Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

the logic is in the legality, though

Posted By: cj on 2009-06-01
In Reply to: We don't kill an adult - Patty

Killing the adult with cancer would be illegal. Abortion is legal. Does that spell it out for you?


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Legality does not equal morality.
Many things in this country are legal that God would disapprove of. You cannot serve God and man. I wouldn't go so far as to call this murderer a doctor. Doctor's try to save lives. He was far from a doctor.
Hoekstra questions legality of Bush secrecy.

This is the same guy who tried to peddle the bogus WMD story a few weeks ago with Santorum.  Would have never figured HIM to write something like this.  It's either a good sign or just political pandering to an increasingly unhappy base.  I hope it's sincere.


July 9, 2006


Ally Told Bush Project Secrecy Might Be Illegal




WASHINGTON, July 8 — In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.


The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.


But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.


Recently, after the harsh criticism from Mr. Hoekstra, intelligence officials have appeared at two closed committee briefings to answer questions from the chairman and other members. The briefings appear to have eased but not erased the concerns of Mr. Hoekstra and other lawmakers about whether the administration is sharing information on all of its intelligence operations.


A copy of the four-page letter dated May 18, which has not been previously disclosed, was obtained by The New York Times.


I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed, Mr. Hoesktra wrote. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies.


He added: The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution.


Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the concerns raised by Mr. Hoekstra but said that we will continue to work closely with the chairman and other Congressional leaders on important national security issues.


A spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, Jamal D. Ware, said he could not discuss the activities allegedly withheld from Congress. But he said that Mr. Hoekstra remained adamant that no intelligence programs could be hidden from oversight committees.


Chairman Hoekstra has raised these issues with the administration to ensure that the Intelligence Committee is able to conduct its job of oversight, Mr. Ware said. Intelligence officials have committed to being forthcoming with Congress, and Chairman Hoekstra is going to hold them to their word.


Mr. Hoekstra's blunt letter is evidence of a rift between the White House and House Republican leaders over the administration's perceived indifference to Congressional oversight and input on intelligence matters. Mr. Hoekstra wrote that he had shared his complaints with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and that the speaker concurs with my concerns.


A spokesman for Mr. Hastert declined to comment.


The letter appears to have resulted at least in part from the White House's decision, made early in May, to name Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, with Stephen R. Kappes as his deputy. The letter was sent the day of General Hayden's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.


Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that intentionally undermined the administration, sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over.


Mr. Hoekstra also expressed concern about the intelligence reorganization under John D. Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, who he said was creating a large, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries.


Mr. Hoekstra's views on oversight appear to be shared by some other Intelligence Committee members.


I think the executive branch has been insufficiently forthcoming on a number of important programs, Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said in an interview. She would not discuss any programs on which the committee had not been briefed, but she said that in the Bush administration, there's a presumption that if they don't tell anybody, a problem may get better or it will solve itself.


Ms. Wilson said she shared deep concerns about the pace and direction of intelligence reforms overseen by Mr. Negroponte's office. We have some troubled programs, she said.


American intelligence agencies routinely conduct many secret programs, but under the National Security Act, the agencies are required to keep the Congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. Even in the case of especially sensitive covert actions, the law requires briefings for at least the leaders from both parties of the committees and the House and Senate.


As the administration has asserted broad presidential authority to fight terrorism, concerns about Congressional oversight and checks and balances between the branches of government have become increasingly heated. Democrats complained that the administration's failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the N.S.A. warrantless eavesdropping, which focuses on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States, was a violation of the National Security law. Some members of Congress said they had been briefed on the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, which examines international money transfers through a Brussels-based consortium, only after The New York Times began making inquiries in recent months.


But the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra, who defended the administration's limited briefings on the N.S.A. program against Democratic criticism.


An official familiar with recent exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the House committee said Friday that General Hayden had twice briefed the full committee and had addressed Mr. Hoekstra's questions about the intelligence activities referred to in the letter. The C.I.A. director promised a free flow of information, and Mr. Hoekstra, who initially objected to placing a military officer in charge of the C.I.A., said he would work closely with the agency's new leadership.


The official, who spoke of the briefings only when granted anonymity because they were classified, declined to say anything about what the activities were or which agencies they involved.


Officials with both Mr. Negroponte's office and the C.I.A. declined to comment specifically on Mr. Hoekstra's letter. But Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, said that over the past year his office had engaged in hundreds of briefings, meetings and discussions with Congressional committees.


He added, We value this dialogue with Congress, and we will continue to provide the committee with the information they need to fulfill their responsibilities.


Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for General Hayden, said that the director believes in the important oversight role Congress plays, and he will continue regular and transparent interactions with members.


Since his appointment as committee chairman in August 2004, Mr. Hoekstra has been a critical ally of the White House on intelligence matters. He has supported the administration's most controversial policies, including its treatment of terrorist suspects, and he has balked at Democratic demands for an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. He has defended the legality and necessity of the N.S.A. program and the bank monitoring.


Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.


But in recent months, Mr. Hoekstra has begun to express some disaffection. In March, he joined the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, in a public critique of Mr. Negroponte's performance. He criticized intelligence officials for initially resisting his demand that thousands of captured Iraqi documents be posted on the Web. Like other House Republicans, he bristled when Porter J. Goss, a former House colleague, was forced out as C.I.A. director in early May.


Most recently, Mr. Hoekstra strongly criticized a news briefing arranged by Mr. Negroponte's office on an Army report that 500 pre-Gulf War chemical shells had been found scattered around Iraq. On June 29, Mr. Hoekstra, who had said the finding established that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, made public an angry letter to Mr. Negroponte calling the briefing inaccurate, incomplete and occasionally misleading and asserting that attempts were made to downplay the significance of relevant facts.


A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte's office said he had not yet replied to the complaint.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09hoekstra.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=29084f54639e845b&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company  








width=1


With this logic....

...am I to assume that if you personally were imprisoned on faulty and/or trumped up charges that later proved false that you should therefore remain in prison?....simply because at one point the charges against you were believed to be true by the court? 


You are saying that our government can never admit to a mistake or to being misled and then CHANGE the course of action? 


As Ted Koppel said, our reason for Iraq went from being for our own national security and then as the facts were revealed about the reasoning for this, it changed to being for the good of the Iraqi people.  It has now proven to be neither for the good of the Iraqi people or for the lives of the Americans.


Logic
only a look (sans rose colored glasses) at the current state of affair and perfectly logical question of where the same trajectory might lead 4 years from now.
Ah, what logic
Just shows the overall mentality of the "pro-life" side. People like you and this murderer do great things for your cause everyday. Makes us all want to switch over to your side....
Scary logic
So you would base qualification solely on his horrific experience in the POW camp? Seriously?

McCain is truly to be admired - no doubt - and ANYone who actually said "lying in a POW camp for 5 years does not make you qualified to run a counry" is despicable.

But enduring torture (at the hands of people whose country we invaded by the way, sound familiar?)
does not and SHOULD NOT automatically grant *any*one a pass to the most powerful position on the planet. If that's as far as your thinking goes, it's just scary...

PATRIOTISM, my friend, means standing up against your government on behalf of your COUNTRY! not JUST being willing to participate in any war, any where.

And being commander in chief means to ME that the person in that position would NEVER send men/women into another Vietnam OR IRAQ - and John McCain CLEARLY would like to continue the battle in many more places - but NOT in the one place where the attackers from 9/11 originated: Saudi Arabia. THAT my friend is shameful.


very lame logic; and she never said only.
x
Lame logic??????
If it's lame logic that I have listened to ALL candidates and decided for myself based on what they have said without regard for the media take, the political party affiliation, gender or color, then so be it.  By whatever means you have made YOUR decision, I assume you don't consider your logic lame and I certainly will not put you down for coming to a conclusion that differs from mine.
...of twisted logic.

Strange logic!
x
Where's the logic in this way of thinking?
x
I could agree with your logic if

Obama would let it alone Unfortunately, he is not going to do that.  He has already said that his first order of business will be to sign into law the FOCA.  He will be allowing many ill-aborted babies to die without treatment after having been mutilated, burned, etc.  This isn't an issue of whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice.  This is about whether or not a born child should be left to suffer and die.  The key word here is born.  That child was born. 


I work on a peds hospital account.  I type reports everyday about babies born at 25 weeks and everything being done to save them.  I don't see how someone can say "that baby gets to live today and I'm going to help it because the mother wants it to live, and that baby will die today because the mother does not want it." 


This FOCA directly undoes the Safe Haven act.  It makes no sense.  How is the FOCA any different than a mother leaving their unwanted infant to die in a trash can?


Be careful where you go with that logic
Does that mean that we can safely assume that anyone who believed in Swaggart, Baker, Haggart, or any one of the legion of other evangelical ministers are guilty of not having a true Christian belief or guilty of the same 'crimes' that their ministry leaders were? Guilt by association, while easy, doesn't seem like a very Christian assumption.
Let's use logic for a change....(sm)

I would assume the only thing Obama might not have paid for would have been travel to NY.  So, you tell me, exactly how else was he supposed to get there when the Secret Service is in charge of how he gets from point A to point B. 


You need to pay attention to what has actually been going on in this country instead of getting wrapped up in the pettiness that is now the republican party.  Where was your outrage when Bush spent billions on a war over BS?  Amazingly, you guys have been on a spending spree for the last 8 years (most of which wasn't even on the books, BTW), and now all the sudden you want to worry about the cost of a date. 


Poor little you, you can't afford a date.  Well, next time think ahead and try not to vote in a president like Bush, and maybe, just maybe, the whole economy won't be in the shi++er and you can have your date, along with a job!


by your logic you think we can spend sm
our way out of debt???????

There is no logic at all to that line of thinking.
There is no arguing with that kind of logic.

Alex Jones is not a physicist or a structuralist, I presume.  The people who built the WTC explained how the extreme heat from the jet fuel caused the buildings to topple.  There is no use arguing this with you. You have chosen to believe it and there you have it. 


"Twisted logic" is just another way of describing
Doesn't fool everybody, just the naiive, the narrow-minded, the SHEEP.

Baaaaa.
Your logic makes no sense at all
!!
By that same logic, Obama is also a puppet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There seems to be a piece of logic that has escaped you.
Hawaii DOES hold the authentic after all? Wouldn't that simply confirm that he was born in Hawaii?

After reading the piece of trash lurking behind your link, my head was spinning as I attempted to count how many times Andy the anti-Obama lunatic Martin referred to "I", "mine", and "my" in his statement. Do you not recognize a megalomaniac in the midst of trying to justify his frivolous lawsuit and vindicate his own delusions of grandeur in his claims being the smartest attorney on the face of the earth?

This is the same guy who is trying to assert that Frank Marshall Davis is the REAL biological father of Obama. You expecting to see that on on the "real, typewritten, long version" of the secret Hawaiian BC? If that were the case, then what was Obama Sr's visit with Obama all about? How about the Kenyan grandmother and brother who fringe pubs falsely claim witnessed his birth in Kenya? So Aunti Zeituni isn't REALLY his Aunti Zeituni after all? She's yesterday's news, now that you have conjured up another, more desperate smear?

Your hate machine is imploding all over itself under the weight of its own lies. If you don't get a grip on yourself, the next legal action down the pipe just may be your own state commitment papers.
Looks like that logic thingy is way above your head.
That's a pretty hard thing for O to accomplish BEFORE he takes the oath, and his senatorial offices did not afford him to accomplish such feats single-handedly, so maybe you could try clarifying what you are babbling about now.
Logic + Big Bad - Never the twain shall meet.
There you go trying to be all logical and realistic and everything.

Those who are in the 'ignorance is bliss' camp will never believe that radical Islam is anything to worry about. They will continue to blame 9/11 on America. They will continue to blame Bush for everything else. They will continue to praise their annoited one every time he jogs shirtless or plays with a puppy or eats a piece of pie.

They don't want to see his radical agenda, his blatant mistakes, or his real (and really dangerous) lack of leadership skills.

My folks used to raise hunting dogs. Once in awhile, you'd come up with a dog that simply couldn't learn. No matter how much time you put into training and coaching the poor little thing, its head could never seem to get in the game. They were lovable, attractive, but totally useless for the job they were meant to do.

I can't wait until we get another chance to find the pick of the litter, because when it comes to Obama, as my dad might say, "That dog can't hunt."
Try to follow this logic. I support Obama. Therefore,
his platform and every single speech he ever gave, was and never will be MY issue. It is yours. MY issue is with the hypocrisy of Joe the unlicensed, the way he misrepresented his intentions to buy the business (seems to have completely forgotten that by now), misrepresented his income, the income of the business in question and the innocent bystander routine that you so strongly defend. Contrary to popular belief, it seems, ignorance IS NOT BLISS here. His cover was blown and you can't stop crying foul because the underlying agenda is out in the open.

Beyond that, McCain has lifted up JTP and is using him to further misrepresent his alleged concern for the middle class (a phrase which he has yet to utter in any speech) which is clearly the case, given his 24-year record of voting and his 90% undying devotion to the "commonly shared philosophy" with the shrub.
gee -- that's the same kind of logic applied to pro-life

nm


Logic and common sense tell me the content of this message
Our government agencies tend to err on the side of caution in these circumstances. I do agree that votes will not and should not be swayed one way or the other. I just found this to be a fascinating piece of news.