NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, they've always run amok with their wielding of executive privilege. One might even say it's a fairly constant trend. I find it amusing that so many people seem to think that this all started with Bush - when it's been going on for so long. While this doesn't excuse the current behavior, it is quite, quite telling that the same people who complain now, said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it was done before.

Complete silence, in fact - no outrage, nothing.

1. President Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

2. WASHINGTON POST, July 15, 1994: "Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

3. Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

4. Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

5. Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not that fond of Bush, but he is just doing what he thinks is right, and it's hard to blame someone for doing that. As to the spying, as they are using it to hunt terrorists, who gives a @)$!?

I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not that fond of Bush, but he is just doing what he thinks is right, and it's hard to blame someone for doing that. As to the spying, as they are using it to hunt terrorists, who gives a @)$!?who says they're only hunting terrists?

who says they're only hunting terrists?
Why didn't you complain when previous US Presidents were doing the same thing?

but he is just doing what he thinks is right, and it's hard to blame someone for doing that.
Do I really have to play Captain Obvious to what's wrong with this statement?
Or can you guess, based on historical knowledge, why the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Why didn't you complain when previous US Presidents were doing the same thing?
Who says I'm complaining? Bush isn't my president and if he's spying on me it's my governments fault for not stopping him...

I'm just tired of seeing people write "oh he's only hunting terrorists so it's okay" as if the power can not be abused

Why didn't you complain when previous US Presidents were doing the same thing?
Erm... Libertarian Party member and activist here. We did then, and we are now.

*crickets*

Why didn't you complain when previous US Presidents were doing the same thing?

I did. Sorry you missed it.

5. Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

So, you know I didn't protest. Well, I've got an excuse for this one! You see, in the summer of 1979 I was sick. Had a note from my mother, even. Says I can't protest the governments abuse of power nor do any outside sporting activities until I feel better. :rolleyes:

Now I'm well again, and complain when I see an administration without accountability that doesn't feel obligated by the law. ;)

It took all of my efforts to get laid at the time - there was no time for gov't watching

Well, they've always run amok with their wielding of executive privilege. One might even say it's a fairly constant trend. I find it amusing that so many people seem to think that this all started with Bush - when it's been going on for so long. While this doesn't excuse the current behavior, it is quite, quite telling that the same people who complain now, said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it was done before.

Complete silence, in fact - no outrage, nothing.

1. President Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

2. WASHINGTON POST, July 15, 1994: "Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

3. Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

4. Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

5. Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
And these are all governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Bush breaks all rules involved with warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance.

Why didn't you complain when previous US Presidents were doing the same thing?
Because you are as full of crap as the people you are accusing other people of being.

Erm... Libertarian Party member and activist here. We did then, and we are now.
As a libertarian-leaning person, I believe this.

But I don't for one millisecond believe that any Democrats were upset that previous Democratic Presidents were doing things without warrants. They even seem to be fine with intelligence fishing expeditions as long as the President is Democrat - even if no court is consulted and no warrants are obtained.

As a libertarian-leaning person, I believe this.

But I don't for one millisecond believe that any Democrats were upset that previous Democratic Presidents were doing things without warrants. They even seem to be fine with intelligence fishing expeditions as long as the President is Democrat - even if no court is consulted and no warrants are obtained.
Well, this is the Bush adminsitration, and has been for a few years now. So until you invent a time machine, you can believe rabbits turned fucking people in summer of 1642 if you want, but you can't go around being an asshat about it.

Well, this is the Bush adminsitration, and has been for a few years now. So until you invent a time machine, you can believe rabbits turned fucking people in summer of 1642 if you want, but you can't go around being an asshat about it.
If you thought it was OK for Clinton and other Presidents to do it, why are you upset now? That's hypocrisy, as plain as can be.

Tell you what - if you think that warrantless searches on executive order are illegal, and punishable, then when you throw Carter and Clinton in prison for 20 years, you can put Bush in there with them.

Sort of a maximum security Presidential wing.

Until then, I think we all know why Nancy Pelosi couldn't stop this when she found out waaay before we did- because she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on - or, because she knows that Democratic Presidents have done the same thing and she wants them to retain that power.

If you thought it was OK for Clinton and other Presidents to do it, why are you upset now? That's hypocrisy, as plain as can be.
Red fucking herring.

This is not about Clinton, Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr or any other president you or I can name. This is about Bush. This is not about the Democrats, my partisan annoyance. It is not about the Republicans either. It is about Bush. So why do you take your partisan ass to a pro-Republican board and sit around with the pro-Bush Republicans whining and complaining to each other about how the Democrats are evil and they did this or that first and therefore make whatever Bush does right and ok. I could quote law and and shit for you, but I don't think you would care. Now go away.

Red fucking herring.

This is not about Clinton, Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr or any other president you or I can name. This is about Bush. This is not about the Democrats, my partisan annoyance. It is not about the Republicans either. It is about Bush. So why do you take your partisan ass to a pro-Republican board and sit around with the pro-Bush Republicans whining and complaining to each other about how the Democrats are evil and they did this or that first and therefore make whatever Bush does right and ok. I could quote law and and shit for you, but I don't think you would care. Now go away.

good point, i never looked at it that way.

As a libertarian-leaning person, I believe this.

But I don't for one millisecond believe that any Democrats were upset that previous Democratic Presidents were doing things without warrants. They even seem to be fine with intelligence fishing expeditions as long as the President is Democrat - even if no court is consulted and no warrants are obtained.

I don't think it matters which president does it, or moreso what party yhat president is with. The deeper concern is whether it is done or not.

There is no system of checks an balances when these things are done.

There is also an interesting point here (and I'm sure I'll be a attacked as being a Democrat supporter or something for saying this (which I'm not)). Those Democratic presidents were saying that the attorney general had the right to authorize these things without a warrant. The stipulation is that there is a clear and present danger where surveillance must take place immeditately. After this time, a warrant needed to be requested within three days. This indicates a system of checks and balances.

Bush has said that these bugs can go in without even a referral from the attorney general, or an attempt to get a warrant afterwards. No checks, no balance.

The Attorney General is hardly a check or balance - he or she works for the President. The President could tell the Attorney General to bend over and take one for the Gipper...

And these are all governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Bush breaks all rules involved with warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance.


Because you are as full of crap as the people you are accusing other people of being.



thats why no one said anything... Clinton could do what ever he wanted and come out smelling like a rose... basicly he was a poll watcher not a leader.. but charasmatic to say the least he could have declared himself Emperor and people would have praised him... its sad really people are such sheep bealive what ever your politicle party tells you it must be true.......


didnt Washington warn America about parties

Red fucking herring.

This is not about Clinton, Nixon, Carter, Bush Sr or any other president you or I can name. This is about Bush. This is not about the Democrats, my partisan annoyance. It is not about the Republicans either. It is about Bush. So why do you take your partisan ass to a pro-Republican board and sit around with the pro-Bush Republicans whining and complaining to each other about how the Democrats are evil and they did this or that first and therefore make whatever Bush does right and ok. I could quote law and and shit for you, but I don't think you would care. Now go away.



Okay you win the sheep award follow your party blindly and wear this medal with pride as both parties suck your freedom away hush hush little sheep its okay it will all be over soon Big brother will take care of you.

The Attorney General is hardly a check or balance - he or she works for the President. The President could tell the Attorney General to bend over and take one for the Gipper...

Funny this is the first time Reagan is mentioned...:)

Anyway, it is still an authority and (prior to Bush) a warrant still needed to be requested within 3 days. If said warrant was not obtained, or the surveillance was deemed unethical or unlawful, it was tossed and could not be used in a court of law.

Funny this is the first time Reagan is mentioned...:)

Anyway, it is still an authority and (prior to Bush) a warrant still needed to be requested within 3 days. If said warrant was not obtained, or the surveillance was deemed unethical or unlawful, it was tossed and could not be used in a court of law.
Most of the time, this sort of evidence isn't used in a court of law.

A lot of this sort of stuff is used to trace outwards to people overseas, who are either captured and taken to secret prisons, or assassinated outright.

BTW, assassination was authorized in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 by Congress, so don't cry about extrajudicial assassinations. It looks like the Democrats went along and authorized "star chamber" justice.

Okay you win the sheep award follow your party blindly and wear this medal with pride as both parties suck your freedom away hush hush little sheep its okay it will all be over soon Big brother will take care of you.

Funny how the conserva-nazi's always respond with this spite. Wasn't the major point of Big Brother that he was always watching...as if bugging you without your knowledge?

What kind of crazy bullshit is this?

Start on a presumption-"I totally know you didn't care."

Add in this-
But I don't for one millisecond believe that any Democrats were upset that previous Democratic Presidents were doing things without warrants
so it must be true.

No use denying it, it's true because he says it's true. Now, defend this thing that was just created on you.

It's a trap, get an axe.

What the arguement really is, "Why can't I be as complacent like I assume you where?"

Think this one through (aside from the fallacious grounds). The premise is that we should have been outraged but weren't for partisan reasons. If we should have been then, we should now-which is the only time we can do anything about.

The other option is that we shouldn't have been because we're democrats (I'm not, but I'll play along for the fun of it) so you shouldn't be upset because now it's a republican. It is, as I had stated, saying "You played politics, now it's my turn!!!!"

No matter what angle you look at this, it's faulty.

Most of the time, this sort of evidence isn't used in a court of law.

A lot of this sort of stuff is used to trace outwards to people overseas, who are either captured and taken to secret prisons, or assassinated outright.

BTW, assassination was authorized in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 by Congress, so don't cry about extrajudicial assassinations. It looks like the Democrats went along and authorized "star chamber" justice.

Oh...I agree with assassination as far as that is concerned. And actually I can think of a few people whose lives should have been ended in such a way. Milosovich, Hussein, Jong-Il, just to name a few.

As far as this surveillance being traced overseas, I havereason to believe this is untrue, as the main concern in gaining the information is not to trace things outside the US, but, supposedly, to protect from attacks within the US.

Which, BTW, has not been proven to be effiecient.

why is it that now if you are patriotic you have to be against the president now?...in my opinion all of this "protesting" and "patriotism" just sounds like whining to me....my political stance? Independant...:headbang:

Funny how the conserva-nazi's always respond with this spite. Wasn't the major point of Big Brother that he was always watching...as if bugging you without your knowledge?


okay look my parents lived through the nazi period in Austria Bush though we dont like him is NOT A NAZI nor is the Republicans You democrats have no idea what its like living in a nazi regime so dont even start with that i have pictures and stories that would make your cringe in fear. YOU HAVE NO IDEA! God its so funny democrats say Nazi so much they think they know what it means... GOD SO STUPID.. when you lose yoru grandparents to a nazi in a torture chamber than you can tell me about Nazis

PS i am not a conservitive.. I dont like ether party thank you..

Tell you what - if you think that warrantless searches on executive order are illegal, and punishable, then when you throw Carter and Clinton in prison for 20 years, you can put Bush in there with them.



You , of course, COMPLETELY fail to note that Both Carter and Clinton's executive orders imposed their orders to be Pursuant to section 302or 102 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Which is to say, EXCLUSIVE of American Citizens.

So their orders were not in violation of your Constitution.

Bush's order, on the other hand, makes no such exclusion.



Nice try.

As a libertarian-leaning person, I believe this.

But I don't for one millisecond believe that any Democrats were upset that previous Democratic Presidents were doing things without warrants. They even seem to be fine with intelligence fishing expeditions as long as the President is Democrat - even if no court is consulted and no warrants are obtained.
I don't believe the Democrats were all that concerned, either. On that issue we can both agree. I'm pretty sure the stakes have risen considerably, and God forbid the blues try any of this shit while they're on the clock. I hope the reds will join in the bashing should they try. I'm positive they will.

why is it that now if you are patriotic you have to be against the president now?...in my opinion all of this "protesting" and "patriotism" just sounds like whining to me....my political stance? Independant...:headbang:

See now, I've been told by my more conservative relations that protesting and "whining" is unpatriotic. Anything that doesn't support exactly what the government is doing is "unpatriotic".

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what your political stance is (or any other stance for that matter) so long as you don't merely follow blindly.

I will freely admit that when Clinton said what Deep Kimchi says he said, I was a free wheeling teenager just starting college (and finishing high school). When Carter said what D.K. says he said, I was 3 years old...so I must have missed that speech in my attempts to quench my thirst for hockey (and grape juice).

As an adult now, when Bush is saying these things, I am in a position to recognize and attempt to say something about it. That is my explaination for why I never said anything before now.

why is it that now if you are patriotic you have to be against the president now?...in my opinion all of this "protesting" and "patriotism" just sounds like whining to me....

It is also futile, but it makes for great entertainment.

thats why no one said anything...


Yes, Americans did not complain about their civil liberties being violated by laws which specifically excluded them.

Go figure....


Clinton could do what ever he wanted and come out smelling like a rose... basicly he was a poll watcher not a leader.. but charasmatic to say the least he could have declared himself Emperor and people would have praised him... its sad really people are such sheep bealive what ever your politicle party tells you it must be true.......


Blah, blah, besides the point, blah.

The orders ARE completely different as they relate to protection of civil liberties of Americans. The fact that Americans EXPECT their president to defend those liberties explains why their is BIPARTISAN objection to this issue in the face of GW's action, which kinda flushes your partisan crap down the shitter quite nicely.

Until then, I think we all know why Nancy Pelosi couldn't stop this when she found out waaay before we did- because she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on - or, because she knows that Democratic Presidents have done the same thing and she wants them to retain that power.

Or, as the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html) describes it:
Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or from seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed," Rockefeller said. "The White House never addressed my concerns."

okay look my parents lived through the nazi period in Austria Bush though we dont like him is NOT A NAZI nor is the Republicans You democrats have no idea what its like living in a nazi regime so dont even start with that i have pictures and stories that would make your cringe in fear. YOU HAVE NO IDEA! God its so funny democrats say Nazi so much they think they know what it means... GOD SO STUPID.. when you lose yoru grandparents to a nazi in a torture chamber than you can tell me about Nazis

PS i am not a conservitive.. I dont like ether party thank you..

However...you speak as if a Democrats (which I will say for the 3rd time to you I AM NOT) as if they are less than human...a phrase Nazi's used for Jews...it is a metaphor meant to provide a point, not an accusation and I'm sorry to offend...

And I did lose a great grand father to the Nazis in WWII. He fought for the Americans because they feared the Nazis wanted to take over the world...what is Bush fighting for?

If you want to point fingers and call names, be willing to take it as much as you dish it out. I'm sorry for the loss of your grandparents (and everyone who lost someone to the Nazi regime), but don't wear it as a badge of honor that gives you the right to shit on peoples opinions in a rude way and act superior.

Most of the time, this sort of evidence isn't used in a court of law.

A lot of this sort of stuff is used to trace outwards to people overseas, who are either captured and taken to secret prisons, or assassinated outright.

BTW, assassination was authorized in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 by Congress, so don't cry about extrajudicial assassinations. It looks like the Democrats went along and authorized "star chamber" justice.

The big word here is "so". Are you really so naive to think there is no action of any kind taken against the Americans who were the ones contacting suspected terrorists over seas? I doubt it, I've read other posts you've made. Also, just because the dipshits in congress authorize something when they are in a panic (they would have swallowed anything you gave them after 9/11 that was "good" for national security and we all know that) doesn't make it a good or justified law.

As far as what other presidents have done that means absolutely nothing. There is no logic worse than trying to say "well he did it so I can". Last time I heard an argument like that used in seriousness it was from my 4 year old cousin. Adults find out what is really going on and then judge the situation at hand. Just because people chose not to raise the alarm before (and from what I've heard the examples people have mentioned with Clinton are not the same thing in even the slightest respect) does not mean it should not be raised now.

If president Bush has been illegally spying on United States citizens he should be held accountable....PERIOD. The only argument that can be made is that his actions were not illegal or that the laws are flawed and they should be ammended. There is no other side. Past actions of past administrations are just that, in the past. Look past your petty little democrat vs republican bullshit and judge what is going on right now. I for one am warily waiting for more information to see what exactly Bush did and if it was actually illegal. Once that information is brought out more clearly I will decide how much of a penalty, if any, he deserves.

What kind of crazy bullshit is this?

Start on a presumption-"I totally know you didn't care."

Add in this-

so it must be true.

No use denying it, it's true because he says it's true. Now, defend this thing that was just created on you.

It's a trap, get an axe.

What the arguement really is, "Why can't I be as complacent like I assume you where?"

Think this one through (aside from the fallacious grounds). The premise is that we should have been outraged but weren't for partisan reasons. If we should have been then, we should now-which is the only time we can do anything about.

The other option is that we shouldn't have been because we're democrats (I'm not, but I'll play along for the fun of it) so you shouldn't be upset because now it's a republican. It is, as I had stated, saying "You played politics, now it's my turn!!!!"

No matter what angle you look at this, it's faulty.
Agh, you beat me to it. But I'm going to say the same thing in different words just because it needs emphasizing.

Warrantless spying on Americans within America is against the law. The law makes it so frigging easy to get a warrant to do this -- even after the fact -- that not getting such a warrant can only be seen as a brazen and intentional violation of the law. Any president who does this deserves to be impeached.

Therefore, if we should have been outraged when other presidents did it, then we also should be outraged when the current president does it. And lo and behold, we are. :D

The argument that those who complain about Bush did not complain about Democrats is nothing but an assumption based bias. There is no proof that we didn't complain about Democrats.

Also, the "they started it" argument and the "all the other kids do it" argument are both so fucking childish I'm sick of hearing them. Who's running this country, a bunch of third-graders? Grow the hell up. Bush got caught breaking the law; he should take the punishment that goes with it.

However...you speak as if a Democrats (which I will say for the 3rd time to you I AM NOT) as if they are less than human...a phrase Nazi's used for Jews...it is a metaphor meant to provide a point, not an accusation and I'm sorry to offend...

And I did lose a great grand father to the Nazis in WWII. He fought for the Americans because they feared the Nazis wanted to take over the world...what is Bush fighting for?

If you want to point fingers and call names, be willing to take it as much as you dish it out. I'm sorry for the loss of your grandparents (and everyone who lost someone to the Nazi regime), but don't wear it as a badge of honor that gives you the right to shit on peoples opinions in a rude way and act superior.


Both parties are less than human, both parties are rotten to the core, i just get frusterated because people sell there soulsl to a hope that there party is better than the other. People need to understand that both parties are in bed with each other milking off the US people..

and i dont wear death as a badge of honor i only brought it up as you inapropriatly called conservitivs Nazis when in truth nothing alive right now can compare to that horror...

And sometimes you must be rude to be herd.. in my opinion the left and the right are crushing the majority middle.. which is not represented in NS because to many people are sheep who follow there parties blindly Bush kerry clinton and his wife dean dick chany all of them need to go. if the Us is ever to be free... what the people dont understand is that they are in a Dual dictatorship you dont have a choice both parties want you to ether be democrat or republican... its kinda like orwell you need EastAsia and Eurasia so Oceania can have enemies to keep the people afraid Democrats need republicans and vice versa they like to say DEmocrats are evil vote republican or Republicans are going to run the us into the ground vote democrat.. fear

Okay you win the sheep award follow your party blindly and wear this medal with pride as both parties suck your freedom away hush hush little sheep its okay it will all be over soon Big brother will take care of you.
And which over the counter drug are you on?

And which over the counter drug are you on?


niqual its the only over the counter medication that comes in christmas colors red and green and it taste like red and green...

lewis black funny man to bad i got the quote wrong

Both parties are less than human, both parties are rotten to the core, i just get frusterated because people sell there soulsl to a hope that there party is better than the other. People need to understand that both parties are in bed with each other milking off the US people..

I am in 100% agreement with you there. But then, those people that believe this two party system works are the same people that believe this is a democracy instead of a Capitalist Oligarchy.

and i dont wear death as a badge of honor i only brought it up as you inapropriatly called conservitivs Nazis when in truth nothing alive right now can compare to that horror...

I apologize again and will try to refrain from calling people Nazis (can I use, in fairness "Nazi-like" or "Nazi-esque" in that examining political tactics (not genocidal tactics) some things are similar?)

And sometimes you must be rude to be herd.. in my opinion the left and the right are crushing the majority middle.. which is not represented in NS because to many people are sheep who follow there parties blindly Bush kerry clinton and his wife dean dick chany all of them need to go. if the Us is ever to be free... what the people dont understand is that they are in a Dual dictatorship you dont have a choice both parties want you to ether be democrat or republican... its kinda like orwell you need EastAsia and Eurasia so Oceania can have enemies to keep the people afraid Democrats need republicans and vice versa they like to say DEmocrats are evil vote republican or Republicans are going to run the us into the ground vote democrat.. fear

Fear is unfortunately what wins elections. I wish it were as simple as having the "None of the Above" option. Unfortunately, only rich people can run for government in the US and therefore only they will win.

Channeling Drudge now, Deep Kimchi? Why must you lie so blatantly about Carter and Clinton, especially when it can be debunked so easily (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/)?

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved. There are links at the site that back up their statements here.

So are you a shill or a liar, DK? Which is it?

thats why no one said anything... Clinton could do what ever he wanted and come out smelling like a rose... basicly he was a poll watcher not a leader.. but charasmatic to say the least he could have declared himself Emperor and people would have praised him... its sad really people are such sheep bealive what ever your politicle party tells you it must be true.......
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as the chimp is currently the US president, isn't complaining about his abuses of power and attempts to circumvent the constitution a bit more relevant than Clinton's or Carter's?
This is why the assumption that everybody approves of these because they haven't been complaining about them here is a little odd. The term "straw man" springs to mind, for some reason.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]snip... QUOTE]


Nice job on the research DK. I find it ironic to that it's a big deal now that "Bush" is doing it. Hatred blinds people. That's all I can say to why they overlook past facts and statements even from there own party.

And in conclusion...

This has been another "Democrats Did It Too" Apology and Excuse by Comrade Kimchi, Hero of the Bushevik Revolution.

Channeling Drudge now, Deep Kimchi? Why must you lie so blatantly about Carter and Clinton, especially when it can be debunked so easily (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/)?

There are links at the site that back up their statements here.

So are you a shill or a liar, DK? Which is it?


He doesn't need a link in my opinion to prove he is right. It is solid fact. I would challenge you to find information disproving the claim. Good luck with that because this time he has got his info correct. Regardless of where it came from. Time for you naysayers to face facts instead of trying to dodge them.

The link: nice try from some liberal spin doctors.

Nice job on the research DK. I find it ironic to that it's a big deal now that "Bush" is doing it. Hatred blinds people. That's all I can say to why they overlook past facts and statements even from there own party.
Aw Marrakech, I'm hurt that you didn't stick around long enough to see me destroy DK's so-called evidence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10136386&postcount=43).

Edit: I see you did stick around, Marrakech. You also failed to notice that the evidence I posted absolutely rebutted DK's argument. That Clinton and Carter did not do what DK said they did, and that they didn't do what Bush has done.

Aw Marrakech, I'm hurt that you didn't stick around long enough to see me destroy DK's so-called evidence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10136386&postcount=43).


Go ahead and try I have researched this too. Was going to post on this very same subject. You of all people are known for the spin doctor effect. So try your best.:p

He doesn't need a link in my opinion to prove he is right. It is solid fact. I would challenge you to find information disproving the claim. Good luck with that because this time he has got his info correct. Regardless of where it came from. Time for you naysayers to face facts instead of trying to dodge them.

The link: nice try from some liberal spin doctors.

Are you in the habit of being a selective reader, or is it like something you have that you forgot to take your meds for?

So are you a shill or a liar, DK? Which is it?

shill first - the liars at this point are those he takes talking points from. however, shills quickly move on to liars once the lie has been demonstrated. they just can't help themselves.

The link: nice try from some liberal spin doctors.
Yeah, those damn spin doctors, trying to cite the full clauses of the law in order to undermine those heralds of partiotism fighting against the evil Clinton and Carter.

Yeah, those damn spin doctors, trying to cite the full clauses of the law in order to undermine those heralds of partiotism fighting against the evil Clinton and Carter.

how dare they quote the actual words of the laws in question! such imprudence must be punished!

how dare they quote the actual words of the laws in question! such imprudence must be punished!
One should never underestimate the "lalalaIcan'thearyou!!!" defense...

One should never underestimate the "lalalaIcan'thearyou!!!" defense...
No kidding. Or the ability of shills to rip things out of context or selectively quote. Here's another one I just came across, also from Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth).
A column in this morning’s Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt argues that Bush’s secret domestic surveillance program was legal. (Byron York posted a portion of the piece on the National Review website under the title “READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE“) It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:

“All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence…We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”

Actually, the quote doesn’t begin with the word “all”; it begins “The Truong court, as did all the other courts…” The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, “Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute.

This is critically important because FISA specifically prohibits the warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in his recent confirmation hearings, referrencing the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet, “where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president’s authority is at its lowest ebb.”

The article also conveniently omits the two sentences after the excerpt:

It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…

All the court is saying here is that whether FISA imposes limits on the President’s authority is not an issue in this case. It was an issue in the Troung case but, as the court explains, “[T]he question before us is the reverse.”
When it comes to hackery, the right-wing has no peer, that's for damn sure.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]snip... QUOTE]


Nice job on the research DK. I find it ironic to that it's a big deal now that "Bush" is doing it. Hatred blinds people. That's all I can say to why they overlook past facts and statements even from there own party.
One more time -- it IS a big deal when non-George Bush presidents break the law. It's a big deal when anybody breaks the law, especially the top official in charge of upholding the law. But Bush is president today and he's the one who got caught doing it right now, and, gosh golly gee, I guess real Americans who love liberty and respect the law aren't willing to let him go just because we might have missed catching someone else before him.

We don't like this shit when anybody does it, and we're not going to let Bush off the hook just because he's not the only one.

BTW, as an aside to the Bush apologists out there, this point has been made several times by several people here and in other threads. Ignoring it and just repeating over and over that we're hypocrites only shows up the fact that you have no valid answer to it. If you can't prove to me that Bush is right under the law to do this, then let it go. Accusations and name calling are just signs of defeat.

One should never underestimate the "lalalaIcan'thearyou!!!" defense...

indeed. i'm actually surprised how effective it is. cause i know i'd get annoyed with always being lied to and then just being wrong about everything.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
Once more time -- it IS a big deal when non-George Bush presidents break the law. It's a big deal when anybody breaks the law, especially the top official in charge of upholding the law. But Bush is president today and he's the one who got caught doing it right now, and, gosh golly gee, I guess real Americans who love liberty and respect the law aren't willing to let him go just because we might have missed catching someone else before him.

We don't like this shit when anybody does it, and we're not going to let Bush off the hook just because he's not the only one.

BTW, as an aside to the Bush apologists out there, this point has been made several times by several people here and in other threads. Ignoring it and just repeating over and over that we're hypocrites only shows up the fact that you have no valid answer to it. If you can't prove to me that Bush is right under the law to do this, then let it go. Accusations and name calling are just signs of defeat.
It would be an even bigger deal if Clinton and Carter had done what DK accused them of.

[QUOTE=Marrakech II]
Once more time -- it IS a big deal when non-George Bush presidents break the law. It's a big deal when anybody breaks the law, especially the top official in charge of upholding the law. But Bush is president today and he's the one who got caught doing it right now, and, gosh golly gee, I guess real Americans who love liberty and respect the law aren't willing to let him go just because we might have missed catching someone else before him.

We don't like this shit when anybody does it, and we're not going to let Bush off the hook just because he's not the only one.

BTW, as an aside to the Bush apologists out there, this point has been made several times by several people here and in other threads. Ignoring it and just repeating over and over that we're hypocrites only shows up the fact that you have no valid answer to it. If you can't prove to me that Bush is right under the law to do this, then let it go. Accusations and name calling are just signs of defeat.
Nice try, but I doubt you'll get much of a response: the neocons ignored me when i pointed that out earlier.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]
It would be an even bigger deal if Clinton and Carter had done what DK accused them of.
Yeah, I know. I just like to accept all their statements and still show how easily their arguments can be torn apart because they are so false they can't even maintain their own internal logic. In other words, I like beating them with their own stick. :D

[QUOTE=Muravyets]
Nice try, but I doubt you'll get much of a response: the neocons ignored me when i pointed that out earlier.
I like beating them with that stick, too.

I believe that, in a debate, any argument, statement, or interpretation of fact should be able to give a sound response to any relevant challenge. If it can't, then that's a flaw in the argument, and you have to rethink the argument to fix it. If you can't, then the flaw is fatal, and the argument is wrong. Our point is valid. They ignore it because they can't answer it, no matter how they tweak their argument, because their argument is wrong, no matter how in love with it they may be.

So, obviously, every time they bring it up, they should be confronted with this same point, just to show they've made no progress.

[QUOTE=Cahnt]
I like beating them with that stick, too.

I believe that, in a debate, any argument, statement, or interpretation of fact should be able to give a sound response to any relevant challenge. If it can't, then that's a flaw in the argument, and you have to rethink the argument to fix it. If you can't, then the flaw is fatal, and the argument is wrong. Our point is valid. They ignore it because they can't answer it, no matter how they tweak their argument, because their argument is wrong, no matter how in love with it they may be.

So, obviously, every time they bring it up, they should be confronted with this same point, just to show they've made no progress.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Maybe this will interest you. All Bush has to say is that he was responding to the threat after 9-11 - responding to threats from abroad - and even the Supreme Court covers his actions - just like it covered Clinton's actions.

Maybe you should read up before you say it's illegal.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Maybe this will interest you. All Bush has to say is that he was responding to the threat after 9-11 - responding to threats from abroad - and even the Supreme Court covers his actions - just like it covered Clinton's actions.

Maybe you should read up before you say it's illegal.


And maybe YOU should go through that article again to note how often the term FOREIGN comes up.

As opposed to DOMESTIC.


Yes, oddly enough the courts consistantly hold that Consitutional rights are there for Americans and those within american borders. And oddly enough this extends to laws relating to intelligence gathering too.

How difficult is it for you to understand the difference between foreign intelligence gathering and the domestic version? Hell, I seem to recall you arguing the point once about why Gitmo detainees had a different set of rights to due process. Something about the fact that.... THEY AREN'T AMERICANS!

The issue, since you so obviously missed it, is NOT warrantless surveillance per se. It's warrantless surveillance on citizens who have an expectation of certain rights under law.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Maybe this will interest you. All Bush has to say is that he was responding to the threat after 9-11 - responding to threats from abroad - and even the Supreme Court covers his actions - just like it covered Clinton's actions.

Maybe you should read up before you say it's illegal.
You know, it's not often that i pre-bust you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10136827&postcount=55) Maybe you ought to read up before you say something is legal.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]


And maybe YOU should go through that article again to note how often the term FOREIGN comes up.

As opposed to DOMESTIC.


Yes, oddly enough the courts consistantly hold that Consitutional rights are there for Americans and those within american borders. And oddly enough this extends to laws relating to intelligence gathering too.

How difficult is it for you to understand the difference between foreign intelligence gathering and the domestic version? Hell, I seem to recall you arguing the point once about why Gitmo detainees had a different set of rights to due process. Something about the fact that.... THEY AREN'T AMERICANS!

The issue, since you so obviously missed it, is NOT warrantless surveillance per se. It's warrantless surveillance on citizens who have an expectation of certain rights under law.


He's responding to a foreign threat. Nuff said.

And I'll remind you that Clinton used the same argument to do warrantless surveillance on Aldrich Ames - an American citizen. Seems they didn't have time to talk to the court - couldn't be bothered.

When a US citizen is coordinating with a foreign enemy, that's automatically a foreign threat - what part of that do you not understand?

What part of "we found a truck driver plotting to blow stuff up" do you not understand?

When I first read this thread title I got a picture in my mind of those "Girls Gone Wild" videos, but with presidents instead of bimbos. Very creepy and yet hilarious. We could take all the crappy decisions presidents have made and turn them into a video with cheesy tropical sounding music and garishly colored title sequences. That would be awesome! :D

And maybe YOU should go through that article again to note how often the term FOREIGN comes up.

As opposed to DOMESTIC.


Yes, oddly enough the courts consistantly hold that Consitutional rights are there for Americans and those within american borders. And oddly enough this extends to laws relating to intelligence gathering too.

How difficult is it for you to understand the difference between foreign intelligence gathering and the domestic version? Hell, I seem to recall you arguing the point once about why Gitmo detainees had a different set of rights to due process. Something about the fact that.... THEY AREN'T AMERICANS!

The issue, since you so obviously missed it, is NOT warrantless surveillance per se. It's warrantless surveillance on citizens who have an expectation of certain rights under law.
Thank you. :)

When I first read this thread title I got a picture in my mind of those "Girls Gone Wild" videos, but with presidents instead of bimbos. Very creepy and yet hilarious. We could take all the crappy decisions presidents have made and turn them into a video with cheesy tropical sounding music and garishly colored title sequences. That would be awesome! :D
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! King Post of the thread. Problem solved. Let's do it!!

[QUOTE=Silliopolous]


He's responding to a foreign threat. Nuff said.

And I'll remind you that Clinton used the same argument to do warrantless surveillance on Aldrich Ames - an American citizen. Seems they didn't have time to talk to the court - couldn't be bothered.

When a US citizen is coordinating with a foreign enemy, that's automatically a foreign threat - what part of that do you not understand?

What part of "we found a truck driver plotting to blow stuff up" do you not understand?

And I'll remind you that the changes to FISA powers came about directly because of the Ames case, and that these are the rules currently in place.

Your total misinterpretation of the laws notwithstanding, the notion that American citizens loose their constitutional rights under mere suspicion of possible involvement is TOTALLY add odds with every single Supreme Court ruling on due process that I can think of.

Indeed, if you might recall, the President stated firmly when the Patriot Act was passed that the ONLY reason that such treatment of citizens could be construed to be legal was BECAUSE of the requirement for warrants.

[QUOTE=Silliopolous]


He's responding to a foreign threat. Nuff said.

And I'll remind you that Clinton used the same argument to do warrantless surveillance on Aldrich Ames - an American citizen. Seems they didn't have time to talk to the court - couldn't be bothered.

When a US citizen is coordinating with a foreign enemy, that's automatically a foreign threat - what part of that do you not understand?

What part of "we found a truck driver plotting to blow stuff up" do you not understand?
And what part of THE LAW don't you understand? What part of you can get the warrant 72 hours retroactively don't you understand? The retroactive part? That means they can spy within the US on Americans, and all they have to do is take the results to the FISA court later and say, "This is okay, right?" What part of that don't you understand?

Is it the part about showing respect to the laws of the United States?

Is it the part about making sure there's a difference between us and our enemies?

Or is it just the basic idea of a democracy in which the people rule and use the law to do it?

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]

And I'll remind you that the changes to FISA powers came about directly because of the Ames case, and that these are the rules currently in place.

Your total misinterpretation of the laws notwithstanding, the notion that American citizens loose their constitutional rights under mere suspicion of possible involvement is TOTALLY add odds with every single Supreme Court ruling on due process that I can think of.

Indeed, if you might recall, the President stated firmly when the Patriot Act was passed that the ONLY reason that such treatment of citizens could be construed to be legal was BECAUSE of the requirement for warrants.
The president also firmly stated in regards the Patriot Act that his administration would never -- oh, never! -- wiretap or spy on Americans without getting a court order for it. Hmph.

[QUOTE=Silliopolous]


He's responding to a foreign threat. Nuff said.

And I'll remind you that Clinton used the same argument to do warrantless surveillance on Aldrich Ames - an American citizen. Seems they didn't have time to talk to the court - couldn't be bothered.

When a US citizen is coordinating with a foreign enemy, that's automatically a foreign threat - what part of that do you not understand?

What part of "we found a truck driver plotting to blow stuff up" do you not understand?

In regard to the Ames case...a warrant was obtained 2 days later, from the court, within the 3 day grace period allowed.

When I first read this thread title I got a picture in my mind of those "Girls Gone Wild" videos, but with presidents instead of bimbos. Very creepy and yet hilarious. We could take all the crappy decisions presidents have made and turn them into a video with cheesy tropical sounding music and garishly colored title sequences. That would be awesome!

You forgot that it would be hosted by Snoop Dogg (ironically since this thread is about snooping on the American people).

I think this thread has proved two points:
1)When it comes to the defense of the Bush administration, Deep Kimchi will repeat Republican talking points verbatim and

2) when shown proof that those talking points are based on misreadings or misleading selected quotations taken out of context, he won't back down and admit that he got taken in by them.

As a libertarian-leaning person, I believe this.

But I don't for one millisecond believe that any Democrats were upset that previous Democratic Presidents were doing things without warrants. They even seem to be fine with intelligence fishing expeditions as long as the President is Democrat - even if no court is consulted and no warrants are obtained.
That's why most liberals on this board do not label themselves as Democrats, unlike most of the conservatives, who choose to label themselves as Republicans.

Funny how the conserva-nazi's always respond with this spite. Wasn't the major point of Big Brother that he was always watching...as if bugging you without your knowledge?
And we have Godwin at post #25!

I think this thread has proved two points:
1)When it comes to the defense of the Bush administration, Deep Kimchi will repeat Republican talking points verbatim and

2) when shown proof that those talking points are based on misreadings or misleading selected quotations taken out of context, he won't back down and admit that he got taken in by them.

I don't believe that I'm misreading the Supreme Court's take on this, as others seem to believe it too, including Clinton.

I think that most of these threads already prove you and I disagree, unless it's about something that has nothing to do with Bush.

I just find it amusing that no one was upset (other than libertarians) during previous administrations excesses of the same kind.

I might also add that within FISA, a "reasonable expectation of privacy" does not apply to unencrypted transmissions in the open - only to encrypted cell phone calls or land lines. Not to microwave repeaters that transmit most of our telephone calls, and not to cell phone calls that are unencrypted.

Those receivers the NSA has for those purposes have been in place for decades - they've been listening all the time ever since the 1970s, and I didn't hear anyone complain then.

Sure, blame Bush for equipment that was installed way before Bush was ever in office...

I don't believe that I'm misreading the Supreme Court's take on this, as others seem to believe it too, including Clinton.

I think that most of these threads already prove you and I disagree, unless it's about something that has nothing to do with Bush.

I just find it amusing that no one was upset (other than libertarians) during previous administrations excesses of the same kind.

I might also add that within FISA, a "reasonable expectation of privacy" does not apply to unencrypted transmissions in the open - only to encrypted cell phone calls or land lines. Not to microwave repeaters that transmit most of our telephone calls, and not to cell phone calls that are unencrypted.

Those receivers the NSA has for those purposes have been in place for decades - they've been listening all the time ever since the 1970s, and I didn't hear anyone complain then.

Sure, blame Bush for equipment that was installed way before Bush was ever in office...
See that bolded part? That's your big lie. The pieces you quoted try to make that case by selectively quoting statements and leaving out the pieces that show the true context of the statement. The pieces I quoted showed the statements your sources quoted in their complete context and show that your sources are full of shit. And yet, faced with that, you refuse to back down.

Now--are you going to be honest and look at the sources I've quoted, especially the second, since it deals directly with your assertion about the 1978 Truong case, or are you going to continue to shill these dishonest points?

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]

In regard to the Ames case...a warrant was obtained 2 days later, from the court, within the 3 day grace period allowed.

You forgot that it would be hosted by Snoop Dogg (ironically since this thread is about snooping on the American people).

It's true, they all belong in the dog pound. Especially Clinton who was a first class ho. He loved us long time. Cheney, too. Halliburton keeps its pimp hand strong with that bitch, but I don't go for that kind of kink.

[QUOTE=Balipo]

It's true, they all belong in the dog pound. Especially Clinton who was a first class ho. Cheney, too. Halliburton keeps its pimp hand strong with that bitch.

The only thing I've seen funnier than that today is This (http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=zLElfJ9YCh0&search=SNL%20The%20Chronic%20of%20Narnia%20Rap
)

[QUOTE=Muravyets]

The only thing I've seen funnier than that today is This (http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=zLElfJ9YCh0&search=SNL%20The%20Chronic%20of%20Narnia%20Rap
)
Nerts, old Flash on my work computer. I'll check it out later.

I'm waiting for someone to say that "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail..."

See that bolded part? That's your big lie. The pieces you quoted try to make that case by selectively quoting statements and leaving out the pieces that show the true context of the statement. The pieces I quoted showed the statements your sources quoted in their complete context and show that your sources are full of shit. And yet, faced with that, you refuse to back down.

Now--are you going to be honest and look at the sources I've quoted, especially the second, since it deals directly with your assertion about the 1978 Truong case, or are you going to continue to shill these dishonest points?

And I pointed out that none of your assertions are true.

If they were true, and Bush was in violation of the law, then all Nancy Pelosi would have had to do to stop it back when she was notified (and the other Democrats as well) was to report it. And I'm sure she could have made a case for grand jury action. If what you say is true.

Kinda funny that neither she, nor any other Democrat reported it. Or called for a grand jury then.

Based on their actions, I'd say that your view is the warped one. Either that, or the Democratic Party just sold you down the river.

1. I don't believe that I'm misreading the Supreme Court's take on this, as others seem to believe it too, including Clinton.

I think that most of these threads already prove you and I disagree, unless it's about something that has nothing to do with Bush.

2. I just find it amusing that no one was upset (other than libertarians) during previous administrations excesses of the same kind.

I might also add that within FISA, a 3. "reasonable expectation of privacy" does not apply to unencrypted transmissions in the open - only to encrypted cell phone calls or land lines. Not to microwave repeaters that transmit most of our telephone calls, and not to cell phone calls that are unencrypted.

Those receivers the NSA has for those purposes have been in place for decades - 4. they've been listening all the time ever since the 1970s, and I didn't hear anyone complain then.

5. Sure, blame Bush for equipment that was installed way before Bush was ever in office...
Let's break this down:

1. Clinton got the retroactive warrant.

2. Again, you have no proof supporting that, but you do have several statements herein to the contrary.

3. Who said anything about privacy? We're talking warrants here.

4. Listening to foreign transmissions and/or listening with warrants.

5. So, since lockpicks were invented 1000's of years ago, burglary should not be a crime now?

And I pointed out that none of your assertions are true.

If they were true, and Bush was in violation of the law, then all Nancy Pelosi would have had to do to stop it back when she was notified (and the other Democrats as well) was to report it. And I'm sure she could have made a case for grand jury action. If what you say is true.

Kinda funny that neither she, nor any other Democrat reported it. Or called for a grand jury then.

Based on their actions, I'd say that your view is the warped one. Either that, or the Democratic Party just sold you down the river.
Maybe they didn't want to go to jail, because that's what would have happened if they'd gone public with what they knew. Fuck, man, when Rockefeller wrote his letter to the administration expressing his objections, he did it by hand because the subject was too sensitive to discuss with his staff. But then again I'm sure you'd like to see them in jail.

I'll put it as simply as I can for you and for everyone else following this--you're the one putting forth as evidence misquoted court rulings. I'm putting forth those same passages in full context. I'm on the side of the angels here. I've got context and fact backing me up--you've got squat.

Let's break this down:

1. Clinton got the retroactive warrant.

And Carter did not.

3. Who said anything about privacy? We're talking warrants here.

In FISA, it says that you only need warrants in cases where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts have long held that transmission in the open is fair game. Which is why the NSA installed those receivers on every cellphone tower and every microwave repeater in the US.

So unless the NSA was attaching wires directly to someone's phone line (which they don't do), they don't need a warrant. Period.

Maybe you should be more familiar with FISA, and what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Right now, under ECHELON, they could even ask the UK to do the listening - the UK does not need a warrant. And then turn that information over to the US - with no warrant.

I might add that the Supreme Court, in its decision, held that if a US citizen is communicating with a foreign enemy, then that may be put under surveillance without a warrant.

Seems that the Supreme Court agrees with me.

I'm waiting for someone to say that "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail..."
It's a federal crime to read other people's mail -- OOPS! There's that C-word again. That darned Law -- it's like it's everywhere, isn't it?

I might add that the Supreme Court, in its decision, held that if a US citizen is communicating with a foreign enemy, then that may be put under surveillance without a warrant.

Seems that the Supreme Court agrees with me.
Case please.

And Carter did not.


In FISA, it says that you only need warrants in cases where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts have long held that transmission in the open is fair game. Which is why the NSA installed those receivers on every cellphone tower and every microwave repeater in the US.

So unless the NSA was attaching wires directly to someone's phone line (which they don't do), they don't need a warrant. Period.

Maybe you should be more familiar with FISA, and what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Right now, under ECHELON, they could even ask the UK to do the listening - the UK does not need a warrant. And then turn that information over to the US - with no warrant.

Then Carter should be in prison.

Your interpretations of what the courts say is so shaky that I'll stick with what professional pundits, lawyers and law professors say in the media and that's that you need a warrant to spy on Americans within the US.

I'm all for updating the details of wire-tap laws to account for new technology. And YET AGAIN, I'm not arguing "expectation of privacy." I'll copy that sentence and just repeat it for the next 80 times I'll have to repeat it to you before you stop trying to counter my arguments altogether.

ECHELON is for monitoring outside the US. Using it within the US would be a mis-use.