Alexander Hamilton
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alexander Hamilton
-
-
The article is a little vague, but the way I read it, it sounds like this is a condition being put on foster parents. Foster parents are supposed to meet a lot of requirements in order that a court consider them adequate role models and caregivers for children. It actually doesn't strike me as unreasonable that a court require foster parents be non-smokers.
Now, the language of the article is confusing on other points, because it also says that some parents (with "foster left out on purpose or just as a matter of sloppy writing) are forbidden from smoking around their kids. It wasn't clear whether this was something the parents agreed to as a condition of their visitation. For example, if my wife smoked and we divorced, I might place a condition for visitation that she be forbidden to smoke around my daughter. If she agreed to that condition, it's a contract between us, not government intrusion into the issue.
-
It's a shame that in this country we've all but abandoned civics, history and geography education in exchange for some half-hearted attempt at raising math and science test scores.
In my wife's school district, they don't even TEACH social studies until 9th grade.
Pathetic.
I hope I live long enough to take advantage of the next generation of half-illiterates.
Shop for the best school. If you don't, you're insane. And whether you can or can't afford a choice, you have to become a teacher to your own kids.
-
-
I read in one of those articles that McCain has publicly rebuked the Intelligence Committee members who had reservations but didn't raise them publicly once they were not addressed by the administration. His criticism being that how can the problem be fixed if all you do is write a memo that everyone ignores.
-
-
-
And more details about FISA, FISC, changes to the acts, and how everything is authorized under the 1978 law changes and the amendments to that law.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/
But the bigger question is, after all you "legal libs" read this would you even admit that you're wrong and state that based on the FISA rulings that admin was authorized? Because as Mickey puts it I do not understand a lot of the "legal wording". I find that to be offensive to the average US citizens that laws have to be so esoteric that they are not understandable by the layman.
That opinion is taking me a long time to slog through, but I'm sure you digested it all.
-
I took a look at the FISA. It appears that the reason Gonzales referred to Congressional authorization for the war in Afghanistan and against Al Queda is it would kick the surveillance taps over to paragraph 1811 "Authorization During Time of War".
This states: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress."
1811 doesn't mention anything about the 72 hour time limit for the AG to certify / send the certification to the FISA court and also limits the time period for the tapping to 15 days down from 1 year.
I may be misreading this, I'm sure Mickey can help clarify; but it sounds to me that as long as the correspondence originated/terminated outside the US and was expected to be directly related to the war w/ Taliban / Al Queda (which is my understanding based on Yahoo's version of the NYT story) that Gonzales and Bush are correct in stating no FISA court warrant was required.
Taking a look at the Statute, I'm starting to understand why Condi was stating she isn't a lawyer when asked for clarifications. It seems a bit more convoluted than the typical environmental / labor regulation that I have more experience deciphering.
FISA gives him 15 days to surveil without warrant after the declaration of war, but also requires that the government not tap US citizens. So he'd still need a FISA warrant eventually.
-
Well, if you would shut up about the disposable cell phones, I would have left you out of it. As it is, between your disposable cell phones and VA's phone booths, I keep getting distracted.
At least give me this: this is one of the better topics discussed here in a few weeks, even with VA trampling on the Constitution.
-
I'm not sure if you watched it, but Russert said, basically, okay, but give me one thing in the constitution, anything, any law that gives him this right. And she said the I know you have me dead answer of, "I'm not a lawyer". In all my and I would think anyone's years of watching politicians squirm, it's pretty damn easy to see when they know they are stuck or whether they are arguing a point and have conviction. She had zero conviction in her answers. He kept coming back to it, asking for anything resembling a precedent, or a law, or a law that superecedes other laws, and she was just blank.
What's worse was that she had to know those questions were coming. What's worse than that is that she was the fugging National Security Advosor at the time this was all happening!!!!
-
72 hours might not be enough to stop an event.
But then, you're mixing your issues here - is this a law enforcement issue, or a national security issue? Law enforcement NEEDS the warrant for reasons of criminal law...the military does not for national security purposes...though the military is also forbidden from operations within the continental US...except in time of war...which this may or may not be...
It would be nice if it were a clean, clear-cut issue. It's not. There is a definite gray area between the requirements of law enforcement and the needs of national security organizations...which is why the "quasi-warfare" methods of terrorists and insurgents frequently work so well, operating as they do in said gray area. But everyone can just keep ignoring me and arguing about Katz or the public/private nature of Verizon equipment...
The point, before I went waltzing through the flowers with VA, is that wiretapping US citizens is illegal, and furthermore, the government can EASILY get warrants for terror-related wiretaps.
Bush's justification for the wiretaps is this (which is different than what Rice offered up on Sunday).
"As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country."
That's bullsh1t. He can get these wiretaps without endrunning the 4th Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval. No one in the administration has offered the slightest legal defense to the wiretaps.
For you and BiB, whose comments amount to an accusation that people like me are all fiddling while Rome burns, I don't buy it. The administration can get these warrants to wiretap with ease. The administration hasn't provided one iota of response for how it can justify violating the Constitution. That's troubling.
VA doesn't care what the administration does in trampling the Constitution. He doesn't care if the government wiretaps every public phone booth in the US. Basically, the rule of law, to him, is for pu$$ies.
-
Again, because of an activist court only is the 4th amendment tied to public phone booth privacy.
http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/c2/arn130.shtml
Again I agree with Justice Black, and not a set of activist justices, who will now likely overturn the Katz decision based on some lawsuit likely to come from these actions.
LOL. I enjoyed setting you up on that. I can only imagine someone threw you a bone and linked you to the Katz decision.
It's funny that you dismiss a decision upholding the actual language of the Constitution as "activist." That's precious, even for you.
In any event, the Supreme Court AND a later act of Congress both say that a court has to get a warrant to listen in on a public phone booth. But I'm sure you will keep insisting that such listening sans warrant is legal.
-
-
FYI, this has been going on a while, nothing new here, move along:
http://www.denverspiritualcommunity.org/Am...tm#anchor125421
The Denver Spiritual Community?
This is not the first example of the government promoting technology to facilitate its snooping. News of a previous computer component called the "Clipper Chip," which afforded intelligence agencies a "back door" into people's computers, was exposed almost 10 years ago by privacy groups.The Clipper chip is a device that was promoted by the government in the late 1990s.
Where is the outrage over the administration in the late 90's doing the same thing?
There was tons of outrage and backlash over the Clipper Chip, and it was such a disastrous proposal--proposal mind you and not a spy program enacted without a warrant--that the Clipper Chip died on the vine.
Or this one: Echelon goe back to at least the 70's :
If a US citizen was the target of a wiretap, without warrant, it's illegal.
You argue that no one has a right to privacy for basically anything that ever touches the public. Do I have an expectation of privacy in a closed phone booth? Can the FBI use a listening device to target my conversation in that booth, without a warrant?
-
That's idiotic. The Internet is partially public, partially private sector. That doesn't give the government the right to use it to waltz into your email account.
Do you have such a high regard for the government, and such a low regard for your rights, that you aren't concerned?
-
The US has been capturing signal intelligence on US and non-US citizens for years. The only difference is that the US is now being permitted to take action on anything learned from US sources. It had always been inadmissible evidence in a court of law unless a prior warrant had been requested.
But other then overtly taking action on the information and not requiring a second source before action is taken what the hell is the difference since the 70's?
Oh I know Bush Bad.
It's a lot more than "Bush bad" soundbyte boy. I'm hung up on the fact that the federal government targeted specific US citizens to wiretap without a warrant. This wasn't signal capture--it was specifically targeted wiretaps on US citizens.
My argument isn't "Bush bad": it's "Constitution good."
-
-
I don't think this should be pre-judged so we should wait until they provide the specific basis for their claim that it was legal before reaching any conclusions. I have to wonder though that if they worked the legality issue out to their satisfaction long ago, why wasn't it trotted out immediately by Rice and the others over the weekend after the story broke? I assume that if its legality were worked out before they did it, they would have all the supporting info at their fingertips.
Gonzalez said that Bush acted under authority of the Congress when the Congress authorized the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Security Advisor at the time said the President acted with Constitutional authority.
Me, I get hung up on the Bill of Rights.
-
This story has been boiling for a few days.
Over the weekend, I saw both Rice and Gonzalez two-stepping around this issue of wiretapping US citizens without a warrant. It's just plain illegal, and that the government would do it is frightening.
Condi's explanation on Meet the Press was twofold: (1) I'm not a lawyer, and (2) the President acted within his authority. As to the first dodge, she can bite me. She was the fugging National Security Advisor when this was going on. She can't hide from the question of whether it was legal or not by saying she's not a lawyer. IT was her job to insure things like this are legal. As to her second refrain, that the president acted within his authority, she couldn't be more wrong. Nothing, not war, not anything, gives the federal government the right to wiretap US citizens without a warrant. Nothing.
Gonzalez's explanation is that Congress authorized this wiretapping when it authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a complete load of sh1t, and I can't believe he's got the brass balls to say that.
This, to me, is an impeachable offense. It's a blatant violation of the law. There is no gray area here to play in. I understand that the war on terror changes many things, but the rights of Americans to be free of search without warrant is clear.
Since Bush personally authorized this wiretapping several times, I hope he gets impeached. No matter how pure his motivations in fighting the war on terror and keeping America safe, this is an extreme Constitutional violation.
-
How about hands of stone, balls bouncing off his chest, indecision running routes, and not looking at his QB on blitzes?
-
-
All the wrong teams won today in terms of the Bills moving up.
-
WTF is your malfunction? Writing simple sentences isn't some sort of plague to avoid. Vonnegut, who you mentioned in an earlier post, writes in simple sentences, as do most writers. Why? Most writers strive for clarity, and declarative sentences are clear.
When you post your stuff on this board, of all places, and invite criticism, don't get all prickly when the criticsm arrives.
-
9,500 posts, no doubt all as informed as this one.
To state the obvious the rest of the season is meaningless. Why the hell dont we audition JP? At the very least he gets reps and gets experience. Seems !@#$ing obvious to me but so does firing Mularkey, getting oline help, not letting Pat Williams walk away, etc
Smoking Nazis strike again
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I don't have the patience to deal with all of your quotes and rebuttals, but Berg is dead on wrong about the legality of spitting, so he can flush that analogy.
one state's law
Spitting is generally at least an assault. (Google: spitting assault) In some cases, when the expectorator has HIV or something like that, it can be battery.
Further, and this is a memory from law school that may be mistaken, if someone spits on me, and I beat the snot out of him, I can defend my attack as provoked because spitting falls into the category of "fighting words." The other things that can be fighting words are questioning someone's sexuality (one TBD poster's province), or calling someone a racial epithet.
Not only that, how could I not chime in once Tom brought up dueling?