I listened to Specter's rebuke of Feingold,

[Rex_Goodheart]

Could anything be more incoherent?

Specter said that Feingold's call for censure is way out of line, because what Bush did might be permissable under Article II of the Constitution as a war power, which would trump FISA, but then admitted he didn't know what Bush actually did, and that Congress needs a court like FISA to put constraints on things like what Bush is doing????????????

Somebody help me! Did anything Specter said make sense to YOU?

[MSgt213]

1. He has nothing to say that make sense. Because he knows full well that BS

is their only argument. It's a damn shame that the repugs have no integrity. Even personally.

[UCLA02]

2. But he DID say that Frist said it was legal...

And since Frist was briefed and knows the nature of the program, Frist's determination that it is legal "carries much weight."

But, what about the Democrats who were there, who also know more than Specter about the program, and who voiced their opposition to the legal arguments? Why do their determinations as to the legalities carry less weight than DOCTOR Frist?

[central scrutinizer]

8. Cat killer saw a short video of Bushco's argument

and decided that it was not brain dead.

[UCLA02]

10. Good call...

nt

[Tamyrlin79]

3. No... I understand his argument, but

It is still bullshit. Even if Article 2, as originally written, granted the president such power, that was changed with the Fourth Amendment's outright prohibition against unwarranted searches. Thus, Specter is using a constitutional argument as a shield against a statutory breach, and in doing so obscures the fact that the wiretapping is a constitutional breach of the 4th Amendment, as well as a statutory one.

[reality based]

12. I'm sure Senator Specter believes the Supreme Court's invalidation of

Truman's wartime seizure of the steel mills under his Article II powers was incorrectly decided. I guess he's a "cafeteria" constitutionalist, picking only the decisions he personally agrees with as being valid. He's an anarchist in sheep's clothing.

[pauldp]

4. made about as much sense as his magic bullet theory. n/t

[LSparkle]

5. We don't know WHAT he did -- that's the point

You're right about Specter -- but I could sense some frustration on his part, too. After all, he wants to call back Torquemada for more testimony and was willing to at least hold a hearing on the NSA program -- but the WH/KKKarl are strongarming against any further investigation. They KNOW this program can't sustain scrutiny; that's why they don't want people poking around into it.

[Disturbed]

7. RWing crap, as usual.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

President Bush -- April 20, 2004

[liberal N proud]

6. Nothing but a bunch of mumbling trying to spin the same lies that the

republicans are famous for at this point
9/11, we are at war, the president had the right bla, bla bla; repeat

[enough]

9. Any idea where I could find a transcript of Specter's remarks?

As a constituent, I'd like to call him on this tomorrow.

[Rex_Goodheart]

11. I wouldn't know where to find that, I'm afraid.

[UCLA02]

14. Might be here in a day or 2

Maybe. They have last Thursday up.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/06crpgs.html

[PVK]

13. I'm with you. I was LOST. It was a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me.

Doublespeak. That's what the Repukes excel in.

Too bad for US most of Amurca is too stupid to see that. They just think he sounds confident and smart.

You are right--he said it was permissable but then said he didn't actually know what was being done!

So how can he defend it without finding out what it IS???

THAT was Durbin's point and it was LOUD AND CLEAR.

WE NEED AN INVESTIGATION!!!!

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. Feingold said it best when mentioned the other day that

if America accepts the BushCo defense of illegal wiretaps then that defense could be used to assassinate American citizens and more. The justification being put forth by BushCo, in effect, nullifies all of the protections afforded citizens by the Constitution.

[Mel]

16. no not really

I recorded it so I'm going to listen again. He seemed slow on his feet compared to how I've seen him before on the Senate floor and when he holds committee hearings. Even if I don't agree with him he still seemed weak today.
Specter hemmed and he hawed, hemmed and hawed some more when he should of just kept his mouth shut what made sense to me was that he was not prepared to debate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. It was so incoherent that it suggests how dangerous Feingold is to them

Spector's point seemed to be that Feingold couldn't say definitively that Bush had broken the law, because under some weirdo interpretation (the Bushie's own, naturally), Article II invalidates any constraints that Congress may put on the action of the Executive. Needless to say, this reasoning is fascist to its core, so much so that even Spector soon started backtracking and hemming and hawing, yielding his absolutely nonsensical speech.

[OregonBlue]

18. Will someone ask Specter, Frist, if Bush starts having American citizens

assansinated because they pose a threat, will they also approve of that? Doesn't their line of reasoning say that that would also be legal?

[originalpckelly]

19. Senator Specter is an ally not an enemy...

Remember, the only reason he said he thought that the censure was unreasonable was that people who were qualified said that FISA was unconstitutional, not because he believed it to be so. Furthermore, this program is so overtly illegal if the FISA court of review gets a hold of it, I think they will probably say the program is illegal as well. If the ACLU's and all of the other cases should be found to not have standing, the only real way to judicially review this program is Specter's idea of extending jurisdiction to the FISA court. This is a good idea. With the ABA and so many other legal organizations coming out against the program, I am fairly certain it will be struck down. If you don't remember that memo I found, here:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=779

This is an important memo, because if further proof that people who had nothing what so ever to gain from opposing the President thought that this program was illegal.

INS v. Chadha upheld that the full legislative procedure must be carried out to re-delegate authority.

The only real trouble I have with Senator Specter is that he believes the rule of law should depend upon the character of a man. The last time in America the rule of law and the natural rights of men were dependant upon a man's character was July 3, 1776.

[ClassWarrior]

20. Call your Senators and ask them this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2512789&mesg_id=2512789

NGU.

[pdxmom]

21. Specter certainly set up a constitutional crisis with that comment, as

well. That would put Article II in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment. Specter made absolutely no sense in his ramblings, and in fact, if you take his statements at face value, he created a huge problem.