GG Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 In this discussion, you have said: "This is a battle between executive powers & congressional powers." "When and if this thing ends up at SCOTUS, I don't see FISA standing up." "FISA may not be applicable, and may not even withstand a constitutional challenge." Which I summarized as: "...I think GG is trying to say, that in passing FISA, the congress impermissably infringed upon a power reserved to the President." Based on your reaction, if this is an unfair "interpretation" of what you are arguing, please tell me what you were really saying in those quotes if not that FISA is unconstitutional ( ie, not withstand a constitutional challenge) because congress overstepped its bounds (ie, battle between executive and congressional powers)? If you don't think and are not arguing that FISA is an unconstitutional infringement of the Presidents implied powers as I "interpreted", upon what grounds are you arguing that FISA is unconstitutional? What clause of the constitution is being violated by FISA and in what manner? 576356[/snapback] Nice to have my quotes introduced without their proper context. You're getting good at that. Let's recap - In my first post on this topic in this thread pointed out that the administration is taking the position that it is exercising executive authority to conduct the searches, and that neither FISA nor 4th Amendment protections do not apply. GG Not a constitutional scholar, but from what I'm reading written by constitutional scholars, is that Bush was acting on executive authority conferred to him by the Constitution, which is outside the scope of FISA (which in itself is very limited for presisely the reason as not to limit Presidential authority) Whether FISA is constitutional or not is meaningless to the underlying point. But, since you brought up FISA's constitutional standard, I replied that if this thing does move all the way to the SCOTUS, then I believe that the law will not withstand a challenge to presidential authority. Meanwhile, your talk of the administration keeping the spying under wraps, belies the fact that Kollar Kottely knew about the program's existence, as did the congressional intelligence committee members. The only thing they did was send a CYA memo to their files. Oh, the outrage. If this thing is as nefarious as we are led to believe, why didn't Jay Rockefeller camp out on the White House lawn until he got all the answers he needed about innocent US citizens being spooked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SactoBillFan Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Questions: How come Osama bin Ladin is not dead or captured and in prison by now? Hasn't it been more than 4 years since 9/11? Isn't he like 6 1/2 feet tall carrying around a dialisis machine? Who is responible for capturing him? Who is the point man for this mission? Was he given a free pass? If so, why? Is the current administration going to politicize his latest tape as a reason that justifies continued warrentless eavesdropping on Americans? What is the benefit of allowing Osama bin Ladin to remain at large? If there are benefits, who benefits? Is perpetual war really cool and good for the nation? The current administration seems capable of invading and occupying a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and convincing a large portion of the population that Saddam Hussein is Osama bin Ladin, but with the greatest military ever assembled and with the greatest "intelligence" gathering technology ever we can't bring Osama bin Ladin to justice. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Questions: How come Osama bin Ladin is not dead or captured and in prison by now? Hasn't it been more than 4 years since 9/11? Isn't he like 6 1/2 feet tall carrying around a dialisis machine? Who is responible for capturing him? Who is the point man for this mission? Was he given a free pass? If so, why? Is the current administration going to politicize his latest tape as a reason that justifies continued warrentless eavesdropping on Americans? What is the benefit of allowing Osama bin Ladin to remain at large? If there are benefits, who benefits? Is perpetual war really cool and good for the nation? The current administration seems capable of invading and occupying a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and convincing a large portion of the population that Saddam Hussein is Osama bin Ladin, but with the greatest military ever assembled and with the greatest "intelligence" gathering technology ever we can't bring Osama bin Ladin to justice. Why? 576993[/snapback] Because things like this are alot easier in movies than they are in the real world. But let's pretend a whole lot of really smart people aren't working on this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year because of politics. Let's minimize their efforts, shall we? How about because our HUMINT capability in that area of the world is woeful and will take about 2 decades to rebuild? Oh, and while we're at it we'll also pretend that the Global War on Terrorism has been reduced to only the Global War on Al Qaeda. At least I no longer wonder why it's so easy for Democrats and Republicans to remain in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Because things like this are alot easier in movies than they are in the real world. But let's pretend a whole lot of really smart people aren't working on this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year because of politics. Let's minimize their efforts, shall we? How about because our HUMINT capability in that area of the world is woeful and will take about 2 decades to rebuild? Oh, and while we're at it we'll also pretend that the Global War on Terrorism has been reduced to only the Global War on Al Qaeda. At least I no longer wonder why it's so easy for Democrats and Republicans to remain in power. 577143[/snapback] Ignoring for the moment that the war in Iraq siphoned off valuable resources that could have been employed against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it would probably be wise to reduce the Global War on Terrorism into a war agains Al Qaeda. You're not foolish enough to believe that a Global War on Terror can actually be won, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Ignoring for the moment that the war in Iraq siphoned off valuable resources that could have been employed against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it would probably be wise to reduce the Global War on Terrorism into a war agains Al Qaeda. You're not foolish enough to believe that a Global War on Terror can actually be won, do you? 577197[/snapback] Really? What resources? Please be specific. I believe the Global War on Terror will be won at about the same time as the War on Drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Really? What resources? Please be specific. I believe the Global War on Terror will be won at about the same time as the War on Drugs. 577262[/snapback] So am I to take it that you don't think either the GWOT or War on Drugs will ever end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 So am I to take it that you don't think either the GWOT or War on Drugs will ever end? 577544[/snapback] Nope. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Really? What resources? Please be specific. I believe the Global War on Terror will be won at about the same time as the War on Drugs. 577262[/snapback] That makes it tough to plan the victory parade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 That makes it tough to plan the victory parade. 577616[/snapback] Which explains the warehouses full of confetti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Nope. Do you? 577609[/snapback] Terrorism is a method that has been used at long as man has walked the Earth. No I don't believe the GWOT will ever end because I don't think terrorism will ever end. However I am not using a concept I don't believein , GWOT, to diss a concept I can believe in, a war against Al Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 However I am not using a concept I don't believein , GWOT, to diss a concept I can believe in, a war against Al Qaeda. 578238[/snapback] Which is being fought on every front possible. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what resources were pulled from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. The problem with the "War on Al Qaeda" vs the "GWoT" is how short sighted it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Which is being fought on every front possible. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what resources were pulled from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. The problem with the "War on Al Qaeda" vs the "GWoT" is how short sighted it is. 578329[/snapback] That I know of, the 5th Special Forces Group that specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia, a squadron of RC-135 survelillance planes and the linguists who manned the platforms, at least 30 CIA Case Officers and the CIA station chief in Islamabad and Predator Drones were among the assets that were taken out of Afghanistan and went to Iraq. So you're defending something that is unwinnable and can easily be used to entangle ourselves in other countries affairs at great financial and human costs, subvert our rights and divert focus from the people who have repeatedly attacked us and declared war on us because a war against said people is short sighted? I'd prefer to think of it as more focussed and manageable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The problem with the "War on Al Qaeda" vs the "GWoT" is how short sighted it is. 578329[/snapback] The "War on Al'Qaeda" or "Global War on Terror" or whatever you call it will seem like the good ol' days when the Stojan hits fan after Israel strikes Iran's nuke capability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The "War on Al'Qaeda" or "Global War on Terror" or whatever you call it will seem like the good ol' days when the Stojan hits fan after Israel strikes Iran's nuke capability 578628[/snapback] I'm rather skeptical that Israel has the capability to take our Iran's nuclear program. I thought they were at the edge of their range when they hit Iraq. Even if they did strike Iran, what neighboring country is going to take on Israel? I heard part of a program where one "expert" estimated that it would take a 3 week sustained bombing effort by the US to stamp out Iran's program. I'm not sure why it would take so long, whether the program is more dispersed or hardened or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I'm rather skeptical that Israel has the capability to take our Iran's nuclear program. I thought they were at the edge of their range when they hit Iraq. Even if they did strike Iran, what neighboring country is going to take on Israel? I heard part of a program where one "expert" estimated that it would take a 3 week sustained bombing effort by the US to stamp out Iran's program. I'm not sure why it would take so long, whether the program is more dispersed or hardened or what. 578656[/snapback] Iran is going to regard any attack by Israel as also being an attack by the United States Israel may have been at the edge of their capability when they took out Iraq's program 20 years ago. But that was 20 years ago and they most likely have improved and upgraded in the meantime. And even if they haven't upgraded, they've proven that they can reach Iraq. All it takes to reach Iran is a midair refueling or 2 over Iraq Even if they didn't warn us in advance of the attack, there is no way the US would shoot down a flight of Israeli aircraft over Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I'm rather skeptical that Israel has the capability to take our Iran's nuclear program. They have very few strike planes with the range. I have some numbers around here somewhere (I have an analysis of the Osirak strike somewhere here too, if you really want to know - I don't think they were at the edge of their range, off the top of my head)...maybe I'll find them tomorrow. But it would be a major undertaking. I heard part of a program where one "expert" estimated that it would take a 3 week sustained bombing effort by the US to stamp out Iran's program. I'm not sure why it would take so long, whether the program is more dispersed or hardened or what. 578656[/snapback] If we learned anything from Iraq war coverage (the actual invasion coverage, not the following "peace"), it should be that the experts have an amazing capacity to be wrong on such things. If an "expert" says it would take three weeks, I expect it'll take the US Air Force a few days. Knowing something of US capabilities (e.g. the B-2 software upgrades, which weren't secret, albiet weren't widely reported...because no one outside the Air Force really cares except oddballs like me), three weeks would be a long time. Three days is more like it. And yes, Iran's program is more dispersed. Iraq's, when the Irsaelis bombed it, was relatively young and overly relied on one major component (the Osirak reactor) which made it vulnerable to a precision strike. Iran...just guessing, but maybe a dozen sites, probably two or three critical, but none so much that it would delay things for years like Osirak did. Iran's had a lot of time to learn from Iraq's mistakes, and are relatively paranoid about US interference as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Iran is going to regard any attack by Israel as also being an attack by the United States Israel may have been at the edge of their capability when they took out Iraq's program 20 years ago. But that was 20 years ago and they most likely have improved and upgraded in the meantime. Not really. F-15s and F-16s, both then and now. The -15s, of which they have about 25 that are strike-capable, can just reach western Iran. The -16s...probably not practical. Look at it this way: in the Gulf War, the USAF required tanker support for aircraft from Riyahd to reach the Baghdad region, a shorter distance than Israel to Iran. Why should the the IAF, which operates under doctrine and logistical practices significantly different from the USAF, accomplish anything better? And even if they haven't upgraded, they've proven that they can reach Iraq. All it takes to reach Iran is a midair refueling or 2 over Iraq Even if they didn't warn us in advance of the attack, there is no way the US would shoot down a flight of Israeli aircraft over Iraq. 578734[/snapback] Except the IAF doesn't have any tankers (that I know of...but again, different doctrine and logistics. They don't really need them like the US does.) They'd have to refuel from US ones...which again, proves your point that an Israeli attack on Iran is a de facto US attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Except the IAF doesn't have any tankers (that I know of...but again, different doctrine and logistics. They don't really need them like the US does.) They'd have to refuel from US ones...which again, proves your point that an Israeli attack on Iran is a de facto US attack. 579019[/snapback] They do have cruise missiles and mid-range ballistic missiles, yes? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 They do have cruise missiles and mid-range ballistic missiles, yes? Just a thought. 579321[/snapback] Don't know about the cruise missiles but my understanding is the ballistic missiles can't carry enough payload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Don't know about the cruise missiles but my understanding is the ballistic missiles can't carry enough payload. 579338[/snapback] Israel has nukes, whether they admit it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts