Subpeona's for everybody in Washington DC

[Heibges]

Personally, I do not agree with many of the opinions of Dick Cheney, but by god if he isn't the "best" Vice President we have ever had. Even President Bush was a total zero when he served as President Reagan's VP.

It will be interesting to see how, and notice I don't say if, he gets out of this one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2729437720070627?src=062707_1549_TOPSTORY_spy _probe_subpoena

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286974,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6247404.stm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11471824

[waste gate]

I think it's just another political stunt. Separation of powers is in play. If the judiciary committee was really serious a special prosecutor would be employed.

[geetrue]

The Republicans need a third party just to attack the Democrats with ... :lol:

This smells like politic's to me, but then everything in Washington smells like politics, right?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Dunno bout you guys, but I always thought government accountability was pretty important no matter what the party. Once any party gets into government they just don't seem to care about accountability. It becomes an inconvenience to them.

PD

[Tchocky]

Just like illegal eavesdropping, if he has nothing to hide, then hand them over.

[Reaves]

Just like illegal eavesdropping, if he has nothing to hide, then hand them over.

:yep:

[P_Funk]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2729437720070627?src=062707_1549_TOPSTORY_spy _probe_subpoena&pageNumber=2
Critics charge Bush's warrantless domestic spying program, conducted by the National Security Agency, violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants. Bush said he could act without warrants under wartime powers.
What I don't understand is how people can buy this "war measures" BS. You can make the propoganda say all that you want, but there is no official declaration of war against any specific party or nation. Thats where war provisions are allowed to function, in a legitimized, legally sanctioned, specifically focused state of conflict.

But there is no war. Theres just a porpoganda campaign. The executive keeps trying to take powers that it hasn't actually received yet.

All I hope is they ding this sucker. Illegal wiretapping is pretty far down the slippery slope methinks.

[bradclark1]

What I don't understand is how people can buy this "war measures" BS. You can make the propoganda say all that you want, but there is no official declaration of war against any specific party or nation. Thats where war provisions are allowed to function, in a legitimized, legally sanctioned, specifically focused state of conflict.
Yeah, he has a habit of abuse. (My opinion anyway)

[bradclark1]

Personally, I do not agree with many of the opinions of Dick Cheney, but by god if he isn't the "best" Vice President we have ever had. Even President Bush was a total zero when he served as President Reagan's VP.

It all depends on how the president wants to use the vice. If the president gives power the vp has power, if not he doesn't. More than a few presidents totally ignored there vp's.

[Heibges]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2729437720070627?src=062707_1549_TOPSTORY_spy _probe_subpoena&pageNumber=2
Critics charge Bush's warrantless domestic spying program, conducted by the National Security Agency, violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants. Bush said he could act without warrants under wartime powers.
What I don't understand is how people can buy this "war measures" BS. You can make the propoganda say all that you want, but there is no official declaration of war against any specific party or nation. Thats where war provisions are allowed to function, in a legitimized, legally sanctioned, specifically focused state of conflict.

But there is no war. Theres just a porpoganda campaign. The executive keeps trying to take powers that it hasn't actually received yet.

All I hope is they ding this sucker. Illegal wiretapping is pretty far down the slippery slope methinks.

I agree. Especially because there were already "Special Courts" set up to issue top secret wiretaps to cover this eventuality. President Bush did not need "War Powers" to issue these wiretaps at all, as he could have used the already in place legal system.

It seems like the Exective Branch trying to make a precedent for amassing more power. I'm really unhappy with both Congress and the Judicial Branch for letting it happen. They were like sheep when this whole thing went down.

[Sailor Steve]

It all depends on how the president wants to use the vice. If the president gives power the vp has power, if not he doesn't. More than a few presidents totally ignored there vp's.
"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
-John Adams, the very first U.S. Vice President

[bradclark1]

"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
-John Adams, the very first U.S. Vice President

:lol: Yep, that about says it.

[waste gate]

"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
-John Adams, the very first U.S. Vice President

:lol: Yep, that about says it.

What did Truman say about a bucket and spit?

[tycho102]

Just like illegal eavesdropping, if he has nothing to hide, then hand them over.
That's about the way I feel. This administration got powers from the Patriot Act which need to be recinded.


What did Truman say about a bucket and spit?

While they're turning on the spit, pour generous amounts of barbeque sauce using a bucket.

[waste gate]

What did Truman say about a bucket and spit?

While they're turning on the spit, pour generous amounts of barbeque sauce using a bucket.

Good advice!! Thanks tycho102

[Heibges]

Update:

White House has 10 Days to Explain Executive Priviledge

AP is the only one covering the story so far. It's funny how all the different websites have the exact same story but with their own headlines.

The CBS website is inflammatory.
The Fox News website is misleading because Orrin Hatch has been furiously pursuing this issue.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_SUBPOENAS?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508976/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287411,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/29/politics/main2999661.shtml