aphid 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton#Criticisms_and_controversies
jcd11235 0
lawrocketSo did Obama - until it actually empowered him.
That a president operates within the legal bounds of legislation passed by Congress is not indicative that that president supports the legislation.
jcd11235***So did Obama - until it actually empowered him.
That a president operates within the legal bounds of legislation passed by Congress is not indicative that that president supports the legislation.
You are being disputatious solely to dispute. We know that the President lobbied for an extension of the Patriot Act. It would have sunset in 2009. He asked for an extension to renew until 2013 back in 2011 so it wouldn't be an election issue. We know that the Obama Administration asked Congress to extend the "business records" portion of FISA.
Find a President who never supported the Patriot Act and FISA. Here we have a President who didn't support them when he was Senator. I wonder if it's because he knew how he'd use it if he had that power...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketYou are being disputatious solely to dispute.
Not at all. I'm just not going to reject logic in order to rationalize criticizing the administration.
lawrocketI wonder if it's because he knew how he'd use it if he had that power.
He has to work within the framework of applicable laws, whether he likes those laws or not.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketAnd he's made it clear - he likes these laws.
I know you'll jump to that conclusion, logic be damned.
kallend 2,147
I don't like it, you don't like it, but it isn't illegal nor has it been ruled unConstitutional by those that actually are authorized to make the call.
And some who now claim not to like it were all in favor 12 years ago.
** that has been revealed in these leaks.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
winsor 236
kallend
Fact is, Counselor, that everything the NSA has done** under this administration is in accordance with laws passed by Congress and approved by federal judges.
I don't like it, you don't like it, but it isn't illegal nor has it been ruled unConstitutional by those that actually are authorized to make the call.
And some who now claim not to like it were all in favor 12 years ago.
** that has been revealed in these leaks.
"Not I," said the duck.
Bolas 5
kallend
I don't like it, you don't like it, but it isn't illegal nor has it been ruled unConstitutional by those that actually are authorized to make the call.
You mean the ones that ruled the no health insurance penalty a tax?
Yeah, we're screwed.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
kallend 2,147
Bolas***
I don't like it, you don't like it, but it isn't illegal nor has it been ruled unConstitutional by those that actually are authorized to make the call.
You mean the ones that ruled the no health insurance penalty a tax?
Yeah, we're screwed.
You are, of course, free to move to Somalia.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,147
winsor***
Fact is, Counselor, that everything the NSA has done** under this administration is in accordance with laws passed by Congress and approved by federal judges.
I don't like it, you don't like it, but it isn't illegal nor has it been ruled unConstitutional by those that actually are authorized to make the call.
And some who now claim not to like it were all in favor 12 years ago.
** that has been revealed in these leaks.
"Not I," said the duck.
Sure you're not the pig?
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
ryoder 1,590
kallend***as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
so the 'criminal' bears no responsibility at all because others enabled the activity?
You've been beating the drum for a while about the immoral/illegal/jailable actions by Wall Street traders who merely took advantage of the situation to make risky bets. Brought to you by the inadequate work by Congress and the SEC/OCC/etc.
kallend 2,147
kelpdiver******as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
so the 'criminal' bears no responsibility at all because others enabled the activity?
.
To be a "criminal" you have to do something illegal.
That does not appear to have happened in this case. The enabling legislation was passed by Congress, signed into law by the Prez at the time, and has not been overturned by the courts.
So enlighten us on the criminality of it.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Darius11 12
QuoteSnowden claims online Obama expanded 'abusive' security programs
Really fuckem all
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/082hbJA1pk3uF)
John's saying that the activities were done as a result of legal authority granted. Yep. And that authority has been expanded in the past few years.
Yes, John, I have been against it. I remain against it. I rebuke those who did this stuff from the beginning. I rebuke those who do it now. And I rebuke those who stated opposition to it at the start but have lobbied for expansion of it later just as much as I rebuke those who lobbied for it initially but now don't like it. Yes, Bob Barr - you voted for the Patriot Act, too.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend*********as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
so the 'criminal' bears no responsibility at all because others enabled the activity?
To be a "criminal" you have to do something illegal.
That does not appear to have happened in this case. The enabling legislation was passed by Congress, signed into law by the Prez at the time, and has not been overturned by the courts.
So enlighten us on the criminality of it.
Note the quotations. And you of course didn't answer the actual question presented - what laws did the wall street traders all break? Fucking up isn't against the law, even if it's done collectively.
Point being you can stay within the confines of the law (if not the Constitution) and still do bad shit.
kallend 2,147
kelpdiver************as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
so the 'criminal' bears no responsibility at all because others enabled the activity?
To be a "criminal" you have to do something illegal.
That does not appear to have happened in this case. The enabling legislation was passed by Congress, signed into law by the Prez at the time, and has not been overturned by the courts.
So enlighten us on the criminality of it.
Note the quotations. And you of course didn't answer the actual question presented - what laws did the wall street traders all break? Fucking up isn't against the law, even if it's done collectively.
Point being you can stay within the confines of the law (if not the Constitution) and still do bad shit.
Yes, we have some bad laws and they should be changed. But until they are changed you can't claim that someone who follows those laws is a criminal, and the very people who supported those laws when enacted shouldn't be whining about them now.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,147
lawrocketI'm confused by kallend's position. .
I think the Patriot Act and its ancillary laws are bad laws. However, you can't call someone a criminal for working within the laws, even if they are bad laws.
Many of the congresspersons who are currently whining are the same ones who voted for this abysmal Act.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
RonD1120 62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core
QuoteMain Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States. Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security.[1]
rushmc 23
RonD1120I just discovered this link. This is a long thread and it may have been cited previously. If so, my apologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_CoreQuoteMain Core is the code name of a database maintained since the 1980s by the federal government of the United States. Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security.[1]
What we have today (saddly) are political critters who think that someone disagreeing with them is a threat to national security
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
dorbie 0
kallend***I'm confused by kallend's position. .
I think the Patriot Act and its ancillary laws are bad laws. However, you can't call someone a criminal for working within the laws, even if they are bad laws.
Many of the congresspersons who are currently whining are the same ones who voted for this abysmal Act.
Your stance that appears to confuse lawrocket is more simply explained by party politics.
Where was everyone when Mark Klein reported on room 641a inside AT&T? I know where you were, you were here getting all constitutional on Bush's ass with:
"It's the government, the folks the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect us from, remember?" - kallend, April 16 2006
When Gravitymaster pointed to the law authorizing snooping much as you are doing now you replied to him:
"You know perfectly well that getting the records of Auntie Mimi in FL has ZERO to do with terrorist threats. It's a fishing expedition and your lame excuses just make you look silly." - kallend, May 17th 2006
Gravitymaster is equally hypocritical on this issue with just as short a memory. They say politics makes strange bed fellows but you guys seem to have swapped beds completely.
My personal take on this is I'd consider it negligent if security agencies were not pursuing such investigative measures, at the same time I expect congressional oversight.
rushmc 23
dorbieMy personal take on this is I'd consider it negligent if security agencies were not pursuing such investigative measures, at the same time I expect congressional oversight.
And this is exactly where it looks like this is heading
And where it will stay, unles the law is changed
As of now, I am not sure where I stand on this ...
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Not well because nobody has been able to demonstrate an actual injury - in significant part due to the secrecy that prevented any discovery.
[Reply]Seems to me that duly passed acts of Congress are implicitly Constitutional until the courts rule that they are not.
Yep. This is true. There is a rebuttable presumption of Constitutionality. Just like if Congress passed a law banning blacks from breeding with whites. Or banning speech against the President. Or a law that forces all persons with Axis 1 diagnoses into permanent residence at a mental hospital. Presumed Constitutional.
I know that you, like me, opposed the Patriot Act from the start. So did Obama - until it actually empowered him.
Now Dick Cheney is defending NSA actions. So the question is: were Dick Cheney and Dubya correct all along and got bum raps due to political assassination? Was it wrong just because Dubya and Cheney were doing it instead of a pure-hearted Democrat? Or is it as wrong now as it was then?
1984 was not intended to be an instruction manual.
My wife is hotter than your wife.