NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted a link to the NY Times story in another thread, but it got no play. That's okay, though, because this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html) from the Washington Post adds to it a bit.

Here's the basics. In 2002, Bush signed an executive order giving the NSA permission to be able to monitor telephone conversations, emails and other forms of communications of citizens without obtaining a warrant. Now the reason this is a big deal is because that type of spying is expressly forbidden except in very narrow circumstances. It has to involve foreign nationals involved in international terrorism, and has to be approved by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Service Act) Court. I'll let the Post take over:
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."
In short, Bush signed an executive order telling the NSA that it was okay to break the Foreign Intelligence Service Act and spy on US citizens, and his only possible defense is if he makes the Nixonian argument that if the President does it, it is by definition legal.

So Bush defenders, tell me--what is it going to take for you to abandon ship? Will Bush have to fuck a twelve-year old on national television? Get a blowjob in the Oval Office from a zaftig intern in a blue dress? Wipe his ass with the Constitution and set the Declaration of Independence on fire to kill the smell? What?

Because if you don't acknowledge that this is beyond the pale, that this kind of conduct is the definition of unAmerican, then what is? Explain it to me, please.

Oh, and for the record, fuck the "liberal" New York Times. They had this story last year, before the election, and sat on it. Why? Because the administration told them that it was all legal. Riiiiiiiight.

er, double you tee eff, is there any followups on this story? cuz u know, this is like, uber-anti civil rights. i'd doubt the supreme court would just let this go.

er, double you tee eff, is there any followups on this story? cuz u know, this is like, uber-anti civil rights. i'd doubt the supreme court would just let this go.
It's got to get to them first. To get to them, there has to be a case. For there to be a case, there has to be an investigation. For there to be an investigation, Congress has to be willing to issue subpoenas, because no fucking way is the Bush Justice Department going to actually do a job on this. For Congress to issue subpoenas and start an investigation, the Democrats have to control a House of Congress, because no fucking way will the Republicans in Congress investigate this, not unless they think they have to do it to save their own asses.

So start pressuring Republican congressmen and women, because they hold all the cards.

So who was it that was spied upon?

er, double you tee eff, is there any followups on this story? cuz u know, this is like, uber-anti civil rights. i'd doubt the supreme court would just let this go.
And who owns the SC and both houses of Congress. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly

And who owns the SC and both houses of Congress. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutly

Let's not misuse a quote. The Supreme Court may be biased for Bush, but it still has the legal power to impeach Bush or at least deem this executive act unconstitutional. And as Nazz says, they must first have a case to judge. If there is such a case where the NSA DOES tap into someone's telephone conversation, or something along those lines, it will be an obvious case of treading on civil rights. No matter how you put the spin on it, it's definitely unconstitutional, and any lawyer fighting against it can cite the several cases in the past that HAS been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Heck, we could even point to Watergate, even if it doesn't have anything to do with this besides having wiretapping.

I wonder what the excuses will be.

I'm not a terrorist so I have nothing to worry about? So quickly they forget the black helicopter paranoia.

We're fighting a war? Can't fight a war on a concept, and if you accept things like this in a war on a concept then there is no limit, it's endless. And wide open to abuse. Look at cases of monitering peace activists.

Just makes my head explode.

The potential for spying on US citizens by the NSA is nothing new. From an seven year old article:

Loud and Clear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/14/019r-111499-idx.html)


Rather than disappear further from view, the agency should publicly address these concerns, and the intelligence committees should hold hearings to update the laws governing the NSA and to close what now amount to loopholes. For example, the 1978 FISA prohibits the NSA from using its "electronic surveillance" technology to target American citizens. But that still leaves open the possibility that Britain's GCHQ or another foreign agency could target Americans and turn the data over to the NSA. Another problem is that the FISA appears not to apply to the NSA's monitoring of the Internet. While covering such things as "wire" and "radio" communications, there is no mention of "electronic communications," which is the legal term for communicating over the Internet as defined by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Worse, FISA applies only "under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

The whole UKUSA SIGINT community is completely integrated. Even before Bush gave this order, there were worries about the inadequacy of FISA. And this isn't just a problem for UK or US residents. It includes Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. My personal feeling is our governments have been spying on us since the end of WWII. (Or at least since the letters of agreement were exchanged in the late 40s).

The potential for spying on US citizens by the NSA is nothing new. From an seven year old article:

Loud and Clear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-11/14/019r-111499-idx.html)



The whole UKUSA SIGINT community is completely integrated. Even before Bush gave this order, there were worries about the inadequacy of FISA. And this isn't just a problem for UK or US residents. It includes Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. My personal feeling is our governments have been spying on us since the end of WWII. (Or at least since the letters of agreement were exchanged in the late 40s).
You're probably right--that doesn't excuse the order Bush signed to allow warrantless spying on US citizens.

So who was it that was spied upon?

Might be everybody. Maybe no-one. The NSA isn't an organization that is forthcoming with information.

(BTW, Is this your first incarnation on this forum? You remind me of someone. I just can't think who.)

So who was it that was spied upon?

American citizens according to this. Didn't you read it? Ohhh, you want names don't you? Tell you what, pressure your local senator to get an investigation done, then you'll see the names.

But the big question is. Will you?

American citizens according to this. Didn't you read it? Ohhh, you want names don't you? Tell you what, pressure your local senator to get an investigation done, then you'll see the names.

But the big question is. Will you?

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton would LOVE to hear my plea for her to check upon this issue. Right after she tears down the game industry which I love so dearly.

You're probably right--that doesn't excuse the order Bush signed to allow warrantless spying on US citizens.

No, it doesn't. And it doesn't excuse things like the patriot act either. But my point is you can't point to the past couple of years and say: "This is where we lost our right to privacy."

Even if the Patriot act dies and FISA is updated, we'd only return to the status quo ante where privacy was pretty much an illusion anyway.

We've been quite happy over the past fifty years to slowly allow our right to privacy be eroded for one reason or another. And I suppose, I would like to see a proper review; a comprehensive revision of every government department's right to collect andcollate information, including the IRS -which is incredibly intrusive. If not, I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar, because nothing meaningful will be achieved.

No, it doesn't. And it doesn't excuse things like the patriot act either. But my point is you can't point to the past couple of years and say: "This is where we lost our right to privacy."

Even if the Patriot act dies and FISA is updated, we'd only return to the status quo ante where privacy was pretty much an illusion anyway.

We've been quite happy over the past fifty years to slowly allow our right to privacy be eroded for one reason or another. And I suppose, I would like to see a proper review; a comprehensive revision of every government department's right to collect andcollate information, including the IRS -which is incredibly intrusive. If not, I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar, because nothing meaningful will be achieved.
I would love to see a politician make privacy the crowning jewel of his or her presidential run. Maybe Feingold will do it--he was the lone voice against the PATRIOT Act last time around, so he's got the bully pulpit from which to rail.

I would love to see a politician make privacy the crowning jewel of his or her presidential run. Maybe Feingold will do it--he was the lone voice against the PATRIOT Act last time around, so he's got the bully pulpit from which to rail.

Yes, that might actually get me support someone for a positive reason, instead of just sniping at glaring inadequacies from the sidelines, then choosing the lesser of two evils.

If someone actually stepped forward with a positive agenda like that, instead of the usual pseudo-compromise bullshit to position themselves in the center, I think it would be hugely popular.

Unfortunately, I see more of the anti-video games legislation bullshit in our future.

I would love to see a politician make privacy the crowning jewel of his or her presidential run. Maybe Feingold will do it--he was the lone voice against the PATRIOT Act last time around, so he's got the bully pulpit from which to rail.
Ah man, that'd be sweet.

-snip-
Unfortunately, I see more of the anti-video games legislation bullshit in our future.
I think it's an ill-concieved notion that won't have as much legs as its proponents think. There is the notion that it will have the same effect as the PMRC did with labeling of music but they are dealing with a different breed of parent these days, ones that grew up on video games. I don't think there is an acknowledgement that a lot of these games are bought by the parents to be played by the parents. My brother has four systems, three tvs and two high speed internet lines for gaming in his living room and there is no illusion whatsoever that this is for his son. His son has maybe a Spongebob game set up in his room.

Ah man, that'd be sweet.
Funny thing is, after he cast the vote, someone asked him about it in terms of presidential politics and he said "no one casts a vote against the patriot act because they're thinking of running for president."

Another thing I like him for--he refuses to take the pay raises the Congress votes for themselves. He donates the difference between what he was making a few years back when he made the pledge and what he makes now to charity.

Yes, that might actually get me support someone for a positive reason, instead of just sniping at glaring inadequacies from the sidelines, then choosing the lesser of two evils.

If someone actually stepped forward with a positive agenda like that, instead of the usual pseudo-compromise bullshit to position themselves in the center, I think it would be hugely popular.

Unfortunately, I see more of the anti-video games legislation bullshit in our future.

Positive agenda's don't have a great history. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart often shows politicians with positive agendas go bad.

I haven't read all the facts on this yet to really make a informed decision if something was truly done wrong here. Until further proof pokes it's head up I personally won't go to a knee jerk reaction about it. The reason is because of where it was originally sorced: New York Times. Until more stories come up with specifics and particular civil rights that were infringed I will wait to pass judgement on this one.

It's ok to do this because God told Dubya to do it.

I haven't read all the facts on this yet to really make a informed decision if something was truly done wrong here. Until further proof pokes it's head up I personally won't go to a knee jerk reaction about it. The reason is because of where it was originally sorced: New York Times. Until more stories come up with specifics and particular civil rights that were infringed I will wait to pass judgement on this one.Actually, the source I linked was the Washington Post, but it was piggy backing off of the NY Times.

But for independent corroboration, and for another extension of the story, here's something from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/). Seems Bush signed off on it more than three dozen times in the last four years.

I think it's an ill-concieved notion that won't have as much legs as its proponents think. There is the notion that it will have the same effect as the PMRC did with labeling of music but they are dealing with a different breed of parent these days, ones that grew up on video games. I don't think there is an acknowledgement that a lot of these games are bought by the parents to be played by the parents. My brother has four systems, three tvs and two high speed internet lines for gaming in his living room and there is no illusion whatsoever that this is for his son. His son has maybe a Spongebob game set up in his room.

That may be true, though I've long since ceased to be surprised at the stupidity of the general public.

My point is though, I think politics will continue to be dominated by partisan wedge issues, like video games and whatnot, which aren't really all that meaningful. All the while the government just does whatever the hell it wants to anyway.

Don't you find it a little disturbing that the Hong Kong round of WTO tarrif negotiations are underway right now, which will define our tariff celings under international law in the future, and not a single politician has expressed a real opinion about what is actually going on? The potential effect on the economy and the potential for economic dislocation is huge, and all we ever hear about, if anything, is farm subsidies. Oh, and we are bound into these things by treaty. So it's kind of important.

For my side, I am a free trade advocate, but I think at least we should get a hearing on what the US position really is, because there is supposed to be some type of democratic process apparently. Video games are more interesting though, I suppose.

I haven't read all the facts on this yet to really make a informed decision if something was truly done wrong here. Until further proof pokes it's head up I personally won't go to a knee jerk reaction about it. The reason is because of where it was originally sorced: New York Times. Until more stories come up with specifics and particular civil rights that were infringed I will wait to pass judgement on this one.

I think the fact that he signed off on a order that allows for warrentless spying is enough to pass judgement on.

We have warrents and rules for a reason. Some times, to protect people, police angencies need powers that the ordinary citizen does not have. But to prevent abuse of power, and to keep things like that from becomming a regular power, you need a warrent to do it, to make sure it is a legitimate use of power, with a legitimate need. Getting rid of the need for warrents, legalizing spying without evidence or reason? Fuck that noise.

I think the fact that he signed off on a order that allows for warrentless spying is enough to pass judgement on.

We have warrents and rules for a reason. Some times, to protect people, police angencies need powers that the ordinary citizen does not have. But to prevent abuse of power, and to keep things like that from becomming a regular power, you need a warrent to do it, to make sure it is a legitimate use of power, with a legitimate need. Getting rid of the need for warrents, legalizing spying without evidence or reason? Fuck that noise.
And quite frankly, if this were a massive intel hole that needed filling, then rather than doing an end-around the law (and potentially breaking it in the process), Bush had the duty to go to Congress and tell them that he needed the hole filled. Jesus, he could have gotten damn near anything passed in early 2002, the Congress was falling all over themselves to show their patriotism. But instead he went the executive order way. Why? Because I suspect he knew he'd have some shit to explain and he didn't want to deal with. Maybe he just felt that he's teh goddamn president and he can do what he wants. I don't know.

Here's what I do know--I'd have given him the first one, if he could have proved it did some good. But after that one, he needed to get some legislation passed.

And quite frankly, if this were a massive intel hole that needed filling, then rather than doing an end-around the law (and potentially breaking it in the process), Bush had the duty to go to Congress and tell them that he needed the hole filled. Jesus, he could have gotten damn near anything passed in early 2002, the Congress was falling all over themselves to show their patriotism. But instead he went the executive order way. Why? Because I suspect he knew he'd have some shit to explain and he didn't want to deal with. Maybe he just felt that he's teh goddamn president and he can do what he wants. I don't know.

Here's what I do know--I'd have given him the first one, if he could have proved it did some good. But after that one, he needed to get some legislation passed.


Aye. The idea of no accountibility or need for aproval just don't sit right with me.

You wanna prez who gives a shit about privacy? Is that really your number one issue?

We all know which party (and there's only one) is going to offer a candidate in '08 who genuinely gives a shit about things like privacy, but you're not going to vote for them anyways because they aren't from either bullshit party.
We'll get what we deserve. Another fuck up as bad, or worse than Bushie.

bump

This is just another saga in the erosion of our liberty. We don't mind because it makes us 'safe'.

did you see the presidents weekly "radio" address on tv this morning? i only caught a bit of the end (and didnt pay alot of attention since i cant stand to look at him) but he seemed to say that since someone (justice department?) told him it was OK, it was OK and he's president and has to do stuff like that anyway.

perhaps someone REALLY saw it and can tell us what he said....

This is just another saga in the erosion of our liberty. We don't mind because it makes us 'safe'.
Some of us mind.

Some of us mind.
Yes, but the voting majority doesn't. Here's where the weirdo, fringe groups like the Michigan Militia have it right -- Never yield on civil liberty.

seconded. But what to do about it? I mean, what effective ways are there left to us to defend ourselves from this kind of bullshit?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We're fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we've been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.

One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals. Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate.

Since then, America's law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives.

Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist treat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.

The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I'm also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

Thank you.

Summary: "Screw you, I'm the president."

(BTW, Is this your first incarnation on this forum? You remind me of someone. I just can't think who.)
I was on for a few weeks about a year ago. Can't remember the name I used though. Just happened across the link on an old back up disk I made and figured "what the hey"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html



Summary: "Screw you, I'm the president."
He's beginning to sound a lot like Nixon, huh.

seconded. But what to do about it? I mean, what effective ways are there left to us to defend ourselves from this kind of bullshit?
Letter writing and voting our conscience hardly seems like the solution, does it. It's damned frustrating, but the cowards are going to win.

Letter writing and voting our conscience hardly seems like the solution, does it. It's damned frustrating, but the cowards are going to win.
So who are you calling cowards, partner?

Most people aren't actually that concerned about it, for several reasons.

1) They believe that they'll already be spied on anyway.
2) They figure it's only a problem if you're a Terrorist.
3) Civil liberties aren't a major concern of the Republican or Democratic parties, and most people are one or the other.

Conclusion? Nothing will be done.

So who are you calling cowards, partner?
Everyone who is willing to sit back and watch our rights gutted by politicians that promise safety and security if we just give a little here and there. All of us, I guess.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

Summary: "Screw you, I'm the president."
oh thanks for finding that. im glad i didnt misrepresent what he said.

it was on CNN this morning when i turned on the tv. russ feingold (dem sen wis) was responding to it and pointing out that "getting an opinion from your lawyer" and "informing congressional leaders" isnt the same as it being LEGAL. if it needs doing, congress will be more than willing to make it legal to do it. (i must have watched for at least half a minute. i can stand looking at feingold)

seconded. But what to do about it? I mean, what effective ways are there left to us to defend ourselves from this kind of bullshit? widespread unwarranted eavesdropping of average Citizens... you all want it to end?

it is easy.. very easy.

:headbang: when did we stop being the U.S.A. and became the U.S.S.R

oh thanks for finding that. im glad i didnt misrepresent what he said.

it was on CNN this morning when i turned on the tv. russ feingold (dem sen wis) was responding to it and pointing out that "getting an opinion from your lawyer" and "informing congressional leaders" isnt the same as it being LEGAL. if it needs doing, congress will be more than willing to make it legal to do it. (i must have watched for at least half a minute. i can stand looking at feingold)He also noted that we have a President, not a king, but make no mistake, this is the same argument that Nixon made when he was fighting the release of the White House tapes, that the President is above the law. The sad thing is that we just might have a Supreme Court that will buy it this time, if it gets that far.

He also noted that we have a President, not a king, but make no mistake, this is the same argument that Nixon made when he was fighting the release of the White House tapes, that the President is above the law. The sad thing is that we just might have a Supreme Court that will buy it this time, if it gets that far.
yaya i forgot that part but i liked it when he said it

i dont see how it can get to the supreme court since it would take stern congressional action to get it there and i cant see the republicans signing on.

Is anyone really suprised by this?

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

So do you all choose to ignore these parts? Or doesn't it matter as long as you can bash Bush?


The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.

"As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have," he said. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."


I hope people do jailtime for this, by the way.

Congressional leaders knew about this for a long time, the Justice Department has reviewed it repeatedly, civil liberties training has been constantly emphasized and it's renewed every 45 days. Bush hasn't done a thing wrong, apparently because no one has tried to do anything about this. The person(s) who leaked this have clearly broken the law and deserve to be punished.

And not only that but the communications are only international. Nobody has done anything wrong here but the person who leaked the information to the press.

Congressional leaders knew about this for a long time, the Justice Department has reviewed it repeatedly, civil liberties training has been constantly emphasized and it's renewed every 45 days. Bush hasn't done a thing wrong, apparently because no one has tried to do anything about this. The person(s) who leaked this have clearly broken the law and deserve to be punished.

And not only that but the communications are only international. Nobody has done anything wrong here but the person who leaked the information to the press.
How do you know any of this to be the case? Because Bush and his Justice department said it was okay? Forgive me if I don't share your sanguine attitude toward it--after all, these are the same dipshits who said "we do not torture." Give me a fucking break.

No--give me an independent investigation instead. but don't give me this "Bush and the justice department said it was okay, so it's okay" weak ass line.

How do you know any of this to be the case? Because Bush and his Justice department said it was okay? Forgive me if I don't share your sanguine attitude toward it--after all, these are the same dipshits who said "we do not torture." Give me a fucking break.

No--give me an independent investigation instead. but don't give me this "Bush and the justice department said it was okay, so it's okay" weak ass line.

I'd gladly have an investigation in to it if the Congress wants one. It's better to err on the side of civil liberties with an investigation than to allow this policy without an investigation and actually give them up by not being careful. However, at the same time we have to find who leaked this because it is illegal to do so.

However, at the same time we have to find who leaked this because it is illegal to do so.
Don't you know? It's only wrong to break the law if you're part of the Bush administration.

I'd gladly have an investigation in to it if the Congress wants one. It's better to err on the side of civil liberties with an investigation than to allow this policy without an investigation and actually give them up by not being careful. However, at the same time we have to find who leaked this because it is illegal to do so.
Tell me--what's the difference between a leaker and a whistleblower? To me, this is whistleblowing, since it potentially involves members of the executive branch violating the law. Leaking is what happened in the Plame case, where the violation served no purpose other than to cause political damage to an opponent, and in fact caused damage to our intelligence services.

No--give me an independent investigation instead.

That's hilarious. Yes, let's work from within the system to fix the system! *snicker* I'm sure that will put the brakes on the erosion of freedom that has continued with every president, Democrat and Republican, since Washington. Good luck with that.

Your whining is insignificant. Write a letter to your congressman, run for office or start a revolution (with guns, OMG) if it makes you feel better. You'll fail miserably, but at least it will spare me your manufactured and/or ignorant outrage. :rolleyes:

Tell me--what's the difference between a leaker and a whistleblower? To me, this is whistleblowing, since it potentially involves members of the executive branch violating the law. Leaking is what happened in the Plame case, where the violation served no purpose other than to cause political damage to an opponent, and in fact caused damage to our intelligence services.
You're trying way too hard. :rolleyes:

Plame (desk jockey) /=/ N.S.A. (War on terror)

Congressional leaders knew about this for a long time, the Justice Department has reviewed it repeatedly, civil liberties training has been constantly emphasized and it's renewed every 45 days. Bush hasn't done a thing wrong, apparently because no one has tried to do anything about this. The person(s) who leaked this have clearly broken the law and deserve to be punished.

And not only that but the communications are only international. Nobody has done anything wrong here but the person who leaked the information to the press.

Unfortunately, eavesdropping international communications could be deemed to be both eavesdropping on the US and the country to which the call is made to/from.

That could be a bad foreign policy And a bad civil liberties policy

You're trying way too hard. :rolleyes:

Plame (desk jockey) /=/ N.S.A. (War on terror)
Look, just because you decide to swallow the line that Limbaugh and Fox News feed you about Plame's status doesn't make it true. She was NOC, and undercover, and exposing her was a crime. Even if she wasn't NOC, it's still illegal to expose her identity while the CIA considers her undercover, and what's more important, her exposure is nothing like this whistleblowing by the people who leaked the info about this domestic spying situation--a point you neglected to address, I noticed.

Look, just because you decide to swallow the line that Limbaugh and Fox News feed you about Plame's status doesn't make it true. She was NOC, and undercover, and exposing her was a crime. Even if she wasn't NOC, it's still illegal to expose her identity while the CIA considers her undercover, and what's more important, her exposure is nothing like this whistleblowing by the people who leaked the info about this domestic spying situation--a point you neglected to address, I noticed.
Well, let's address it now then, shall we?

Valerie Plame had worked at a desk IN COUNTRY for 5 years when her so called "cover" was blown. She wasn't an active under cover operative, she wasn't in any danger. Ad there haven't been any indictments for it, other than Scooters indictment for lying under oath. So the whole thing is a big pile of nothing.

On the other hand, the NSA had covert wiretapping procedures going on, which involved people linked to Al-Qaeda. Somebody leaked that information to the press, and risks the lives of American citizens whom the NSA was trying to protect. It was an ongoing operation, which was under the checks and balances of the U.S. Senate, and was perfectly legal, unless you have some proof I haven't seen.

There ya go. Do with it what you will.


By the way, I DO watch Fox news, but Limbaugh is a douchebag, so try not to assume so much. It's very unbecoming.

Well, let's address it now then, shall we?

Valerie Plame had worked at a desk IN COUNTRY for 5 years when her so called "cover" was blown. She wasn't an active under cover operative, she wasn't in any danger. Ad there haven't been any indictments for it, other than Scooters indictment for lying under oath. So the whole thing is a big pile of nothing.

On the other hand, the NSA had covert wiretapping procedures going on, which involved people linked to Al-Qaeda. Somebody leaked that information to the press, and risks the lives of American citizens whom the NSA was trying to protect. It was an ongoing operation, which was under the checks and balances of the U.S. Senate, and was perfectly legal, unless you have some proof I haven't seen.

There ya go. Do with it what you will.


By the way, I DO watch Fox news, but Limbaugh is a douchebag, so try not to assume so much. It's very unbecoming.
Here's what I'll do with it--Fitzgerald said there had been a crime committed when Plame was outed, but that he couldn't charge it yet because of the obstruction by Libby. Further, he's still working with a grand jury on the matter, and continues to present evidence to them, so to say that it's a big pile of nothing is incorrect. Or wishful thinking. Take your pick.

As to the NSA, what you said is what the Bush administration said. As I think I made clear, I don't trust a goddamn thing they say anymore, and with reason. That's why I want an independent investigation. The fact that both Republican and Democratic Senators want an investigation leads me to believe that there wasn't quite the oversight that the Bush administration claims there was.

Here's what I'll do with it--Fitzgerald said there had been a crime committed when Plame was outed, but that he couldn't charge it yet because of the obstruction by Libby. Further, he's still working with a grand jury on the matter, and continues to present evidence to them, so to say that it's a big pile of nothing is incorrect. Or wishful thinking. Take your pick.

As to the NSA, what you said is what the Bush administration said. As I think I made clear, I don't trust a goddamn thing they say anymore, and with reason. That's why I want an independent investigation. The fact that both Republican and Democratic Senators want an investigation leads me to believe that there wasn't quite the oversight that the Bush administration claims there was.
As for you saying that no one has been charged yet, that is about the same as me saying that they haven't found the WMD's yet. And I can assume what you'd ahve to say about that, so we'll let it speak for itself. Bottom line, NO ONE has been charged with a crime concerning it, besides purgury.

And as for the investigation about the NSA, I don't trust some of the dumbass Senators who are calling for the investigation, so until there IS an investigation, you have no proof of ANY of your assertions. Just a bunch of partisan hackery.

As for what you believe, apparently thats whatever a Senators tells you to, so that doesn't really mean much.

As for you saying that no one has been charged yet, that is about the same as me saying that they haven't found the WMD's yet. And I can assume what you'd ahve to say about that, so we'll let it speak for itself. Bottom line, NO ONE has been charged with a crime concerning it, besides purgury.

And as for the investigation about the NSA, I don't trust some of the dumbass Senators who are calling for the investigation, so until there IS an investigation, you have no proof of ANY of your assertions. Just a bunch of partisan hackery.

As for what you believe, apparently thats whatever a Senators tells you to, so that doesn't really mean much.Can you read? Try again--just because a crime has not been charged does not mean a crime was not committed. In fact, the obstruction charge bears out that a crime was indeed committed, because the person charged with obstruction was involved in a cover-up. To say your analogy is weak is to give it too much credit.

Tell me--what's the difference between a leaker and a whistleblower? To me, this is whistleblowing, since it potentially involves members of the executive branch violating the law. Leaking is what happened in the Plame case, where the violation served no purpose other than to cause political damage to an opponent, and in fact caused damage to our intelligence services.

Well, that's the problem. Actions like those done by the NSA were probably classified, which explains why only the leaders of Congress were informed, as were the heads at the Justice Department. Thus the policy was probably classified or secret, and leaking classified information is a crime. However, if there was an abuse of power, it's pretty much guaranteed that the person who leaked it wouldn't be punished severely, if at all. They might even be pardoned by another administration.

Can you read? Try again--just because a crime has not been charged does not mean a crime was not committed. In fact, the obstruction charge bears out that a crime was indeed committed, because the person charged with obstruction was involved in a cover-up. To say your analogy is weak is to give it too much credit.
In a nation where "innocent until proven guilty" is the major basis of our judicial system, you are acting very un-American in your baseless, proof lacking, obviously partisan accusations.

Yeah, I said un-American. Damn right I did.

In a nation where "innocent until proven guilty" is the major basis of our judicial system, you are acting very un-American in your baseless, proof lacking, obviously partisan accusations.

Yeah, I said un-American. Damn right I did.
So you can't read--just making sure.

Did I accuse anyone specifically of a crime? No. had I done so, your argument would make sense. All I said was that a crime was committed--go back and read my posts, assuming you can understand the words printed in them.

So fuck your accusations that I'm un-American. You want to come at me, you better do better than that, punk.

From what I have read now on this topic it doesn't appear that the executive branch have broken any laws. So why is it implied or still suggested by some people? I actually want them to do what they did. They were not listening to the random phone calls. If anyone is pushing this it seems the ones that do not like the administration. Therefore I think it is a purely political issue that the NY times has jumped into again.

From what I have read now on this topic it doesn't appear that the executive branch have broken any laws. So why is it implied or still suggested by some people? I actually want them to do what they did. They were not listening to the random phone calls. If anyone is pushing this it seems the ones that do not like the administration. Therefore I think it is a purely political issue that the NY times has jumped into again.
Here's what it comes down to for me, Marrakech, and please don't take this as an attack.

From the way I've read the FISA, and from the disturbing comments I've heard from both Democratic and Republican Senators on this matter, it sounds to me like the law was broken here. FISA limits the ways in which the government can intercept communications in the US. What Bush did was sign an executive order saying that the NSA could do it without warrants, without getting the permission that FISA required, permission, by the way, that isn't required in advance if the government can prove that it was an emergency.

Now like I said in an earlier post in this thread--had this been a legitimate intelligence hole, I'd have given Bush a pass on this, if he'd gone to the Congress and said "this is a problem and we need to fill this loophole for national security reasons." I might not have agreed with him, but I'd have given him a pass the first time, especially if it had done some good.

But Bush did this 30 times in the last 3 years. That says to me that he thought so little of the law that he didn't care if he was violating it or not.

Here's the other thing I want to point out--nobody knows exactly what calls they were listening to, because none of that has come out yet. Maybe they were listening to calls for legitimate reasons--but so far, the only reason we have to believe that is because the Bush administration says that's what they were listening to, and to be quite frank, their word doesn't go very far with me these days. Maybe it does for you--it doesn't for me. I want independent corroboration.

So who are you calling cowards, partner?
Ten paces, and draw!!! :sniper:

Reminds me of a photo op on a certain ranch that seems to acquire a lot of excess brush ....

So do you all choose to ignore these parts? Or doesn't it matter as long as you can bash Bush?



I hope people do jailtime for this, by the way.
I hope Rove does jailtime for this, by the way.
I hope the motherf*ckers who Stevens refused to swear in regarding Cheney's closed door "energy policy" meeting do jailtime for blatantly lying under oath, by the way.

How do you know any of this to be the case? Because Bush and his Justice department said it was okay? Forgive me if I don't share your sanguine attitude toward it--after all, these are the same dipshits who said "we do not torture." Give me a fucking break.

No--give me an independent investigation instead. but don't give me this "Bush and the justice department said it was okay, so it's okay" weak ass line.
Just like attempting to chip away any integrity at te 9/11 Commission results and the investigation into Bush's war rationale ... resulting FINALLY in a democratic lock-out vote w/out notification of the Repubs because those cocksuckers have litigated the living f*ck out of it.
Independent all the way.

Limbaugh is a douchebag, so try not to assume so much. It's very unbecoming.
It's unfortunate then that the two of you address the same issues the same way and express yourself the same way, what with you calling him a douchebag and all.

purgury.
It's perjury.

And as for the investigation about the NSA, I don't trust some of the dumbass Senators who are calling for the investigation, so until there IS an investigation, you have no proof of ANY of your assertions. Just a bunch of partisan hackery.
This is an EXCELLENT opportunity to show what senators YOU DO trust and how that isn't an example of your own partisan hackery.
Ante up. Show everybody how right you are, truly no pun intended.

Go for the gusto, tough guy.

In a nation where "innocent until proven guilty" is the major basis of our judicial system, you are acting very un-American in your baseless, proof lacking, obviously partisan accusations.

Yeah, I said un-American. Damn right I did.
Oh, oh. There's the integrity of your argument there. Congflatulations, you've nestled in nicely with Limbaugh, and dare i say it, O'Reilly nicely.
I think you just earned "Ignore" to save quite a few readers here's page some blighting.

So you can't read--just making sure.

Did I accuse anyone specifically of a crime? No. had I done so, your argument would make sense. All I said was that a crime was committed--go back and read my posts, assuming you can understand the words printed in them.

So fuck your accusations that I'm un-American. You want to come at me, you better do better than that, punk.
You rock, Nazz.

One more thing--a question for all those people out there defending this practice of domestic spying.

How would you feel about this practice if in January, 2009, President Hillary Clinton takes office? Presumably what's okay for Republicans to do is okay for Democrats to do, right? So defenders, I want to hear it from you--would you trust Hillary, hell, would you trust any Democratic President with the kind of authority you're willing to give Bush right now?

Somehow I doubt it, but that's the cynic in me talking.

One more thing--a question for all those people out there defending this practice of domestic spying.

How would you feel about this practice if in January, 2009, President Hillary Clinton takes office? Presumably what's okay for Republicans to do is okay for Democrats to do, right? So defenders, I want to hear it from you--would you trust Hillary, hell, would you trust any Democratic President with the kind of authority you're willing to give Bush right now?

Somehow I doubt it, but that's the cynic in me talking.
Good f*cking question. Maybe some of those mouthpieces out there might finish the thought to its end instead of just saying "well that'll never happen goddamned libruhls feminazi military hating leftwing conspiracy sellout commie bastards"

One more thing--a question for all those people out there defending this practice of domestic spying.

How would you feel about this practice if in January, 2009, President Hillary Clinton takes office? Presumably what's okay for Republicans to do is okay for Democrats to do, right? So defenders, I want to hear it from you--would you trust Hillary, hell, would you trust any Democratic President with the kind of authority you're willing to give Bush right now?

Somehow I doubt it, but that's the cynic in me talking.
I hate the Clintons just as much as anyone else possibliy could, but if she DID get elected, and need to do what Bush is doing, then I say go for it. As a matter of fact, if one of her campaign promises is to do the same thing Bush is doing in terms of the war on terror, I can think of a few front runner Republicans who would lose my vote to her.

The only question is, is she just wearing a Hawk costume so get more votes, or does she really believe im what she says?


Either way, no matter who is President, if they need the NSA to tap some phonecalls, I say have at it.

So you can't read--just making sure.

Did I accuse anyone specifically of a crime? No. had I done so, your argument would make sense. All I said was that a crime was committed--go back and read my posts, assuming you can understand the words printed in them.

So fuck your accusations that I'm un-American. You want to come at me, you better do better than that, punk.
Quit playing games, dude. Your intentions and beliefs are as obvious as the nose on your face, and you trying to hide it just makes you seem disingenuous.

But hey, whatever floats your boat, man.

By the way, that last line was the best! "You want to come at me?" Are you kidding me? Come at you? :rolleyes:

I posted a link to the NY Times story in another thread, but it got no play. That's okay, though, because this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html) from the Washington Post adds to it a bit.

Here's the basics. In 2002, Bush signed an executive order giving the NSA permission to be able to monitor telephone conversations, emails and other forms of communications of citizens without obtaining a warrant. Now the reason this is a big deal is because that type of spying is expressly forbidden except in very narrow circumstances. It has to involve foreign nationals involved in international terrorism, and has to be approved by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Service Act) Court. I'll let the Post take over:

In short, Bush signed an executive order telling the NSA that it was okay to break the Foreign Intelligence Service Act and spy on US citizens, and his only possible defense is if he makes the Nixonian argument that if the President does it, it is by definition legal.

So Bush defenders, tell me--what is it going to take for you to abandon ship? Will Bush have to fuck a twelve-year old on national television? Get a blowjob in the Oval Office from a zaftig intern in a blue dress? Wipe his ass with the Constitution and set the Declaration of Independence on fire to kill the smell? What?

Because if you don't acknowledge that this is beyond the pale, that this kind of conduct is the definition of unAmerican, then what is? Explain it to me, please.

“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”
-President George W. Bush, Saturday, December 17th, 2005

Or, let me put it another way.

The entire charter of the National Security Agency has been a top secret document since its inception.

No one in the general American public really know what they are authorized to do. Only members of the intelligence committees of the house and senate have any remote idea what they do - the rest of the senators and congressmen have no clearance to even look at the used toilet paper up at the NSA.

I didn't hear you or anyone else complaining about the NSA - in fact, in a hearing in 1978, the NSA admitted back then that they monitor EVERY land line phone call in the US - there's a little back door they use that makes it legal and here it is:

If a signal is transmitted from an antenna, it's considered to be in the public domain. You may think that because you make a land line call that it will stay land line - but it doesn't. It goes to a nearby transmission tower, and your call is bundled with others and transmitted by line of sight microwave tower to another tower. It's a tight beam, but the NSA has been authorized to put their own receiver on EVERY microwave transmission dish in the US.

Because all those signals are in the public domain.

They also use the same rule to listen to EVERY cell phone call. EVERY satellite phone call.

Go ahead, put your head back in the sand where it's been for the past 25 years or more, instead of blaming Bush alone for the rights you were deprived of many years ago.

Or, let me put it another way.

SNIP
SSHHHHHHHH. Your killing the "Bush is responible for everything" mindset!

SSHHHHHHHH. Your killing the "Bush is responible for everything" mindset!

Here let's put it another way, just for you, since you don't seem to want to even TRY to understand why this issue would bother people.

(This is an "Open letter to conservatives and libratarians" from a blogger named Darksyde. I couldn't have written it better myself)

When discussing the pros and cons of government power, a lot us immediately think of terrorists. The Bad Guys, Crooks, or Religious Fanatics. Obviously most folks wouldn't have a problem with collecting information on really dangerous actors through wire taps or other surveillance methods. A lot of people would even understand the decision to torture suspects under extraordinary circumstances such as the ticking atomic bomb scenario.

But that entirely misses the crux of public concern with granting any agency such broad authority. Rule of Law, Due Process, and Oversight do not exist to protect the guilty. They exist to protect the public at large from abuses of power perpetrated against them by the powerful and to protect the innocent from mistaken arrest or intentional persecution.

That's the issue here.

Mechanisms exist to obtain secret wiretaps or run intel operations in the US, mechanisms exist to exonerate or pardon someone who is found to have tortured a nuclear bomb carrying madman. There are even provisions for immediacy during a holiday or some other set of circumstances where obtaining a legal warrant on the spot isn't practical.

So these motivations are simply not plausible justifications to encode into Law the 'right' to ignore or break any law a single individual sees fit, but we must insist on some minimal standard of oversight and due process to insure our own freedoms and safety. Nor are such concerns reasonable justifications to skirt basic rights and privileges which are underwritten by our most cherished articles of Freedom: The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

That's the issue here.

Allowing anyone to break these laws means they can now spy on you and I. It means they can ship us off to be tortured. And we have no recourse, no oversight, no due process, no restriction on that decision or their treatment of us. So what ends up happening, and has happened, is people get rounded up in sweeps either by arbitrary allegation from a party who has a score to settle with the accused, or people get arrested who are completely innocent on as simple a screwup as having a similar sounding name as a known suspect (or checking out the wrong book, etc.).

Can you imagine? Arrested by secret police, carted off in the middle of the night with no charges filed or notice given, flown to some third-world shit-hole, and hooked up to a car battery with your feet in boiling water? No chance of due process, no trial, no requirement your family or employer is even notified what became of you: Because you had a similar sounding name to a bad guy or there was a neighbor down the street who was mad at you?

That's the issue here.

The individuals who wrote our Constitution were critically aware of the dicey balance between national security and freedom. They were acutely aware of the tendency for centers of power to grow in might. As best we can tell they were more worried about their own government in the long run than anything else. So they wrote the document including Bill of Rights. Holding as an opinion that an official can arbitrarily break the very articles he has sworn to defend is not only logically inconsistent in itself, it's a direct threat to our liberty more than that posed by any external enemy we currently face in the world.

That's the issue here

"9-11 changed everything" we're told? Does that really make sense? Our rule of law and constitutional chaperone of personal liberty survived presidential assassinations, two World Wars, the Holocaust, standing armies millions strong, and scads of thermonuclear tipped missiles pointed at our heads, and we're going to trash our traditions and Constitution because a cabal of religious fanatics with box-cutters trained in a stone-age country got lucky?

That's the issue here.

Lastly, any changes in policy enacted now in the panic of carefully coordinated fear campaigns will be inherited by subsequent administrations. Democrat, Republican, moderate, extremist, conservative, progressive, you name it, they'll inherit all of this. Do you trust them all, sight unseen, for the indefinite future?

Would you trust Bill or Hillary Clinton with the power to unilaterally spy, arrest, torture, or 'disappear' anyone they choose with zero oversight? Do you trust that no future administration of any political ideology would ever use even a portion of such power to further their own agenda, cover-up wrong doing, or to intimidate political foes?

That's the issue here.

From what I have read now on this topic it doesn't appear that the executive branch have broken any laws.

These executive orders are a direct violation of FISA. If there is such a problem, why not go to congress and get a law passed, instead of doing it all covert and hoping no one finds out?

They were not listening to the random phone calls.

No, they were listening to the phone calls of peace activists, political dissidents, and the like. I'd wager money on it. It's at *least* as likely that they were doing that as suspected terrorists. Probably both, in my opinion.

Either way, no matter who is President, if they need the NSA to tap some phonecalls, I say have at it.

If they need the NSA to tap some phonecalls, they can get a warrent. We have due process and rule of law for a reason.

Go ahead, put your head back in the sand where it's been for the past 25 years or more, instead of blaming Bush alone for the rights you were deprived of many years ago.

Nice. I like you.

Though to be fair, people are mad at Bush for *furthering* the erosion of rights. I have no illusions that Bush alone is repsoncible for the stripping away of civil liberties. But, as I said, he furthers it.


Originally Posted by Man in Black
SSHHHHHHHH. Your killing the "Bush is responible for everything" mindset!

When did any of us claim that everything is Bush's fault? Can you quote it?

Quit playing games, dude. Your intentions and beliefs are as obvious as the nose on your face, and you trying to hide it just makes you seem disingenuous.

But hey, whatever floats your boat, man.

By the way, that last line was the best! "You want to come at me?" Are you kidding me? Come at you? :rolleyes:
Let me tell you something--and you can ask anyone who has debated me here for verification--I say what I mean, and if it's not there, it's not intended, so take your fucking guesses at what you think I mean and jam them. I said what I meant, and you got busted sticking your own biases into them. So apologize for calling me unAmerican and admit your error. You owe it to me.

I posted a link to the NY Times story in another thread, but it got no play. That's okay, though, because this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html) from the Washington Post adds to it a bit.

Here's the basics. In 2002, Bush signed an executive order giving the NSA permission to be able to monitor telephone conversations, emails and other forms of communications of citizens without obtaining a warrant. Now the reason this is a big deal is because that type of spying is expressly forbidden except in very narrow circumstances. It has to involve foreign nationals involved in international terrorism, and has to be approved by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Service Act) Court. I'll let the Post take over:

In short, Bush signed an executive order telling the NSA that it was okay to break the Foreign Intelligence Service Act and spy on US citizens, and his only possible defense is if he makes the Nixonian argument that if the President does it, it is by definition legal.

So Bush defenders, tell me--what is it going to take for you to abandon ship? Will Bush have to fuck a twelve-year old on national television? Get a blowjob in the Oval Office from a zaftig intern in a blue dress? Wipe his ass with the Constitution and set the Declaration of Independence on fire to kill the smell? What?

Because if you don't acknowledge that this is beyond the pale, that this kind of conduct is the definition of unAmerican, then what is? Explain it to me, please.



my my this is like the 4th thread of this...

YEAH SHEEP EVERY ONE BLEET WITH ME

bah bah...... *eats grass* bah bah

my my this is like the 4th thread of this...

YEAH SHEEP EVERY ONE BLEET WITH ME

bah bah...... *eats grass* bah bah
Check the time stamp on the orginal posts--this was the original one. :rolleyes:

Of course, that has nothing to do with the story at hand, but then again, neither did your post.

Check the time stamp on the orginal posts--this was the original one. :rolleyes:

Of course, that has nothing to do with the story at hand, but then again, neither did your post.


sure it did... its all relitive.. Nazz think outside the box... There is no spoon...

sure it did... its all relitive.. Nazz think outside the box... There is no spoon...
"Relitive"? Oh my. The Matrix? :p
I think you need to learn more about the boxe's contents before thinking outside of it.

sure it did... its all relitive.. Nazz think outside the box... There is no spoon...
no fork, no knife.. no plate...



Wait a minute... when did I wander into this hardware store???

"Relitive"? Oh my. The Matrix? :p
I think you need to learn more about the boxe's contents before thinking outside of it.


lol you may just be right... however i get bored with the box.. therefore i think outside it... keeps me sane....err insane....er what evers relitve

no fork, no knife.. no plate...



Wait a minute... when did I wander into this hardware store???


there is no hardware store neo...

Though to be fair, people are mad at Bush for *furthering* the erosion of rights. I have no illusions that Bush alone is repsoncible for the stripping away of civil liberties. But, as I said, he furthers it.

The NSA needs no warrant at all to listen to anything that gets broadcast into the air - during any time in its travel from Point A to Point B, if it goes through a microwave repeater (as nearly all domestic long distance calls do and most local calls that go more than 20 miles), or is a cell phone or satellite call - they need NO WARRANT - and it's been that way since the 1970s with no one questioning it.

To be fair, why don't you turn around and look at the right-wing / libertarian folks who during the 1990s were calling the ATF "jack-booted Nazis" and were protesting their ham-handed tactics of shooting innocent women in the face for the crime of holding their baby in their arms, or burning children to death after smothering them with CS fired from armored vehicles. You all were laughing at our assertions that your rights had ALREADY been sold down the river long ago.

I notice that you're not laughing now - but you can hardly blame Bush for exercising power that was laid down as precedent in previous administrations - especially the Clinton administration - and Not A Single Democrat Complained Then.

The NSA needs no warrant at all to listen to anything that gets broadcast into the air - during any time in its travel from Point A to Point B, if it goes through a microwave repeater (as nearly all domestic long distance calls do and most local calls that go more than 20 miles), or is a cell phone or satellite call - they need NO WARRANT - and it's been that way since the 1970s with no one questioning it.
You're going to have to quote me chapter and verse on that, because the way I've read FISA, and the way the people objecting to this action have been describing it, it seems to me that NSA has been precluded from precisely that kind of monitoring without a warrant since 1978 (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013444.html), when FISA was enacted. (Sorry about the blog link--it's the quickest place I could find a transcript of Feingold's fact sheet.)
* The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to provide a statutory framework for eavesdropping on individuals within the United States, including U.S. citizens, who are not suspected of having committed a crime but who are likely to be spies or members of terrorist organizations.
* FISA established a secret court that could issue wiretap orders if the government showed probable cause that the individual to be tapped is an “agent of a foreign power,” meaning he or she is affiliated with a foreign government or terrorist organization. This is an easier standard to meet than the criminal wiretap standard, which requires that there be: (1) probable cause that the individual to be tapped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and (2) probable cause that communications concerning that crime will be obtained through the electronic surveillance.

* In the 27 years since it was established, the FISA court has turned down only a handful of applications for wiretap orders. The number of approved FISA wiretap orders has jumped since September 11, 2001, with 1,754 FISA orders issued last year, up from 934 such orders in 2001.
* FISA already addresses emergency situations where there is not time to get pre-approval from the court. It includes an emergency exception that permits government agents to install a wiretap and start monitoring phone and email conversations immediately, as long as they then go to the FISA court and get a court order within 72 hours.
* FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809]
* Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” [18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)]
* The target of a FISA wiretap is never given notice that he or she was subject to surveillance, unless the evidence obtained through the electronic surveillance is ultimately used against the target in a criminal trial.

To be fair, why don't you turn around and look at the right-wing / libertarian folks who during the 1990s were calling the ATF "jack-booted Nazis" and were protesting their ham-handed tactics of shooting innocent women in the face for the crime of holding their baby in their arms, or burning children to death after smothering them with CS fired from armored vehicles. You all were laughing at our assertions that your rights had ALREADY been sold down the river long ago.

Hey man, you're preaching to the choiur here. I'm not politically selective, I distrust government in general. I really don't see much difference between the democrats and republicans, and I don't affiliate my self with either end of the political spectrum. So don't make assumptions on who or what I laugh at.

ok, befor i give you my opinion keep in mind im an angry american solider.

here goes, when some cowardly B*****D flys civilan planes as bombs and kills thousands of people, you have to do what you need to do to protect your people. you know what, i wouldnt give a damn if they tapped my phone lines....because you know what, i got nuthin to hide.

Positive agenda's don't have a great history. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart often shows politicians with positive agendas go bad.
..and its certainly been a busy number of months for them at the show, hasn't it?

ok, befor i give you my opinion keep in mind im an angry american solider.

here goes, when some cowardly B*****D flys civilan planes as bombs and kills thousands of people, you have to do what you need to do to protect your people. you know what, i wouldnt give a damn if they tapped my phone lines....because you know what, i got nuthin to hide.


You'll take surveillance, and you'll like it, mister! :rolleyes:

You're going to have to quote me chapter and verse on that, because the way I've read FISA, and the way the people objecting to this action have been describing it, it seems to me that NSA has been precluded from precisely that kind of monitoring without a warrant since 1978 (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013444.html), when FISA was enacted. (Sorry about the blog link--it's the quickest place I could find a transcript of Feingold's fact sheet.)

A "wiretap" is defined literally as a direct connection to a wire.

It was decided long ago that if you broadcast into the air, you're in the public domain.

That's why there are NSA antennas on the feed horns of every microwave repeater in the United States. Because as soon as your long distance or local phone call has to go any significant distance, it gets onto a microwave repeater and goes into the air.

That way, they don't need a warrant.

Maybe you should look up Echelon, which is a UK/US surveillance project.

The monitoring done by the NSA is a joint project between the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US. It's a worldwide common listening system.

The 1978 FISA prohibits the NSA from using its "electronic surveillance" technology to target American citizens. But that still leaves open the possibility that Britain's GCHQ or another foreign agency could target Americans and turn the data over to the NSA. Another problem is that the FISA appears not to apply to the NSA's monitoring of the Internet. While covering such things as "wire" and "radio" communications, there is no mention of "electronic communications," which is the legal term for communicating over the Internet as defined by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Worse, FISA applies only "under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

This last term is interpreted to mean that if you broadcast in the clear, as you are during microwave repeater transmission, they can listen to it.

Maybe you should look up Echelon, which is a UK/US surveillance project.

The monitoring done by the NSA is a joint project between the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US. It's a worldwide common listening system.

The 1978 FISA prohibits the NSA from using its "electronic surveillance" technology to target American citizens. But that still leaves open the possibility that Britain's GCHQ or another foreign agency could target Americans and turn the data over to the NSA. Another problem is that the FISA appears not to apply to the NSA's monitoring of the Internet. While covering such things as "wire" and "radio" communications, there is no mention of "electronic communications," which is the legal term for communicating over the Internet as defined by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Worse, FISA applies only "under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

This last term is interpreted to mean that if you broadcast in the clear, as you are during microwave repeater transmission, they can listen to it.
I understand that the partnerships with other countries could get them around FISA, but there's no indication from the news stories on the subject that that was done. Rather, the news stories are all indicating that Bush, on advice from his Attorney General, gave permission for NSA to do the spying itself, in direct contravention of the FISA statute.

I guess I ought to make something clear here--Bush signed off on this and as President, has to take full responsibility, but I'd be willing to cut him some slack on whether or not he understood the legality of his actions, as he's not a lawyer, and he had to rely on the lawyers surrounding him. However, in an interview with Katie Couric this morning (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2005-12-19T134746Z_01_SPI949578_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&rpc=22), Gonzales said this: There were many people, many lawyers, within the administration who advised the president that he had inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in this kind of signals intelligence of our enemy," Gonzales said in an interview with CNN.

"We also believe that the authorization to use force which was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11th constituted additional authorization for the president to engage in this kind of" electronic surveillance, he said.
In other words, Gonzales is saying that Bush had the power because he says we're at war--that's the Commander in Chief part of the argument--and that the post 9/11 force authorization gave him additional authorization. Now I don't have that force authorization handy, but I'd be willing to bet that there's no specific "you can spy on US citizens without a warrant" clause in there.

This is the clause that gets you around it:

"under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

It's traditionally interpreted to mean that any time a signal goes into the air, it's fair game for anyone without a warrant.

This is the clause that gets you around it:

"under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

It's traditionally interpreted to mean that any time a signal goes into the air, it's fair game for anyone without a warrant.
Here's the thing I don't get, and which makes me question that argument--why doesn't the Bush administration just make that argument? Instead, they're trying to justify their actions under force authorizations and the notion that the President, while at war, is the equivalent of a king, unquestionable in his authority, which makes me think that the clause you're pointing to doesn't get you as far as you're arguing it does.

Here's the thing I don't get, and which makes me question that argument--why doesn't the Bush administration just make that argument? Instead, they're trying to justify their actions under force authorizations and the notion that the President, while at war, is the equivalent of a king, unquestionable in his authority, which makes me think that the clause you're pointing to doesn't get you as far as you're arguing it does.

Because he's trying to extend his power. If people grant him the "force authorization", he gets everything else that goes with it.

He's trying to extend the power of the executive. Many Presidents do this.

Take Abraham Lincoln, for example. He suspended habeas corpus just by saying so, and everyone went along with it. It wasn't until later that the Supreme Court took up the issue - by which time it was moot.

Because he's trying to extend his power. If people grant him the "force authorization", he gets everything else that goes with it.

He's trying to extend the power of the executive. Many Presidents do this.

Take Abraham Lincoln, for example. He suspended habeas corpus just by saying so, and everyone went along with it. It wasn't until later that the Supreme Court took up the issue - by which time it was moot.
So in other words, rather than make the legitimate case (assuming that clause gets you as far as you argue it does), he'd rather make the "I'm president so it's legal" case? Seems to me that someone, even on the outside of the administration would be making noises that what the NSA has been doing has been legal all along, just as a backup plan in case that one went awry, which it's looking very much like what's happened.

ok, befor i give you my opinion keep in mind im an angry american solider.

here goes, when some cowardly B*****D flys civilan planes as bombs and kills thousands of people, you have to do what you need to do to protect your people. you know what, i wouldnt give a damn if they tapped my phone lines....because you know what, i got nuthin to hide.
Thousands of people? Do you know how many thousands of people die each year from bicycle accidents? I demand protection from bicycles!

Have you noticed that the same people attacking the President of the United States in this and other threads, are the same that back the little proto-commies and quasi-commies in other threads. Pretty sad.

So in other words, rather than make the legitimate case (assuming that clause gets you as far as you argue it does), he'd rather make the "I'm president so it's legal" case? Seems to me that someone, even on the outside of the administration would be making noises that what the NSA has been doing has been legal all along, just as a backup plan in case that one went awry, which it's looking very much like what's happened.

We'll have to wait for the NSA to defend itself.

As a matter of history, Echelon has been going on continuously for quite some time - it's something the EU is extremely upset about, since we're listening to their traffic all the time without their permission. And despite the end of the Cold War, the system has grown by leaps and bounds.

The NSA would probably say that they are entitled to do this via the clause that they've used before. It's why their antennas are mounted directly on the feed horns out there - and you're not allowed to remove them.

The President is flexing his muscles. He's made a habit of pushing executive authority as far as he can claiming war powers (remember Guantanamo?).

We'll have to wait for the NSA to defend itself.

As a matter of history, Echelon has been going on continuously for quite some time - it's something the EU is extremely upset about, since we're listening to their traffic all the time without their permission. And despite the end of the Cold War, the system has grown by leaps and bounds.

The NSA would probably say that they are entitled to do this via the clause that they've used before. It's why their antennas are mounted directly on the feed horns out there - and you're not allowed to remove them.

The President is flexing his muscles. He's made a habit of pushing executive authority as far as he can claiming war powers (remember Guantanamo?).Well, the EU being upset about Echelon is a different matter, because the NSA is tasked with monitoring foreign traffic. It's domestic traffic that's the issue and that's the source of the outrage here--bipartisan outrage, I have to reiterate. Hell, Bob Barr, who's as conservative as they come, ripped Dana Rohrabacher a new asshole last week over this issue on tv.

So let me ask you this--what happens if, by some miracle, Congress slaps Bush mid-flex?

Have you noticed that the same people attacking the President of the United States in this and other threads, are the same that back the little proto-commies and quasi-commies in other threads. Pretty sad.
Can you prove that to anyone's satisfaction besides that of the pro-Bush people?

Well, the EU being upset about Echelon is a different matter, because the NSA is tasked with monitoring foreign traffic. It's domestic traffic that's the issue and that's the source of the outrage here--bipartisan outrage, I have to reiterate. Hell, Bob Barr, who's as conservative as they come, ripped Dana Rohrabacher a new asshole last week over this issue on tv.

So let me ask you this--what happens if, by some miracle, Congress slaps Bush mid-flex?
You will notice that the constituency of white male libertarian gun owners is already upset with Bush over other things. This has caused them to already slap Bush over the Patriot Act. Did you ever think you would see the day when Sununu would side with the Democrats?

The constituency most hated by Democrats is the constituency that has had the longest record in the US of opposing the government infringment of our basic rights - but they were decried as tinfoil hat wearers during the Clinton Administration. Maybe they should take a look at the warnings that they've been shouting for the past 20 years.

This is just ANOTHER example of the Bush administration eroding the civil rights of it's citizens and those who are in the country.
You may feel that "I'm not a terrorist, so I have nothing to worry about!" Oh pray fool, what is to stop the government from continuing this practice to ALL in the country, just on the remote possibility of you doing something wrong.
One day you may have the police show up at your door because you were talking on the phone about jay-walking or possibly making a insignificant false claim on your income tax..........
Land of the Free? Sorry, it's now gone.

I wonder if any of you have heard of ECHELON ? It is a system that has been running for some 15 years now, and listens in to telephone calls, reads emails and faxes and does this all over the world. It is run by a consortium of security and intelligence services, including the CIA and NSA from America, GCHQ in Britain and the Intelligence services of Canada, Germany and Australia to name but three.

Oh and the War on Terror; America can't win the war, because an abstract noun can't surrender.

I wonder if any of you have heard of ECHELON ? It is a system that has been running for some 15 years now, and listens in to telephone calls, reads emails and faxes and does this all over the world. It is run by a consortium of security and intelligence services, including the CIA and NSA from America, GCHQ in Britain and the Intelligence services of Canada, Germany and Australia to name but three.

Oh and the War on Terror; America can't win the war, because an abstract noun can't surrender.
Yes, we've already discussed it in the thread.

Yes, we've already discussed it in the thread.

Oh I do apologise. I did not realise. I happen to live remarkably close to RAF Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, which is pretty much run by the CIA as a listening post as part of the system.

You will notice that the constituency of white male libertarian gun owners is already upset with Bush over other things. This has caused them to already slap Bush over the Patriot Act. Did you ever think you would see the day when Sununu would side with the Democrats?

The constituency most hated by Democrats is the constituency that has had the longest record in the US of opposing the government infringment of our basic rights - but they were decried as tinfoil hat wearers during the Clinton Administration. Maybe they should take a look at the warnings that they've been shouting for the past 20 years.
If you're talking about gun owners there, then you're full of crap, DK. I really don't want to go down this road, because we've been having a civil and stimulating conversation so far, but please spare me the "Democrats all want to take away your guns" line. There are some who do, but they're the minority within the party, much less in the country.

This is the clause that gets you around it:

"under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy."

It's traditionally interpreted to mean that any time a signal goes into the air, it's fair game for anyone without a warrant.

My desk ham radio routinely picks up cell phone traffic, without me trying to pick it up. Does this mean I'm spying on my neighbors? If I can do it with a home set, why shouldn't the NSA be able to? If you really want privacy, use the postal service.

My desk ham radio routinely picks up cell phone traffic, without me trying to pick it up. Does this mean I'm spying on my neighbors? If I can do it with a home set, why shouldn't the NSA be able to? If you really want privacy, use the postal service.
Unintentionall is an accident. If you are trying to pick up the waves, it is no longer an accident and is intentional. You don't have the right or legal standing to wonder around in a mobile base trying to pick up people's signals to listen in on their conversations.

My desk ham radio routinely picks up cell phone traffic, without me trying to pick it up. Does this mean I'm spying on my neighbors? If I can do it with a home set, why shouldn't the NSA be able to? If you really want privacy, use the postal service.

Privacy in the postal service died out the day someone thought mailing anthrax was a brilliant idea.

Unintentionall is an accident. If you are trying to pick up the waves, it is no longer an accident and is intentional. You don't have the right or legal standing to wonder around in a mobile base trying to pick up people's signals to listen in on their conversations.


The signals aren't scrambled, you can't expect privacy when even common citizens can so easily pick up cell phone traffic. The thing is you don't have to use a mobile base, a stationary set-up (which you could build for under $500 at your local Radio Shack) will pick up numerous signals. You should hear some of the stuff I receive, really saucy. Cheaper then phone sex. ;)

Don't forget that Clinton used spy satelite technology to spy on the communications of White Power groups after the OKC bombing.

The general atmosphere of cluelessness gets amazing at times.

First Point: The issue is not whether the spying should be done. The issue is who should do the spying and how. Agencies that do international spying are not allowed to do domestic spying. That's the FBI's job. Why? Because of a clear and well documented history of abuses against American citizens committed by the feds throughout the 20th century and particularly during the 1950s and Vietnam. The Constitution guarantees American citizens certain protections under the law that do not apply to persons or groups in foreign countries. The FBI is bound as a law enforcement agency to follow US civil rights laws (whether they're good at that or not is another question). The NSA, CIA, etc., are not bound that way. Therefore, based on proven abuses, it was decided that it was too dangerous to allow foreign spying and domestic spying to get mixed together in the same agency.

In order to make sure that US citizens remain protected under US law, it seems perfectly clear to me that the FBI should do domestic spying, with warrants, and should be able to share relevant information with other agencies -- which is what I thought that dumbass boondoggle called a Homeland Security Department was supposed to be for.

The FISA Court exists because it is recognized that we sometimes have to spy on foreigners within our country. FISA just makes sure that any information gathered domestically by an international spying agency will not be vulnerable to being struck down under US law. Considering FISA's record of rubber stamping requests for surveillance warrants, I really don't see how that is such a frigging imposition on the government.

Second Point: I wonder if I will ever live to see the day when these right wingers can get over themselves. Bush screwed up on this, and he did it the exact same way and for the exact same reasons he screws up on everything -- his ego. He's the president, so, according to him, he shouldn't need some court to give him permission to do things. And when it turns out that, yes, actually, he does need permission from a court, he pulls his standard Chicken Little routine about how Americans are going to die if he doesn't get his way. It's a load of crap, always has been, always will be, as evidenced by the absolute lack of real, actual progress against terrorism. Having the NSA do warrantless surveillance within the US is the wrong thing to do, and it would be wrong no matter what president did it. Bush is wrong, and no amount of "but he says he's right" is going to change that.

Whatever happened to "if you break the law..."

Even people who broke the law because the laws were unjust,
such as Martin Luther King Jr, did their time in jail, willingly.

If there is a law Bush thinks is wrong and breaks the law in an attempt
to bring notice the the law, he should do the time.

We can have a debate whether the law is just or not,
but he's still gotta do the time.

Something about doing no harm to others as well...

Whatever happened to "if you break the law..."

Even people who broke the law because the laws were unjust,
such as Martin Luther King Jr, did their time in jail, willingly.

If there is a law Bush thinks is wrong and breaks the law in an attempt
to bring notice the the law, he should do the time.

We can have a debate whether the law is just or not,
but he's still gotta do the time.

Something about doing no harm to others as well...

Excellent point.

Whatever happened to "if you break the law..."

Even people who broke the law because the laws were unjust,
such as Martin Luther King Jr, did their time in jail, willingly.

If there is a law Bush thinks is wrong and breaks the law in an attempt
to bring notice the the law, he should do the time.

We can have a debate whether the law is just or not,
but he's still gotta do the time.

Something about doing no harm to others as well...
There's always that, too. But I'm sure he will own up to it -- as soon as he's certain he won't get indicted or impeached, just like "taking responsibility" for bad pre-war intelligence.

(Ungrateful of him, really, to call the pre-war intelligence bad -- after all, it did what he wanted, didn't it?)

Whatever happened to "if you break the law..."

Even people who broke the law because the laws were unjust,
such as Martin Luther King Jr, did their time in jail, willingly.

If there is a law Bush thinks is wrong and breaks the law in an attempt
to bring notice the the law, he should do the time.

We can have a debate whether the law is just or not,
but he's still gotta do the time.

Something about doing no harm to others as well...
I hope that the investigation is something other than a 'bipartisan' committee made up of Senate and House members. Remember that select Senators were briefed and had knowledge of the plan before it was implemented.

I hope Rove does jailtime for this, by the way.
I hope the motherf*ckers who Stevens refused to swear in regarding Cheney's closed door "energy policy" meeting do jailtime for blatantly lying under oath, by the way.


Stop it, you're sounding like a wuss. Why are all male libs pussies?

Stop it, you're sounding like a wuss. Why are all male libs pussies?
It compliments all of the assholes in the GOP.

It compliments all of the assholes in the GOP.

I'd rather be an asshole then a puss. At least with the ass you get to give off crap, while as a puss you just get the "shaft"!

It compliments all of the assholes in the GOP.


Can you name one manly lib?

Why are all male libs pussies?
I don't know, why don't you grow up?

I don't know, why don't you grow up?


Excellent retort.

If you're talking about gun owners there, then you're full of crap, DK. I really don't want to go down this road, because we've been having a civil and stimulating conversation so far, but please spare me the "Democrats all want to take away your guns" line. There are some who do, but they're the minority within the party, much less in the country.
No, I'm just pointing out that libertarian gun owners were generally ridiculed by Democrats for believing that their rights (more than their gun rights) were being taken away.

Domestic spying by the FBI and ATF, frameups, no knock warrants that ended up in the ATF killing unarmed people (at the wrong house), and the militarization of the ATF under Janet Reno - everyone was laughing then.

I bet they aren't laughing now.

Excellent retort.
Just as good as your little playground antics.

Can you name one manly lib?
Ha!

I don't know, why don't you grow up?
Do those of the "classic" inclination count?

^ For Brady, not TPH.

Do those of the "classic" inclination count?


Nope.

Do those of the "classic" inclination count?


Sure if you want to.

Whatever makes ya happy. Ya Savy?

Maybe I should ask:

when the ATF was militarized by the executive branch, where were you?
when they framed by entrapment a man who just wanted to be left alone in the middle of nowhere, where were you?
when they rewarded an FBI sniper for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby (in her face), where were you?
when the state of Idaho found all those things to be true, and the Federal government did all it could to cover the asses of the men and bureaucrats involved, where were you?
when the DEA and ATF raided a house in Portland, Oregon on a no knock warrant and got the wrong house, and shot an unarmed man in a wheelchair to death and were cleared of any wrongdoing by internal affairs, where were you?
when various executive orders were written over the past decades to give FEMA unprecedented powers in time of "national emergency" including suspending the Constitution, where were you?

Probably laughing at the "tinfoil hats". Now you're not laughing. But the precedent of allowing the executive to trample on the average citizen is already well established. It's a bit too late to ask the current President to give up powers that were already granted to previous Presidents, especially when you didn't complain then.

Maybe I should ask:

when the ATF was militarized by the executive branch, where were you?
when they framed by entrapment a man who just wanted to be left alone in the middle of nowhere, where were you?
when they rewarded an FBI sniper for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby (in her face), where were you?
when the state of Idaho found all those things to be true, and the Federal government did all it could to cover the asses of the men and bureaucrats involved, where were you?
when the DEA and ATF raided a house in Portland, Oregon on a no knock warrant and got the wrong house, and shot an unarmed man in a wheelchair to death and were cleared of any wrongdoing by internal affairs, where were you?
when various executive orders were written over the past decades to give FEMA unprecedented powers in time of "national emergency" including suspending the Constitution, where were you?

Probably laughing at the "tinfoil hats". Now you're not laughing. But the precedent of allowing the executive to trample on the average citizen is already well established. It's a bit too late to ask the current President to give up powers that were already granted to previous Presidents, especially when you didn't complain then.
Neither "I am the president" nor "they did it too" is a defense or an excuse.

Do those of the "classic" inclination count?

I'm still waiting. ;)

I'm still waiting. ;)
I could start with Clint Eastwood, Trey Parker, and Denis Leary.
There's plenty of classic liberals and libertarians that make metro neocons, Ivy League brats and Jesus-softies look like pansies, if we're takin' names.

For those who haven't seen it, here's the Washington Posts article about Bush's defending (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html) the eavesdropping program.

Also, the link to the press conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html)...

Q It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I -- right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still -- you're referring to the FISA court in your question -- of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am -- I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.


Q Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment. According to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

THE PRESIDENT: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.


Is he saying, in short, "Trust me"?

And I have to mention:
In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam -- Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.
Not always easy to know the difference, huh? ;)

I hope that the investigation is something other than a 'bipartisan' committee made up of Senate and House members. Remember that select Senators were briefed and had knowledge of the plan before it was implemented.
Not quite--the House leadership was briefed on it after the fact (which is all that is required) but they were not given oversight or input, at least according to the only person I've heard speak on the record about it--Nancy Pelosi. She also said that she objected to the program in writing, in a letter that is also currently classified. But even if they were briefed, there's no indication that they supported the actions or found them legal--the White House wasn't trying to get permission.

Whatever happened to "if you break the law..."

Even people who broke the law because the laws were unjust,
such as Martin Luther King Jr, did their time in jail, willingly.

If there is a law Bush thinks is wrong and breaks the law in an attempt
to bring notice the the law, he should do the time.

We can have a debate whether the law is just or not,
but he's still gotta do the time.

Something about doing no harm to others as well...
since everyone else had a stab at this one....


the president of the united states has no need to "break the law in an attempt to bring notice to the law". if he finds that the law is inadequate he can propose a change. he is the freaking president.

if, in an emergency, he has to take immediate action to protect the public, FINE. then he can go to congress and say "well you know the world has changed and we need new laws to cover new situations"

what he cant do is ignore inconvenient laws.

Neither "I am the president" nor "they did it too" is a defense or an excuse.
I'm not excusing them - I'm trying to find out why you never noticed a damn thing until the President was Republican.

Not quite--the House leadership was briefed on it after the fact (which is all that is required) but they were not given oversight or input, at least according to the only person I've heard speak on the record about it--Nancy Pelosi. She also said that she objected to the program in writing, in a letter that is also currently classified. But even if they were briefed, there's no indication that they supported the actions or found them legal--the White House wasn't trying to get permission.
So if there were grounds to stop the President then, why didn't Nancy stop him then?

Looks like she's a wuss through and through.

Bottom Line: If the president broke any laws he should be punished.


Clinton got head from a government clerk and was almost kicked out.

Dubya misleads the american people into going into war and now ignores the courts to do some spying?


Thats a lot worse than head.

Neither "I am the president" nor "they did it too" is a defense or an excuse.

national security is a pretty good excuse.

Let me ask you something, which right is more prominent in the US Constitution?:

1)The right of every American citizen to life (to remain alive in lieu of being killed by an enemy, foreign or domestic)

or

2)The right of a domestic terrorist to talk unheard/untapped to an overseas terrorist?

hmmm, tough one.

So if there were grounds to stop the President then, why didn't Nancy stop him then?

Looks like she's a wuss through and through.
She didn't have the power to stop him. The White House made that clear. Also, I've found statements by Tom Daschle and Jay Rockefeller that back up her story, that the White House came to them, not for permission or oversight, but simply to tell them what was going on. Another thing that's coming out of these statements is that the White House misrepresented the extent to which they were doing this.

She didn't have the power to stop him. The White House made that clear. Also, I've found statements by Tom Daschle and Jay Rockefeller that back up her story, that the White House came to them, not for permission or oversight, but simply to tell them what was going on. Another thing that's coming out of these statements is that the White House misrepresented the extent to which they were doing this.
If, as you say, it wasn't legal, they sure had the means to stop it.
He must have something on them.

Bottom Line: If the president broke any laws he should be punished.


Clinton got head from a government clerk and was almost kicked out.

Dubya misleads the american people into going into war and now ignores the courts to do some spying?


Thats a lot worse than head.

rofl

1)GW didn't know that Saddam's WMDs were no longer in Iraq. Besides, that war is justified in spite of the fact that we haven't yet found WMDs in Iraq.

2)I want the NSA listening to terrorists' phone calls, if it means I'm less likely to be blown up at the mall tomorrow. I swear, if another freaking middle eastern terrorist slams into a building here and we find out he'd been talking to American citizens about the terrorism plans -- and we couldn't listen in because of this freaking lefty "rights" horseshit, I'm going to be really pissed.

1)GW didn't know that Saddam's WMDs were no longer in Iraq. Besides, that war is justified in spite of the fact that we haven't yet found WMDs in Iraq.

I disagree. He didn't even listen to the weapons-inspectors that were on the ground, and so long as there were no reason for a preemptive attack the war was not justified. But that's a completely different discussion.


2)I want the NSA listening to terrorists' phone calls, if it means I'm less likely to be blown up at the mall tomorrow. I swear, if another freaking middle eastern terrorist slams into a building here and we find out he'd been talking to American citizens about the terrorism plans -- and we couldn't listen in because of this freaking lefty "rights" horseshit, I'm going to be really pissed.

I would rather that the FBI listened to terrorists' who make calls from the US, since they've got the jurisdiction to do so. But again, that's not the problem. The problem is that the current administration seems to ignore the system that is in place to prevent abuse of power, and listen to phone calls from people that they claim are suspected terrorists - and they seem to want everyone to trust the administration to use these powers unchecked and trust them to never abuse them. Why should a government rely on trust, when there are functioning precautions in place?

It should not be necessary for abuse to have happened before people start asking questions, it should be enough that the potential is there.

rofl

1)GW didn't know that Saddam's WMDs were no longer in Iraq. Besides, that war is justified in spite of the fact that we haven't yet found WMDs in Iraq.

2)I want the NSA listening to terrorists' phone calls, if it means I'm less likely to be blown up at the mall tomorrow. I swear, if another freaking middle eastern terrorist slams into a building here and we find out he'd been talking to American citizens about the terrorism plans -- and we couldn't listen in because of this freaking lefty "rights" horseshit, I'm going to be really pissed.

Yep. Those Founders and their damn commie Constitution really get in the way!

I certainly hope that the NSA monitors evil bastards that wish to tear down those ideals for which America stands. Oh. Wait.... nevermind.

national security is a pretty good excuse.

Let me ask you something, which right is more prominent in the US Constitution?:

1)The right of every American citizen to life (to remain alive in lieu of being killed by an enemy, foreign or domestic)

or

2)The right of a domestic terrorist to talk unheard/untapped to an overseas terrorist?

hmmm, tough one.

Um. Actually it is an easy one. #2.

Find me where the Constitution gives every American citizen an unqualified right to life. Oops. It isn't there.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment is pretty fucking clear.

If we let Bush tap who he wants, when he wants. Then why did we have a revolution? Oh right because we were sick of a guy doing what he wanted with his people when he wanted. I believe that was also why we have checks and balances.

Maybe I should ask:

when the ATF was militarized by the executive branch, where were you?
when they framed by entrapment a man who just wanted to be left alone in the middle of nowhere, where were you?
when they rewarded an FBI sniper for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby (in her face), where were you?
when the state of Idaho found all those things to be true, and the Federal government did all it could to cover the asses of the men and bureaucrats involved, where were you?
when the DEA and ATF raided a house in Portland, Oregon on a no knock warrant and got the wrong house, and shot an unarmed man in a wheelchair to death and were cleared of any wrongdoing by internal affairs, where were you?
when various executive orders were written over the past decades to give FEMA unprecedented powers in time of "national emergency" including suspending the Constitution, where were you?

Some of us protested the ones above that are close to true. Some of those aren't accurate.

Probably laughing at the "tinfoil hats". Now you're not laughing. But the precedent of allowing the executive to trample on the average citizen is already well established. It's a bit too late to ask the current President to give up powers that were already granted to previous Presidents, especially when you didn't complain then.

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. The President did not have the authority to do what he did.

2)I want the NSA listening to terrorists' phone calls, if it means I'm less likely to be blown up at the mall tomorrow. I swear, if another freaking middle eastern terrorist slams into a building here and we find out he'd been talking to American citizens about the terrorism plans -- and we couldn't listen in because of this freaking lefty "rights" horseshit, I'm going to be really pissed.

"everyone" wants it. thats why there is a LAW that allows it. and if that law is in fact inadequate thats why our congress wouldnt consider NOT passing an adequate one.

too bad the president feels he doesnt need to either follow the law or get the right ones passed.

Yep. Those Founders and their damn commie Constitution really get in the way!
Exactly what goes through my mind whenever I hear these freedom-hating commies complaining about America, and what it stands for.

Maybe I should ask:

when the ATF was militarized by the executive branch, where were you?
when they framed by entrapment a man who just wanted to be left alone in the middle of nowhere, where were you?
when they rewarded an FBI sniper for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby (in her face), where were you?
when the state of Idaho found all those things to be true, and the Federal government did all it could to cover the asses of the men and bureaucrats involved, where were you?
when the DEA and ATF raided a house in Portland, Oregon on a no knock warrant and got the wrong house, and shot an unarmed man in a wheelchair to death and were cleared of any wrongdoing by internal affairs, where were you?
when various executive orders were written over the past decades to give FEMA unprecedented powers in time of "national emergency" including suspending the Constitution, where were you?

Probably laughing at the "tinfoil hats". Now you're not laughing. But the precedent of allowing the executive to trample on the average citizen is already well established. It's a bit too late to ask the current President to give up powers that were already granted to previous Presidents, especially when you didn't complain then.

If that was aimed at everyone who opposes antiprivacy and big brother legislation (including me), Iwas in the party who wasn't so silent on issues like these, so I'm not understanding your argument.

Stop it, you're sounding like a wuss. Why are all male libs pussies?

I'll fight you. Seriously. Come to DC, we'll fight.

Excellent retort.

You're lame ass post deserved nothing better.

Have you noticed that the same people attacking the President of the United States in this and other threads, are the same that back the little proto-commies and quasi-commies in other threads. Pretty sad.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? How does that uphold any sort of point, not that you bothered to make one?

Maybe I should ask:

when the ATF was militarized by the executive branch, where were you? Probably too young to notice. That happened some time ago.
when they framed by entrapment a man who just wanted to be left alone in the middle of nowhere, where were you? What incedent exectly are you refering to?
when they rewarded an FBI sniper for shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby (in her face), where were you? Raging against it.
when the state of Idaho found all those things to be true, and the Federal government did all it could to cover the asses of the men and bureaucrats involved, where were you? See above.
when the DEA and ATF raided a house in Portland, Oregon on a no knock warrant and got the wrong house, and shot an unarmed man in a wheelchair to death and were cleared of any wrongdoing by internal affairs, where were you? Realising how much the government really can't be trusted.
when various executive orders were written over the past decades to give FEMA unprecedented powers in time of "national emergency" including suspending the Constitution, where were you? Forming my militia.

national security is a pretty good excuse.

Let me ask you something, which right is more prominent in the US Constitution?:

1)The right of every American citizen to life (to remain alive in lieu of being killed by an enemy, foreign or domestic)

or

2)The right of a domestic terrorist to talk unheard/untapped to an overseas terrorist?

hmmm, tough one.

Too bad your question is irellivent. No one is trying to completely outlaw wiretaps. Also, your assertion that without this violation of the law, every American citizen would be dead is total bullshit, and makes me laugh at you.

It's a question of the right of the average US citizen to go about their business un-harrassed, and un-spyed on by the government, who has proved it's self unable to handle power without abusing it. You can easily get a warrent to spy on a domestic terrorist. And they should be spyed on.

Basicly, it means you need a good reason/eveidence to violate someone's rights. That's what our whole society is based on.

2)I want the NSA listening to terrorists' phone calls, if it means I'm less likely to be blown up at the mall tomorrow. I swear, if another freaking middle eastern terrorist slams into a building here and we find out he'd been talking to American citizens about the terrorism plans -- and we couldn't listen in because of this freaking lefty "rights" horseshit, I'm going to be really pissed.

History has shown that you're alot more likly to be blown up or killed by a white domestic terrorist group then a middle eastern one. And history has also shown that you are more likely to be killed wrongly or have your rights and your life trampled on by the government then by both of the above groups combined. There goes your bullshit logic.

Also, no terrorist will have been talking to US citizens about his upcomming attacks. "Hey Joe, what are you doing this weekend? Golfing? Good luck on the course. Me? Oh, I'm driving a truck bomb to the capital and blowing up a mall." I'm sorry, but I laughed my ass off just writing that.

"Lefty rights horseshit"? First of all, the right wingers are one of the biggest groups fighting this. 2, rights arn't horsehit.

I could start with Clint Eastwood, Trey Parker, and Denis Leary.
There's plenty of classic liberals and libertarians that make metro neocons, Ivy League brats and Jesus-softies look like pansies, if we're takin' names.


Liberals, not libertarians. Thanks so much.

I'll fight you. Seriously. Come to DC, we'll fight.





DC, sure I'll come tough guy. You're still a pinko wuss.

History has shown that you're alot more likly to be blown up or killed by a white domestic terrorist group then a middle eastern one. And history has also shown that you are more likely to be killed wrongly or have your rights and your life trampled on by the government then by both of the above groups combined. There goes your bullshit logic.



You do know that when you're dead, you're civil rights are pretty much over, right?


BTW as per the bolded, nice one, quiz kid.

Liberals, not libertarians. Thanks so much.
I asked if we were including classic liberals (what we call libertaians today).
You said that was okay. Personally, I thought that was a weird challenge, seeing how often we're called heartless by our pinko counterparts here.

I asked if we were including classic liberals (what we call libertaians today).
You said that was okay. Personally, I thought that was a weird challenge, seeing how often we're called heartless by our pinko counterparts here.


No word games, straight up.

Now name one manly "liberal", and Hillary don't count!

DC, sure I'll come tough guy. You're still a pinko wuss.

Really? I'm a communist? That's news to me. I'll have you know I am neither a communist nor a wuss.

You do know that when you're dead, you're civil rights are pretty much over, right?

I return to the part where I say that you are much more likely to be killed by the government then by forgien terrorists.

No word games, straight up.

Now name one manly "liberal", and Hillary don't count!

Although I find your need for a dick-measuring contest pathetic, I'll give you some names: Senator Daniel K. Inouye bio (http://www.senate.gov/member/hi/inouye/general/)and Senator Max Cleland link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland), Senator John Glenn, Muhammed Ali, Robert DeNiro, Doug Flutie, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, John Goodman, Tommy Lee Jones, Paul Newman, Bruce Springsteen, etc. ....

No word games, straight up.

Now name one manly "liberal", and Hillary don't count!


*looks back and forth*




Maybe you should calm down? Your borderline flaming from what i can tell...

Have you noticed that the same people attacking the President of the United States in this and other threads, are the same that back the little proto-commies and quasi-commies in other threads. Pretty sad.
Have you noticed that some people *STILL* haven't followed *THEIR OWN* advice on getting a better hobby, or at least one they're better suited for?
*poke*

Although I find your need for a dick-measuring contest pathetic, I'll give you some names: Senator Daniel K. Inouye bio (http://www.senate.gov/member/hi/inouye/general/)and Senator Max Cleland link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland), Senator John Glenn, Muhammed Ali, Robert DeNiro, Doug Flutie, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, John Goodman, Tommy Lee Jones, Paul Newman, Bruce Springsteen, etc. ....
And under your "etc." column, i insert George "Love my pot-bellied pig!" Clooney.
Watch, yes you will, oh yes, watch his movies. Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck.

I think the second one there is EVER-MORE relevent.

Really? I'm a communist? That's news to me. I'll have you know I am neither a communist nor a wuss.



I return to the part where I say that you are much more likely to be killed by the government then by forgien terrorists.
He's statistically more probable to be killed by his own ignorance, if you want to get technical.

Stop it, you're sounding like a wuss. Why are all male libs pussies?
I might sound like a wuss on occasion, but this one certainly isn't it.
And as for your second post, you ignorant *expletive*, i'm an independent moderate, and always have been.
You're welcome to play a game of tag anytime you want, but if you're looking for a guy w/a pussy, i can't help you with that kinda tag.

Also - people disagreeing with you doesn't make them a wuss or a liberal.
If you're a fascist, as you often post in such fashion, then it's fairly clear that MOST people will be more liberal than yourself. So go educate yourself in the corner. Go on, nothing to see here.

Excellent retort.
Hail, praise from Casear!!!!

The funniest part is that this poster is talking about others being wusses and such while in direct apparent contrast to his/her OWN NATION NAME.

I see ... a wuss with self-conflictive personality issues ... it makes sense, i guess.
The only place you can truly be yourself is here with us in a digital medium. No risk, lots of play, lots of attention. How cute! ;)

Stop it, you're sounding like a wuss. Why are all male libs pussies?
Read the post i was replying to, and worry about your own self control, "acorn", instead of some kind of freak passive-agressive instability that you can only assert through gender personification issues.

Ha!
Really, REALLY rackin' up the points here. Maybe you're a puppet. If so, you're doing poorly at that too.

I'm not excusing them - I'm trying to find out why you never noticed a damn thing until the President was Republican.
You know what? Your nation start-up date says OCTOBER 2005. So unless you were here BEFORE Bush, being ... hmm, HOW MANY years ago, then you pretty much have no idea what people noticed and didn't notice that Clinton OR Carter or any other Democrat president did, now, do you, other than what people want to share with you.

rofl

1)GW didn't know that Saddam's WMDs were no longer in Iraq.


Due Rummy ...
The most pertinent response to this post ... that and the rest is too irrelevant to bother responding to.

*ahem*

"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." – March 30, 2003 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos
coupled with, of course ....
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
Tragic comic.
So you're implying that the president doesn't listen to the secretary of defense, however charismatic and effervescent his presence might be?


Just so you don't get the wrong idea ...


"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

Liberals, not libertarians. Thanks so much.
Pay closer attention to his post, whelp.
Read the "metro neocon" part. Maybe, due your other posts, "metro" is a little risque but not conflictive enough for you to enjoy it.

DC, sure I'll come tough guy. You're still a pinko wuss.
Be sure to bring the nightie, the bondage gear and the grapefruit! ;)

about domestic spying.....

Letting people know the government's methods and sources will act as a terrorist detterent or terrorist prevention. People will stop doing what they are doing if they know that the actions can be monitored.

The real goal is to get people to stop doing harmful activities. There are benefits to people when people are caught in the act, of course. The catchers get a job to do (with pay) and kudos for catching the bad actors. The bad actors get to be martyrs. Benefits all around.....

In this modern age of technology, wire tapping is a prehistoric tool for monitoring actions.

C'mon now, Brady, before the grapefruit spoils.
*drip, drip*

At least, someone should come to Rummy's "D-FENS"
..."We are NOT the same. I'm an American, you're a sick *sshole."
..AND the sequence that follows.

C'mon now, Brady, before the grapefruit spoils.
*drip, drip*.

Grapefruit? :confused: Why do you... Oh, wait. This is something I'm better of not knowing, isn't it? :eek:

Oh well, carry on :fluffle:

Grapefruit? :confused: Why do you... Oh, wait. This is something I'm better of not knowing, isn't it? :eek:

Oh well, carry on :fluffle:

Oh, i don't mind telling you ... the fella was going off about "libruhls" on another thread, and then pot-bellied pigs got brought up ... and the next thing you know, someone's trying to open someone's horizons a smidge.

:)

Did anyone hear? one of the judges ( in the group who oversees these wiretap requests) resigned in protest when he heard about Bush ordering these things. Apparently the only judge that knew was the top dog whom was ordered not to tell the others. Why would the judge not be allowed to tell the others? I think the guy who quit made a mistake in doing so though. Perhaps right now they are going over his head but later hopefully they wont be and if he sounds liek teh kinda guy we actually want overseeing this stuff.

Oh I found the story online, so here ya go!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/wl_afp/usattacksintelligencejudgeresign


US judge resigns over Bush's domestic spying authorization: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A federrepeal judge on a court that oversees intelligence cases has resigned to protest President George W. Bush's authorization of a domestic spying program, The Washington Post said.

US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on which he served for 11 years and which he belives may have been tainted by Bush's 2002 authorization, two associates familiar with his decision told the daily.

The resignation is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the country's super-secret electronic surveillance arm -- to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of having links with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.

Bush's statement on the weekend that the secret program did not require FISA court orders -- according to his reading of the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks, has angered civil rights groups and lawmakers, some of whom have called for a congressional investigation.

The New York Times first revealed last week the secret NSA program that officials said has likely involved eavesdropping on thousands of people in the United States. Bush said he expected the Justice Department to investigate the leak of such sensitive information.

On Wednesday, The New York Times quoted US officials as saying that "a very small fraction" of those wiretaps and e-mail intercepts were of communications between people in the United States and were caused by technical glitches.

The revelation is likely to add fuel to the firestorm over the NSA spying program.

Robertson's associates said the judge - one of 11 on the FISA court -- in recent conversations said he was concerned that the information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have been used to obtain FISA warrants.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants.

In a separate story, The New York Times Wednesday quoted congressional officials as saying that the White House's oral briefings to lawmakers on the secret NSA spying program may not have fulfilled a legal requirement that such reports be in written form.

Bush, on revealing his secret order to the NSA, said US lawmakers had been briefed regularly of the spying activity.

Congressional officials consulted by the Times said no more than 14 members of Congress have been briefed orally of the program since it began, but that no aides and note-taking were allowed during the meetings.

Consequently, the daily said, the lawmakers who attended the briefings have provided starkly different versions of what they were told at the sessions, which were almost invariably led by Vice President Dick Cheney and NSA director Michael Hayden.

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"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," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

"And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional," he said in Kansas City, Missouri.

Oh I found the story online, so here ya go!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/wl_afp/usattacksintelligencejudgeresign
You ROCK, Sumamba.
*bows*

Amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 to constitutionally enhance use of electronic surveillance to fight terrorism. This proposal would: permit any federal felony to be used as a basis for an electronic surveillance order; ease restrictions on the use, in American court proceedings, of information from electronic surveillance conducted by foreign governments; forbid suppression of electronic evidence unless law enforcement acted in bad faith in obtaining the evidence; authorize emergency electronic surveillance in situations involving threats by domestic terrorist organizations, authorize roving wiretaps where it is not practical to specify the number of the phone to be tapped, such as where a target uses multiple pay phones; allow the FBI to obtain records of local telephone calls, without the need for a court order, as they can own (sic-Ed.) obtain records of long-diastase (sic-Ed.) calls; and require telephone companies and/or service providers to preserve evidence until a court order could be obtained. None of these changes would alter the requirement for probable cause prior to engaging in electronic surveillance.

Where did this come from?

*checks source*

Oh yeah....that's right

Bill Clinton in 1995

And for those who like some light reading, I suggest the following references.

J Edgar Hoover

Teddy Kennedy

John F Kennedy

Robert Kennedy

COINTELPRO

Roosevelt

Truman

I guess most of you will ignore this...it being the truth and all....but truly speaking folks? You have no idea just how far back this goes....actually, in terms of both international and domestic surveillance, it goes back as far as Franklin D Roosevelt, who approved wiretaps both domestic and international to deal with Nazi sympathisers.

Um...you do know that the Kennedies (um...what party were they?..oh yeah, Democrats...go figure...) knew and approved of wiretaps and surveillance on Martin Luther King and other "subversives"?

That the US Attorney General was kept appraised of their details?Throughtout SEVERAL Presidencies?

Places bugged included most of the embassies. I'd also suggest reading Curt Gentry's book on J Edgar Hoover.

No no...don't thank me, just glad to see the truth revealed in all its glory.

But wait, there's more

http://www.fitug.de/news/newsticker/old/1999/newsticker191099224028.html

http://foi.missouri.edu/foiintelligence/speakingout.html

This debate is not new. Presidents have long claimed sweeping power over foreign affairs, including the power to track foreign agents when they come into our country. In 1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to specifically task the FBI with wiretapping and bugging suspected subversives and spies to protect the national security. With little review by Congress or the courts, the practice of warrant-less "national security" wiretaps expanded exponentially during the Cold War and over succeeding administrations of both parties.

Then, in the early 1970s, the Church Committee exposed intelligence agency abuses, including the FBI's COINTELPRO operations, which sought to disrupt political groups and discredit and harass individuals, including Martin Luther King Jr. After public debate, the CIA was barred from most investigations within the United States, and new controls were instituted to limit FBI meddling in domestic politics.

For those with a calendar, you will notice that in 1970, President George Bush was not in office.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512211147.asp

We cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept. 11," Schmidt continues. "I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again."

In the argument that has emerged over warrantless surveillance, there have been a number of overstatements. Some people, for example, have said that Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing such surveillance; he did not. But there is no doubt that presidents before George W. Bush, including Clinton, held the position that they had the authority to do what they believed was necessary to defend the United States against foreign attack

Ahhhh yes, here it is.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws4.htm

WASHINGTON, DC--The Clinton Administration has sharply increased use of federal telephone wiretaps and other electronic surveillance in the United States since taking office, and official estimates foresee that the growth will continue in coming years.

The expansion has been driven in large part by stepped-up use of electronic eavesdropping against narcotics traffickers. In addition, a substantial rise in spending on federal law enforcement has overridden the chief constraint on use of wiretaps -- their relatively high cost.

While federal electronic surveillance has been expanding for more than a decade, the trend has accelerated under the Clinton administration. Last year marked the first time federal courts approved more wiretaps than all state courts combined.

Those links took me less than a minute to find.I suggest my esteemed colleagues on this board take the time and trouble to research this subject more thoroughly before screaming "fascist Bush"...it's getting boring, and if you care to do a little research,you will find that this is partisan politics,not reality, and that being armed with a few facts is far better than being misinformed.

That's the tip of the iceberg. Trust me.....there's plenty more where that came from, running back close to fifty years.

I will not apologise for supporting President Bush..I will also not ignore the truth when it is there in plain sight.

Back after 9/11 there were screams of outrage that this could have happened and widespread criticism of the intelligence process "How could you let this happen" "why didn't you know ahead of time" "You're the intelligence experts, why didn't you see this coming?"

Now,after 9/11. after three thousand people died, when the President authorises necessary measures to protect his citizens from further terrorist attacks, you scream "Breach of Privacy!!" Fascist"

Have an opinion one way or the other by all means,but in the name of all that's holy, will you for God's sake make up your minds???

9/11 might have been prevented..we may never know. But we must all learn to live with that nightmare now.

Here in Australia, wiretaps and surveillance managed to thwart an assassination attempt (yes that's right, assassination) of our Prime Minister.

Is my phone bugged? Maybe..I'm not worried.If they want to be bored to death listening to me tell my other half what we're having for dinner...I'm not concerned.

The methods may be distasteful to the civil libertarians out there, but that's tough cookies.

I prefer that to the alternative.

It is necessary.

That's the fact: plain and simple.

There is only one way to get information on possible terror attacks and on threats to the public.

Intelligence gathering.Electronic intelligence. Signals Intelligence. Human Intelligence.Satellite intelligence.

And in order to get that vital information you don't let your enemy know how or by what means that data is being gathered or you'll get NOTHING and people will die.

Over to you.

You ROCK, Sumamba.
*bows*


Thank you thank you. Plays a heavy-hitting blowel-rumbling riff on his electric guitar.

Free Western Nations - Forgive me if I am wrong, (as I don't have time to read everything you posted - maybe you could highlight the most relevant stuff) but It looks to me like those links you posted refer to wiretaps that require court orders. I think you are missing the point about why people are upset here. People are upset because Bush is ordering warrantless wiretaps and silencing anyone from from letting this fact be known (or trying to), and not simply because wiretaps are being used.

If previous administrations have ordered warrantlless wiretaps that is no more excusable than the current president doing so and I dont see anyone saying otherwise. Well I see Conservatives tryign to defend Bush sayign otherwise, but I don't see any Dems or Libs saying thsat it is okay for anyone but Republicans to do it. Perhaps you could point that out to us.

Besides your own quote shows this:
In the argument that has emerged over warrantless surveillance, there have been a number of overstatements. Some people, for example, have said that Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing such surveillance; he did not.

Did you completely miss my post above yours where there were several instances showing the Presdent saying one thing while evidence shows him doing another? I don't belong to any party so I am not going to defend any President when they infringe upon civil liberties illegally, and I can't understand how anyone would be okay with that. How can you support someone who blatantly lies through their teeth liek that?

In my opinion, the "Other parties/administrations did it so that makes it okay if we do it too" defense is very childish and not valid at all.

No, you are the one missing the poiint.

Soimetimes I think this forum leans so far left it'll fall flat on its face.

I think you are missing the point about why people are upset here. People are upset because Bush is ordering warrantless wiretaps and silencing anyone from from letting this fact be known (or trying to), and not simply because wiretaps are being used.

And my response is that Presidents have been ordering these for over fifty years to protect people against terrorist aggression.

There's nothing new here

And no, you don't let people know their phones are being tapped and you don't tell people or let them know they are under surveillance.And you make sure they won't be able to find out either.

Covert means covert...secret, classified.

The reasons for not letting your surveillance targets know your intentions are pretty bloody obvious. If there are warrants or court trails those can be compromised....with predictable results.

He's the President. He's the Commander in Chief. And quite frankly, I don't envy him.

No, you are the one missing the poiint.

Soimetimes I think this forum leans so far left it'll fall flat on its face.



And my response is that Presidents have been ordering these for over fifty years to protect people against terrorist aggression.

There's nothing new here

And no, you don't let people know their phones are being tapped and you don't tell people or let them know they are under surveillance.And you make sure they won't be able to find out either.

Covert means covert...secret, classified.

The reasons for not letting your surveillance targets know your intentions are pretty bloody obvious. If there are warrants or court trails those can be compromised....with predictable results.

He's the President. He's the Commander in Chief. And quite frankly, I don't envy him.

Where did I say that they should let the surveillance targets let them know they are being watched? I didn't. Everyone knows they have the ability to listen in and it isnt hard to get a warrant to do it. So whats the problem? How is it okay not to get a warrant?

Like I said above: it's about getting a warrant and the fact that others did it before doesnt make it okay for them and it doesnt excuse the current administration.

EDIT:Wait you think the NSA can't do it's job correctly if it gets a warrant? Okay I'd like to see proof of this rather than just get your opinion on it. Please show where getting a warrant has compromised the NSAs ability to properly conduct a wiretap in secret. YOu do know they can start the wiretap and get the warrant up to three days later retroactively right?

Where did this come from?

*checks source*

Oh yeah....that's right

Bill Clinton in 1995

And for those who like some light reading, I suggest the following references.

J Edgar Hoover

Teddy Kennedy

John F Kennedy

Robert Kennedy

COINTELPRO

Roosevelt

Truman

I guess most of you will ignore this...it being the truth and all....but truly speaking folks? You have no idea just how far back this goes....actually, in terms of both international and domestic surveillance, it goes back as far as Franklin D Roosevelt, who approved wiretaps both domestic and international to deal with Nazi sympathisers.

Um...you do know that the Kennedies (um...what party were they?..oh yeah, Democrats...go figure...) knew and approved of wiretaps and surveillance on Martin Luther King and other "subversives"?

That the US Attorney General was kept appraised of their details?Throughtout SEVERAL Presidencies?

Places bugged included most of the embassies. I'd also suggest reading Curt Gentry's book on J Edgar Hoover.

No no...don't thank me, just glad to see the truth revealed in all its glory.

1. You appear not to recognize the difference between warrantless wiretaps and those approved by a court order.

2. This is little more than an "but they did it too" excuse. That doesn't work on the playground. It definitely doesn't work in constitutional law.

3. That J. Edgar Hoover and past administrations have abused wiretaps is more reason to be opposed to what Bush has done. He's taken it a step farther and you've proven the "we can just trust the government" argument is bullshit. Thank you for proving that illegal wiretaps will be abused.

No, you are the one missing the poiint.

Soimetimes I think this forum leans so far left it'll fall flat on its face.



And my response is that Presidents have been ordering these for over fifty years to protect people against terrorist aggression.

There's nothing new here

And no, you don't let people know their phones are being tapped and you don't tell people or let them know they are under surveillance.And you make sure they won't be able to find out either.

Covert means covert...secret, classified.

The reasons for not letting your surveillance targets know your intentions are pretty bloody obvious. If there are warrants or court trails those can be compromised....with predictable results.

He's the President. He's the Commander in Chief. And quite frankly, I don't envy him.

Again, you make no distinction between illegal wiretaps and legal wiretaps.

FISA allows for highly secret -- but legal -- wiretaps. You have yet to explain why those are inadequate.

Yes, there is something new here. Sweeping use of thousands of illegal wiretaps.

I'm not excusing them - I'm trying to find out why you never noticed a damn thing until the President was Republican.
I did. And I bitched and moaned and wrote letters to various officials and VOTED!! just like I do now. Good enough?

national security is a pretty good excuse.

Let me ask you something, which right is more prominent in the US Constitution?:

1)The right of every American citizen to life (to remain alive in lieu of being killed by an enemy, foreign or domestic)

or

2)The right of a domestic terrorist to talk unheard/untapped to an overseas terrorist?

hmmm, tough one.
One more time :rolleyes: -- the warrants can be gotten retroactively AND the FBI and ATF are allowed to do domestic spying. There was absolutely no need for Bush to do what he did, except to shit on the law. Nobody is saying surveillance isn't necessary (at least I'm not). What we're saying is that the president is not above the law. You have a problem with that little detail?

rofl

1)GW didn't know that Saddam's WMDs were no longer in Iraq. Besides, that war is justified in spite of the fact that we haven't yet found WMDs in Iraq.

2)1. I want the NSA listening to terrorists' phone calls, if it means I'm less likely to be blown up at the mall tomorrow. I swear, if another freaking middle eastern terrorist slams into a building here and we find out he'd been talking to American citizens about the terrorism plans -- and we couldn't listen in because of this 2. freaking lefty "rights" horseshit, I'm going to be really pissed.
1. Here's an interesting point that came out when this story broke but has since gotten lost in the uproar: What they are actually doing is tracking connections of people through phone records in expanding trees. For instance, they'll track a call from a college student in Pennsylvania to Osama bin Ladin; on bin Ladin's phone, they'll find the number of a suspected cell in Jordan; connected to that number they'll find a number for Hamas; connected to all the Hamas numbers they'll find 1000s of numbers, some for terrorists, some for their families, some for their favorite falafel joints; and from those numbers they'll find more numbers -- like maybe the falafel guy's cousin in LA, and before you know, they're tapping Kevin Bacon to see if his Sierra Club donations are going to al-Qaida. What we have here is a giant, open-ended fishing expedition, without clear targets, let alone probable cause.

So let's ask some questions: 1. Who is analyzing all this data? 2. How far along are they? 3. How much are they being paid?

The president argues they have to do this to get maximum speed against the TERRORISTS(tm), but if they are monitoring an average of 500+ phone numbers at any given time (as admitted by the NSA), then how long will it take them to actually pull intelligence from any of them and then take action on that intelligence? (PS: If Bush is that worried about time, btw, since there's a war on, thanks to him, he could have taken 15 days to get the freaking warrants due to wartime emergency powers already granted him under existing law.)

This NSA thing is just another of Bush's money and time wasting boondoggles, and the only things that are important about it are that Bush felt he could break the law to do it and the question of how much resources this is taking away from actual security.

2. You put the words "rights" and "horseshit" in the same phrase. and that sums up our problem right there.

1. Here's an interesting point that came out when this story broke but has since gotten lost in the uproar: What they are actually doing is tracking connections of people through phone records in expanding trees. For instance, they'll track a call from a college student in Pennsylvania to Osama bin Ladin; on bin Ladin's phone, they'll find the number of a suspected cell in Jordan; connected to that number they'll find a number for Hamas; connected to all the Hamas numbers they'll find 1000s of numbers, some for terrorists, some for their families, some for their favorite falafel joints; and from those numbers they'll find more numbers -- like maybe the falafel guy's cousin in LA, and before you know, they're tapping Kevin Bacon to see if his Sierra Club donations are going to al-Qaida. What we have here is a giant, open-ended fishing expedition, without clear targets, let alone probable cause.

So let's ask some questions: 1. Who is analyzing all this data? 2. How far along are they? 3. How much are they being paid?

The president argues they have to do this to get maximum speed against the TERRORISTS(tm), but if they are monitoring an average of 500+ phone numbers at any given time (as admitted by the NSA), then how long will it take them to actually pull intelligence from any of them and then take action on that intelligence? (PS: If Bush is that worried about time, btw, since there's a war on, thanks to him, he could have taken 15 days to get the freaking warrants due to wartime emergency powers already granted him under existing law.)

This NSA thing is just another of Bush's money and time wasting boondoggles, and the only things that are important about it are that Bush felt he could break the law to do it and the question of how much resources this is taking away from actual security.

2. You put the words "rights" and "horseshit" in the same phrase. and that sums up our problem right there.
You *ROCK*.
*bows*

You *ROCK*.
*bows*
Oh, why, thank you, baby. I do my best. :)

Why does everyone have a problem with this. You shouldnt have anything to hide. It is helping our nation by revealing the sleeper cells in AMERICA. WAY TO GO BUSH. WE Americans need to GROW UP!!

From another thread:

Good news my friends down south, the House of Representative slashed the USA PATRIOT Act extension from 6 months to 1 month. :)

http://us.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/22/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Why does everyone have a problem with this. You shouldnt have anything to hide. It is helping our nation by revealing the sleeper cells in AMERICA. WAY TO GO BUSH. WE Americans need to GROW UP!!
Please read a few posts back. You'll see that most people are fine with surveillance, but we want the legal protections that the Constitution guarantees to American citizens. If a paper trail about surveillance exists, then innocent citizens who get caught in a dragnet may have some hope of clearing themselves in court. But if you don't mind not knowing why you can't get a job, or a loan, or get on a plane, or why your taxes get audited every year, well, fine for you.

EDIT: Oh, and, yeah, we'd rather have our presidents uphold the law, not break it.

Why does everyone have a problem with this. You shouldnt have anything to hide. It is helping our nation by revealing the sleeper cells in AMERICA. WAY TO GO BUSH. WE Americans need to GROW UP!!

Gee, why do we have any freedoms when Bush could just run our lives for us?

Grown-ups value their liberty.

So, this whole thing is the impeachable offense we've been waiting for, right?

So, ahem...why am I not hearing Congress, Senate and the "Liberal Media" calling for his head?

My personal feeling is our governments have been spying on us since the end of WWII. (Or at least since the letters of agreement were exchanged in the late 40s).

Longer than that! Alien and Seditious Acts anyone?

Longer than that! Alien and Seditious Acts anyone?
Corny, point out exactly where in the Alien Enemies Act that it supports this bullsh*t?
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/a-text.html

Or ...
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/s-text.html

Neither of them speak AT ALL of evading judiciary oversight or responsibility of warrant in scope of monitoring citizens. Not at ALL.

You're blowing smoke, Corny. Turn off Weiner and Flush for a while and get back to reality.

Corny, point out exactly where in the Alien Enemies Act that it supports this bullsh*t?
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/a-text.html

Or ...
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/s-text.html

Neither of them speak AT ALL of evading judiciary oversight or responsibility of warrant in scope of monitoring citizens. Not at ALL.

You're blowing smoke, Corny. Turn off Weiner and Flush for a while and get back to reality.

Apparently, your forgetting the Seditious Act which was the FOURTH bill to be passed of these acts. Talk about blowing smoke!

Under the Sedition Act, anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical of the president or Congress. (It was notable that the Act did not prohibit criticism of the Vice-President. Jefferson held the office of Vice-President at the time the Act was passed.)

You were saying that I was blowing smoke?

Apparently, your forgetting the Seditious Act which was the FOURTH bill to be passed of these acts. Talk about blowing smoke!



You were saying that I was blowing smoke?
Yes, you're blowing smoke, and *DOPE* smoke for that.
I didn't forget anything. I read the whole f*cking thing. It doesn't support your post in context of the thread.
Apparently you don't understand the words that I'd already READ AND UNDERSTOOD, and then reprinted in what is probably an embarassing admission on your part to your lack of understanding of them.
Or you can admit that you don't follow the integrity of the thread well and are trying to change the subject, not quite so subtly.

Yes, you're blowing smoke, and *DOPE* smoke for that.
I didn't forget anything. I read the whole f*cking thing. It doesn't support your post in context of the thread.

Then I guess you don't realize just what the 4th Law of the Alien and Seditious Acts did. Have a merry Christmas because it does support my argument. You think it doesn't because it blows your whole thesis right out of the water.

Shall I go through the 4th bill line by line with ya because I have actually read the bill.

Apparently you don't understand the words that I'd already READ AND UNDERSTOOD, and then reprinted in what is probably an embarassing admission on your part to your lack of understanding of them.

This is utter BS.

Or you can admit that you don't follow the integrity of the thread well and are trying to change the subject, not quite so subtly.

Now now. No need to get hostile for being wrong. I know I'm right in regards to the Alien and Seditious Acts. They do have to be combined like that.

Yes, you're blowing smoke, and *DOPE* smoke for that.

Let's all blow some dope smoke and be friends, ne?

Then I guess you don't realize just what the 4th Law of the Alien and Seditious Acts did. Have a merry Christmas because it does support my argument. You think it doesn't because it blows your whole thesis right out of the water.

Shall I go through the 4th bill line by line with ya because I have actually read the bill.



This is utter BS.



Now now. No need to get hostile for being wrong. I know I'm right in regards to the Alien and Seditious Acts. They do have to be combined like that.
No, you aren't right. There is no specific ability within either of those acts to do exactly what i posted about. That's why i said what i said, about you trying to change the subject.
Try arguing that anywhere other than with Administration lawyers, and get back to us.
Furthermore, give some instances of those being applied, and how they were argued, and your argument MIGHT have some weight.
You give yourself too much credit about this subject, one you interjected to throw off the threadline.
Seriously you need to lay off Flush. And Weiner likes to use that bullsh*t everytime someone doesn't agree with him, he wants them up on sedition charges and either murdered or extradited and then murdered.

EDIT:
This is what garnered this line of contradiction. This is where you changed the subject:

Originally Posted by Lacadaemon
My personal feeling is our governments have been spying on us since the end of WWII. (Or at least since the letters of agreement were exchanged in the late 40s).


CORNELIU:
Longer than that! Alien and Seditious Acts anyone? (Post 204)

And this is how i clarified, just to point out the difference between the tangent you were trying to take and the actual nature of this thread inparticular:

Neither of them speak AT ALL of evading judiciary oversight or responsibility of warrant in scope of monitoring citizens. Not at ALL.

Now what is lodged in your cerebrum that you can't interpret the difference here?

No need to get hostile for ... utter BS.
Yeah, that about sums it up.

Let's all blow some dope smoke and be friends, ne?
Ah, this is how we usually argue. He usually clings on for a while and then changes the subject ... hey, wait a minute ....
He's not all bad, just wrong more often than he could be.

A really good Xmas present would be Corneliu coming to terms with what i posted above, and if he'd amend his stance just a smidge.
;)

Looks like Corny's letting me down.
Another lump of coal, methinks. :(

Looks like Corny's letting me down.
Another lump of coal, methinks. :(
I believe once, a reaaaaally long time ago, he admitted to a mistake...but of course just a little bit of it...and not directly...in fact, he ignored it; just left the forums for a week or two.

I believe once, a reaaaaally long time ago, he admitted to a mistake...but of course just a little bit of it...and not directly...in fact, he ignored it; just left the forums for a week or two.
Hahaha!
All's well that ends buried, i guess!

I believe once, a reaaaaally long time ago, he admitted to a mistake...but of course just a little bit of it...and not directly...in fact, he ignored it; just left the forums for a week or two.

Finals week.

Finals week.
Well, Happy Holidays to you then!
I'll consider us even then with this response.
;)
Achtung45 = 1
Corneliu = preoccupied

Bottom Line: If the president broke any laws he should be punished.


Clinton got head from a government clerk and was almost kicked out.

Dubya misleads the american people into going into war and now ignores the courts to do some spying?


Thats a lot worse than head.You know, I really admire the loony left. They stick to message better than the right ever will. Hey, clueless, it was not about "head". It was about lying under oath and killing people and bombing people to deflect his adultery.

You know, I really admire the loony left. They stick to message better than the right ever will. Hey, clueless, it was not about "head". It was about lying under oath and killing people and bombing people to deflect his adultery.

And his lie about fellatio was found to be immaterial to the case. Killing people? What trial was Clinton in for killing people? Was he ever even indicted for killing someone, even with a partisan prosecutor? Hmmmm. As for the bombing...it's funny that when a Democrat makes specific bombing strikes against specific targets, it's wagging the dog. When Bush starts an entire war...

And you say "the left" (whoever THEY are,) stick to loony stories. As least the left (at least those represented on these pages,) actually have things like fact and speculation that isn't completely deflated by the facts.

Thanks for playing though.

/Waiting for you to start calling people "unAmerican" or "commies".

And his lie about fellatio was found to be immaterial to the case. Killing people? What trial was Clinton in for killing people? Was he ever even indicted for killing someone, even with a partisan prosecutor? Hmmmm. As for the bombing...it's funny that when a Democrat makes specific bombing strikes against specific targets, it's wagging the dog. When Bush starts an entire war...

And you say "the left" (whoever THEY are,) stick to loony stories. As least the left (at least those represented on these pages,) actually have things like fact and speculation that isn't completely deflated by the facts.

Thanks for playing though.

/Waiting for you to start calling people "unAmerican" or "commies".
Let me anticipate--he's going to accuse Clinton of killing Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and anyone else who had dirt on the Clintons from their days when they were running cocaine out of the airfield in Mena. You know, the Deep Kimchi school of conspiracy theory stuff.

Let me anticipate--he's going to accuse Clinton of killing Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and anyone else who had dirt on the Clintons from their days when they were running cocaine out of the airfield in Mena. You know, the Deep Kimchi school of conspiracy theory stuff.
No, I don't buy the Mena thing. And I don't think that Bill arranged for Vince Foster to die.

But I do believe that Hillary arranged it.

Thanks for playing though.

Aww, how cute with your sad little attempt to dismiss the facts.

No points awarded for factual argument though.

Aww, how cute with your sad little attempt to dismiss the facts.

No points awarded for factual argument though.

Your attempt at deflection via "they did it too" arguments is a bit more pathetic actually.

No, I don't buy the Mena thing. And I don't think that Bill arranged for Vince Foster to die.

But I do believe that Hillary arranged it.
And that's why half the people around here think you're a loon.

No, I don't buy the Mena thing. And I don't think that Bill arranged for Vince Foster to die.

But I do believe that Hillary arranged it.
Hahaha
*FLORT*
Time to burn your bras, babes!!!

Aww, how cute with your sad little attempt to dismiss the facts.

No points awarded for factual argument though.
Lectures of veracity from the Weekly World News story rejects heralder.
Well, no one can accuse this place of being most definitely un-democratic :rolleyes: