Democrats complain about “being kept in the dark...”

[BrickTamlin]

[ QUOTE ]

Number One:
[ QUOTE ]
Locking away existing nuclear weapons and material. The first step is to safeguard all bomb making material worldwide. We need to find it, catalog it, and lock it away. Our approach should be simple: treat the nuclear materials that make bombs like they are bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do you "lock up" the world's supplies of uranium and other fissile materials? Are you advocating we invade nations, dig up their ore, and lock it in a vault? Sorry to be nitpicky, but this looks like a proposal written by a 15-year old cheerleader for her speech class.

Number Two:
[ QUOTE ]
Leading international efforts to shut down nuclear efforts in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what if they don't want to. What will you do then?


I'm not for preemptive war, by the way, just pointing out that this position is just a bunch of words with no substance -- like "I think mean people suck", well what are you going to do about it? If the answer is "nothing really" when push comes to shove, then it was never really a platform.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, I'm certainly not saying that there is no need for classified information to exist in the interest of public safety, just that Congress has specific ways of dealing with classified information and that the Executive branch is required by law to disclose such information in well-specified ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all I’m saying. These things should be kept in house. I’m sure there are a ton of secret programs that essentially have to be secret to function properly. Yet, these people leak info and it is irresponsible. In fact, I think it is despicable. I don’t know why leaking “classified” information isn’t prosecuted as treason. I’m sure there is a good reason why it is not, I just don’t get it.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no indication that "one attack" has been stopped, or that this program is in any way more effective at stopping terrorism from occurring than obeying the laws that were already in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, your article used the word “mostly.” Why would they do that unless a.) it has been at least somewhat effective, or b.) they don’t know if it has been effective or not, but they decided to editorialize the article?

[ QUOTE ]
And it allows for approval of wiretaps retroactively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn’t heard that. Why is this not the first and last sentence in every Dem press conference? I still feel firmly that the whole thing should be handled without our knowledge, but as long as they’re being big mouths about it... this should be their battle cry. If this is true (I'm assuming it is), I would like an answer to it myself.

[FlFishOn]

My point is simple. Their biggest success, proudest moment, was obstruction.

Thank you for a rare, civil interchange.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
That is all I’m saying. These things should be kept in house. I’m sure there are a ton of secret programs that essentially have to be secret to function properly. Yet, these people leak info and it is irresponsible. In fact, I think it is despicable. I don’t know why leaking “classified” information isn’t prosecuted as treason. I’m sure there is a good reason why it is not, I just don’t get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, here's where it gets nuanced. On the one hand, there is an obvious need to protect classified information in the interest of national security. However, we give Congress oversight of programs like the NSA domestic surveillance program as a means to ensure that they are carried out legally and effectively. In fact, we expect that classifying a program in the interest of national security doesn't shield it from adhering to the established law of the land.

But what if a program is classified or otherwise meant to be kept from the public yet compelling evidence existst that it is nevertheless illegal? We have a patwchwork system of "Whistleblower Laws" that protect people who come forward with such information. Note that Johnson and Nixon both tried to excuse farily egregious breaches of the law under the guise of national security. This is part of the reason that, for example, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution exists--our framers recognized that national security was the most likely justification for an abandonment of democratic (lowercase "d") processes, however well-intentioned they may be.

[ QUOTE ]
...your article used the word “mostly.” Why would they do that unless a.) it has been at least somewhat effective, or b.) they don’t know if it has been effective or not, but they decided to editorialize the article?

[/ QUOTE ]
The article quoted various intelligence officials, including agents at the FBI, who indicated that the program was overwhelming them with bad leads. I don't see why you're just assuming that if there's a chance this program might make us safer it must be legal. There's also a chance--a good one, in my opinion--that this program makes us less safe.

Thankfully, we have an elaborate system of checks and balances, laws, regulation, and rigorous policy debate in place that serves to make exactly these kinds of decisions. Subverting this system doesn't necessarily make us any safer, nor is it allowable even in times of war.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And it allows for approval of wiretaps retroactively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn’t heard that. Why is this not the first and last sentence in every Dem press conference?

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn liberal media. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Seriously, you have no one to blame for not knowing this except yourself. I think all of the articles I've read about FISA mentioned this. Even the ones that argued that FISA was ineffective because of the need for timeliness argued that the 72 hours provided wasn't enough.

Actually, you're not entirely to blame, as this was part of the first wave of Republican response when this story first broke.

[ QUOTE ]
I still feel firmly that the whole thing should be handled without our knowledge, but as long as they’re being big mouths about it... this should be their battle cry. If this is true (I'm assuming it is), I would like an answer to it myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
The partisan politics of the NSA warrantless domestic surveillance scandal are certainly interesting and worthy of debate. Personally I think Democrats need to hammer home the point that this program is both illegal and unsafe, but that's just my opinion. I'm most interested in knowing if the law was broken and in what ways, and working from there.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Number One:
[ QUOTE ]
Locking away existing nuclear weapons and material. The first step is to safeguard all bomb making material worldwide. We need to find it, catalog it, and lock it away. Our approach should be simple: treat the nuclear materials that make bombs like they are bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly do you "lock up" the world's supplies of uranium and other fissile materials? Are you advocating we invade nations, dig up their ore, and lock it in a vault? Sorry to be nitpicky, but this looks like a proposal written by a 15-year old cheerleader for her speech class.

Number Two:
[ QUOTE ]
Leading international efforts to shut down nuclear efforts in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what if they don't want to. What will you do then?


I'm not for preemptive war, by the way, just pointing out that this position is just a bunch of words with no substance -- like "I think mean people suck", well what are you going to do about it? If the answer is "nothing really" when push comes to shove, then it was never really a platform.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, read the platform or check out a book at your local library if you want more information. I was just giving some examples to meet FlFishon's admittedly easy-to-satisfy criteria. He seemed satisfied.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is simple. Their biggest success, proudest moment, was obstruction.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Biggest success, proudest moment" like during the State of the Union speech? I mean, I guess when your means of communication are limited to "Clap/Don't Clap" it's hard to convey a proud record of legislative achievements. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Or are you saying that the Democrats are most proud of "obstructing" the President's spectacularly unpopular Social Security "reform" package? This may or may not be true--I'd guess it isn't--but I'm certainly not willing to take your word for it.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, you have no one to blame for not knowing this except yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake... I make no claims to knowing jack about anything political, nor have I made any definite conclusions. (I understand that I sound like I indeed have made my conclusions) That is why I’m asking questions.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm most interested in knowing if the law was broken and in what ways, and working from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without re-reading all of your post (they are long), I thought you had already stated that they were illegal, not that they might be. Which leads me back to the question, why hasn’t he been charged with a crime? Sorry if you already answered this. I am a bit tired & don’t know if you did.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Without re-reading all of your post (they are long), I thought you had already stated that they were illegal, not that they might be. Which leads me back to the question, why hasn’t he been charged with a crime? Sorry if you already answered this. I am a bit tired & don’t know if you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Congress appears to have largely abandoned its oversight responsiblities of the Bush administration. This seems largely to be the result of one-party control of the executive and legislative branch. I would guess that in general Democratic Congresses tend to investigate Republican Presidents more than Democratic Presidents and that Republican Congresses tend to investigate Democratic Presidents more than Republican Presidents, but congressional oversight of the Bush administration seems to have been all but abandoned.

Here's a Washington Post article on this very subject that's a good and informative read. As an example, it points out that the House Government reform panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to the Clinton administration and has issued 3 subpoenas to the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]