-in-all, I guess time will only tell and be the ultimate truth purveyor, eh ImplementOfWar?

Despite what you assert repeatedly, according to the law, a man is innocent till proven guilty.

At any rate, how many Democrats and RINOs are actually calling for an end to the breaking the law NSA and Bush eavesdropping intelligence program anyhow? Last I understand, there are no calls to end such, simply an investigation into if there were laws indeed broken, and that, ImplementOfWar, is yet to be determined. Thus, your conviction of Bush is a mute subjective point.





seekerof



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
If only being a moron was an impeachable offense....then we'd be set.



If only the Democrats weren't such idiots as to be fooled by such a complete moron. "Bush is an idiot....no wait....he tricked us into going to war." You can't have it both ways.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ImplementOfWar
no he does not have the power to have my telephone call to
Syria listened in on.


If you are calling Syria, I certainly hope the monitors are working
well and picking up on any 'key words' that may be discussed.

I understand how you could read this as being illegal. However,
the president has an obligation to protect this country and our
citizens. If listening in to overseas conversations to suspicious
places is part of that ... I don't mind. I WOULD mind if the
government didn't listen in.



It would be illegal without a FISA court order.

Ethics and Legality are two different things. If it was a necessity, Congress would make a law or amend the Constitution (if needed) to allow it. Until then it remains illegal without a FISA court order.

And until then, the President broke the law.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join