Favorite electronics movies

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

The power of the Executive to use the military is from the Constitution,and no law Congress passes overrides the Constitution.An UnConstitutional law is as if there's no law at all. Even Clinton agreed with that,and I believe there was a USSC ruling cited in the article that supports it.

Did you even read the articles I cited?

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

Remember Echelon? They surveilled millions of people.

Clinton directed the IRS to audit people he had issues with.

Can a President even do that ?

Graham

You have to ask? ALL politicians are crooks.

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |

Do you have a reference for that?

Anyone trying that over here would most likely get 'whistleblown'.

Graham

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It's amazing how naive some folks can be. It was even in the national news.

Leftist weenies aren't naive, they're ignorant ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Yes. Some neocon whining about how, if we had only granted the administration unlimited intelligence gathering power, the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. The 9/11 commission (and many in the intelligence services) disagree. It was a failure to analyze data which they already possessed which lead to the failures.

The only shortcomings that were generally agreed upon were in the area of HUMINT (human intelligence), not ELINT.

Sorry, I just don't buy into the argument of an incompetent organization being granted an ever larger budget and range of authority every time they screw up as a proper fix.

But not to conduct a war. To support UN Security Council resolutions. Its one thing to surrender ones rights when your country is at war, but to do so when a bunch of foreigners in some committee tell us to do so is unconscionable.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

Got news for ya;when Congress authorized the use of military force against Al-Qa'ida,they DID authorize a war. Using military force is making war.

You aren't saying that authorizing the use of military force against Al-Qa'ida, authorized a war against Iraq, are you?

Nope. Not according to the letter of the law.

But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does not excuse the administration from complying with the law.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

Can you show me this "letter of the law"?

Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the Executive's powers to act as Bush has done.The ONLY way Congress can change that is to AMEND the constitution and alter the powers of the Executive office.

Show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch is exempt from the fourth amendment.

They did. Its called the fourth amendment. Whatever powers were granted to the president by the Constitution itself (including Article II), the fourth amendment modifies them with regard to this topic.

But not better than Congress or the Supreme Court.

This has gone way beyond a partisan issue. Some GOP legislators are making clear that they never intended to grant these powers with the Patriot Act.

It appears that W asked for some these powers and was denied them (it's in the legislative record); but like the spoiled brat he is, he went ahead anyway.

You are really getting tiresome. "W" ISN'T violating the 4th Amendment. Please pay attention!

...Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

He's really clueless;during WW2,military censors read all GI mail coming from the fronts. We interned US citizens of Japanese descent. I suspect overseas phone calls were monitored,too.

Yep. My father-in-law ran a Q-clearance site in California, in WWII, monitoring everything imaginable.

...Jim Thompson