NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296.html?wpisrc=newsletter

So what has been going on for sometime has Senatorial approval.

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today, would expand the government's authority to intercept without a court order the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating with people overseas.

Your thoughts?

But if do not support this legislation, I cannot go on vacation… :rolleyes:

But if do not support this legislation, I cannot go on vacation… :rolleyes:

The President has authority to keep Congress in session. Heck, he has the authority to end a session of Congress to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296.html?wpisrc=newsletter

So what has been going on for sometime has Senatorial approval.



Your thoughts?
My thoughts? My thoughts is that this is disgusting and ought to be struck down.

My thoughts? My thoughts is that this is disgusting and ought to be struck down.

I've already sent an email to the House...to Pelosi in particular. And I reminded her that we voted the Democrats in to prevent laws like this...and their loyalties are to lie with their constituents, not their vacations.

...I'm uncertain it helped though...

I've already sent an email to the House...to Pelosi in particular. And I reminded her that we voted the Democrats in to prevent laws like this...and their loyalties are to lie with their constituents, not their vacations.

...I'm uncertain it helped though...

Oh, they won't listen. I know Tancredo won't listen to me, certainly, and neither will anyone else there. Remember, they're only in power so they can have the power, not to help anyone. :mad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Your thoughts?

Well, it is communications between the US and overseas so it isn't exactly "domestic surveillance."

Personally, I don't give a damn if the government reads my e-mail or listens to my telephone conversations, as I have nothing to hide. Hell, a long time ago I was on some special missions with the Air Force and all outgoing mail was censored. No big deal.

Also, in this day and age, I'm not so sure anyone who uses e-mail or the telephone has any reasonable expectation of privacy. There are just too many ways anyone, government or not, can "listen in" on you.

If this helps us in the war on terrorism, I'm all for it.

Well, it is communications between the US and overseas so it isn't exactly "domestic surveillance."

Personally, I don't give a damn if the government reads my e-mail or listens to my telephone conversations, as I have nothing to hide. Hell, a long time ago I was on some special missions with the Air Force and all outgoing mail was censored. No big deal.

Also, in this day and age, I'm not so sure anyone who uses e-mail or the telephone has any reasonable expectation of privacy. There are just too many ways anyone, government or not, can "listen in" on you.

If this helps us in the war on terrorism, I'm all for it.

Well, glad to know you're all in favour of abandoning the right to privacy.

It has nothing to do with hiding something, but everything to do with the fact that you have a right to not have your conversations listened to without probable cause. You're not doing anything, so why should they listen?

I've already sent an email to the House...to Pelosi in particular. And I reminded her that we voted the Democrats in to prevent laws like this...and their loyalties are to lie with their constituents, not their vacations.

...I'm uncertain it helped though...

I'm afraid it will be a cold cold day in hell when the politicians "loyalties are to lie with their constituents" and not their own self interests. :mad:

Remember, they're only in power so they can have the power, not to help anyone. :mad:

We agree on that.

Well, it is communications between the US and overseas so it isn't exactly "domestic surveillance."

Personally, I don't give a damn if the government reads my e-mail or listens to my telephone conversations, as I have nothing to hide. Hell, a long time ago I was on some special missions with the Air Force and all outgoing mail was censored. No big deal.

Also, in this day and age, I'm not so sure anyone who uses e-mail or the telephone has any reasonable expectation of privacy. There are just too many ways anyone, government or not, can "listen in" on you.

If this helps us in the war on terrorism, I'm all for it.

I myself think privacy is the wrong term. State and bureaucracy are extremely powerfull, and if you want yourself and your loved ones to be protected from abuse of your government, you will need to have checks and balances.

It is an illusion that you will have nothing to fear when you havbe nothing to hide. Bureaucracies do make mistakes you know, and these checks and balances protect you against these mistakes.

Well, glad to know you're all in favour of abandoning the right to privacy.

It has nothing to do with hiding something, but everything to do with the fact that you have a right to not have your conversations listened to without probable cause. You're not doing anything, so why should they listen?

My point is I have no expectation of privacy either on the phone or through e-mail or the internet. There are too may ways anyone can "listen in" on me and therefor I do not expect privacy. I think those that do are living in a dream world.

My point is I have no expectation of privacy either on the phone or through e-mail or the internet. There are too may ways anyone can "listen in" on me and therefor I do not expect privacy. I think those that do are living in a dream world.

State power reaches far beyond the average individual or corporation. History has shown us that we should be carefull in allowing our states (international political entity, not US "province") to have too many powers.

My point is I have no expectation of privacy either on the phone or through e-mail or the internet. There are too may ways anyone can "listen in" on me and therefor I do not expect privacy. I think those that do are living in a dream world.

but we're not talking about some sixteen year old hacker who doesn't have a life who is ILLEGALLY eavesdropping on your emails


we're talking about the ELECTED federal government of the united states of america

and in america, you are INNOCENT until proven guilty

THUS

unless the COURT allows an investigation into your personal life due to extensive evidence brought forward against you, then the government DOES NOT HAVE THE VESTED AUTHORITY to do so

it is, according to the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND (that would be the constitution folks) ILLEGAL


i don't think i can stress that enough


ILLEGAL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

...I do not expect privacy. I think those that do are living in a dream world.

In that case, what does a scanner see? I mean really see? Does it see clearly? :confused:

It's pretty lametastic.

bump

Cthulhu help us!

hooray for the vichy dems!

hooray for the vichy dems!

hmmmm


agreed


i am EXTREMELY disappointed with the democrats thus far

i understand that they don't have a controlling majority of congress


but my god


this move was ludicrous, it was MIND BOGGLING


the dems should have known better, they should have known that if they had opposed this legislation, they would have had the full support of the american people (at the very least a very large majority of the american people)

tis a sad day for all freedom loving americans

so if the senate leadership didn't vote for it, how come it came up for a vote? why didn't they just kill it? or put a secret hold on it or whatever other bullshit tactics the republicans spent all that time using? are they still keeping their powder dry?

so if the senate leadership didn't vote for it, how come it came up for a vote? why didn't they just kill it? or put a secret hold on it or whatever other bullshit tactics the republicans spent all that time using? are they still keeping their powder dry?

i don't understand what you're asking


i think the senate leadership did vote for it

This bill is bullshit. Six months of illegal wiretapping (by the fourth amendment, no matter what Congress votes on) before they'll supposedly work out a more detailed plan. By then, I'm sure the Pussycrats will have decided to give in to the Fascisticans and allow indefinite warrantless wiretapping.

so if the senate leadership didn't vote for it, how come it came up for a vote? why didn't they just kill it? or put a secret hold on it or whatever other bullshit tactics the republicans spent all that time using? are they still keeping their powder dry?

Simple, there were votes for cloture and they got it and thus the vote. As to putting a hold on it, Bush would have kept them in session till he got a bill that he can sign.

To my distinct pleasure neither of my Senators bowed on this one (I was pleasantly suprised not to see Cantwell on the list), and none of the Dem Presidential Candidates did.

Now, I think Reid should have told the President, "Alright, then, fuck you. We'll spend August in Impeachment Hearings against your Attourney General, then, Mr. President."

Hopefully Pelosi will refuse to put it on the calendar.

This bill is bullshit. Six months of illegal wiretapping (by the fourth amendment, no matter what Congress votes on) before they'll supposedly work out a more detailed plan. By then, I'm sure the Pussycrats will have decided to give in to the Fascisticans and allow indefinite warrantless wiretapping.

Now tell us how you really feel :D

To my distinct pleasure neither of my Senators bowed on this one (I was pleasantly suprised not to see Cantwell on the list), and none of the Dem Presidential Candidates did.

Now, I think Reid should have told the President, "Alright, then, fuck you. We'll spend August in Impeachment Hearings against your Attourney General, then, Mr. President."

Hopefully Pelosi will refuse to put it on the calendar.

Then there will be no vacation. That will be sweet to see Bush use his Constitutional Powers for something that is of national importance.

Simple, there were votes for cloture and they got it and thus the vote. As to putting a hold on it, Bush would have kept them in session till he got a bill that he can sign.

he can keep them in session, but he can't make them bring it up for a vote. and since the republicans need to spend august soliciting donations much more than the dems do, and there are all sorts of hearings and investigations and impeachment proceedings to handle, reid should have told him to go fuck himself.

that would have been the politically smart thing to do, in addition to being the constitutionally smart and pro-freedom move to make. all this did was make the dems look even more like collaborationists.

he can keep them in session, but he can't make them bring it up for a vote. and since the republicans need to spend august soliciting donations much more than the dems do, and there are all sorts of hearings and investigations and impeachment proceedings to handle, reid should have told him to go fuck himself.

Impeachment proceedings are done in the House and not the Senate. Please remember that. You are indeed right that he can't make them but the people in the Senate can and they did and they got the votes to close debate and vote and thus...

Impeachment proceedings are done in the House and not the Senate. Please remember that. You are indeed right that he can't make them but the people in the Senate can and they did and they got the votes to close debate and vote and thus...

And the House would be held as well. Which would be wonderful, since Jay Inslee (My Congressman! I was so proud) brought impeachment articles againse Gonzales.

Nevertheless, the Rethuglicans behaved as they always do, and gave the government illigitimate power, whilst ignoring legitimate power. The Dems should have bashed them in the nose for it, and made them play hardball, but instead they folded.

And the House would be held as well. Which would be wonderful, since Jay Inslee (My Congressman! I was so proud) brought impeachment articles againse Gonzales.

May I see a link to this please? I am browsing the Library of Congress's website and I do not see it there.

Nevertheless, the Rethuglicans behaved as they always do, and gave the government illigitimate power, whilst ignoring legitimate power. The Dems should have bashed them in the nose for it, and made them play hardball, but instead they folded.

As usual. Does this surprise you at all? People think that the dems would do all they said they would. Guess what? They have not and can not do so because it is in no politicians nature to actually keep their promises.

Edit: I just looked at the thomas website and found H.Res 589. It is not exactly impeachment articles BUT directing the judiciary committee to investigate wether he should be.

May I see a link to this please? I am browsing the Library of Congress's website and I do not see it there.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/30/297411.aspx

As usual. Does this surprise you at all? People think that the dems would do all they said they would. Guess what? They have not and can not do so because it is in no politicians nature to actually keep their promises.

Edit: I just looked at the thomas website and found H.Res 589. It is not exactly impeachment articles BUT directing the judiciary committee to investigate wether he should be.

It's essentially the same difference. It gives them the authority to bring charges, whilst giving greater leeway for investigation.

And I don't agree with you about politicians. I think that the Dems are just scared, and that they need to realize that the American people are with them now, and that they don't have to apologize for being liberals.

It still has to get through the House. *nod*

If surveillance laws want to be slackened to allow suspects in the United States to be monitored, I can go along. We are at war. BUT! We have to have strict oversight. We need to know that our privacy is protected at all times and from what I've seen, this plan, while providing more oversight than 'I'm the Preisdent and I can do whatever the fuck I want', doesn't provide enough for my liking.

I hope the House either votes it down, or makes some changes before voting for it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/30/297411.aspx

Thanks

It's essentially the same difference. It gives them the authority to bring charges, whilst giving greater leeway for investigation.

Thing is, no charges were brought. No charges, no impeachment.

And I don't agree with you about politicians. I think that the Dems are just scared, and that they need to realize that the American people are with them now, and that they don't have to apologize for being liberals.

No they do not have to apologize but they are scared. If they tried to squash this, they gave their opponets a victory meaning that they would use that against them when it comes to the terrorism issue.

It still has to get through the House. *nod*

If surveillance laws want to be slackened to allow suspects in the United States to be monitored, I can go along. We are at war. BUT! We have to have strict oversight. We need to know that our privacy is protected at all times and from what I've seen, this plan, while providing more oversight than 'I'm the Preisdent and I can do whatever the fuck I want', doesn't provide enough for my liking.

I hope the House either votes it down, or makes some changes before voting for it.

And the changes will go to the Senate for their approval and there it will probably get blocked depending on the changes.

Impeachment proceedings are done in the House and not the Senate. Please remember that.

i use the term in the standard sense that covers both impeachment proper and the trial in the senate. plus, it's not like only the senate would be forced to stay in session.

You are indeed right that he can't make them but the people in the Senate can and they did and they got the votes to close debate and vote and thus...

...the senate dems are collaborationists.

stupid collaborationists at that - who keeps collaborating with an enemy that is clearly losing? we are well past the time where collaborationists are supposed to start loudly proclaiming how they were always part of the resistance and working to cover up their betrayals.

i use the term in the standard sense that covers both impeachment proper and the trial in the senate. plus, it's not like only the senate would be forced to stay in session.

Ok. I will give you the point.

...the senate dems are collaborationists.

Only 16 dems voted for this legislation, one independent and 43 Republicans.

stupid collaborationists at that - who keeps collaborating with an enemy that is clearly losing?

You have to ask those who support terrorism that one :D

we are well past the time where collaborationists are supposed to start loudly proclaiming how they were always part of the resistance and working to cover up their betrayals.

If they do proclaim they are part of the resistence instead of being against them, they get executed :D

And the changes will go to the Senate for their approval and there it will probably get blocked depending on the changes.

Then things remain as they are now. I can live with that. Privacy > Terrorism.

Then things remain as they are now. I can live with that. Privacy > Terrorism.

Then you will here the Democrats complaining that Bush is abusing the Constitution by keeping them there working on it.

Thing is, no charges were brought. No charges, no impeachment.

See, the thing is that the important thing that begining the Impeachment process does is take away the shield of Executive Privalege, which will allow an investigation into Impeachment Charges to go foward unimpeded. You are correct, however, that no overt charges were brought. You are correct. However, by begining the process, we move the dial.

No they do not have to apologize but they are scared. If they tried to squash this, they gave their opponets a victory meaning that they would use that against them when it comes to the terrorism issue.

That's what they beleived. However, it isn't true. That's the beltway mindset.

See, the thing is that the important thing that begining the Impeachment process does is take away the shield of Executive Privalege, which will allow an investigation into Impeachment Charges to go foward unimpeded. You are correct, however, that no overt charges were brought. You are correct. However, by begining the process, we move the dial.

Now there we will agree :)

That's what they beleived. However, it isn't true. That's the beltway mindset.

Unfortunately.

Then you will here the Democrats complaining that Bush is abusing the Constitution by keeping them there working on it.

I delight in watching the Legislative vs. Executive dick fight. :)

I delight in watching the Legislative vs. Executive dick fight. :)

HAHA!! Same here. Unfortunately for the legislature though, Bush does have the authority to keep them in session.

HAHA!! Same here. Unfortunately for the legislature though, Bush does have the authority to keep them in session.

Unfortunately for the President, there are Republican congressmen too. 251 of them and they won't be too happy either. Especially the ones up for re-election. :)

HAHA!! Same here. Unfortunately for the legislature though, Bush does have the authority to keep them in session.

and they had better damn well stay in session.


How much do we the people pay them? And they're bitching about not getting to take a month off?


MY legislature had better start adhering to the promises they made last november when MY vote brought them into power


i would love nothing more than to see a democrat elected president in 08, but with the way the dems are handling things now, it's hard to tell........

Unfortunately for the President, there are Republican congressmen too. 251 of them and they won't be too happy either. Especially the ones up for re-election. :)

LOL!! That is true. Dems won't be happy either for the same reason :)

This would be interesting if the House does not do anything today.

and they had better damn well stay in session.

I wish they do away with their long recesses. It does nothing for the country.

How much do we the people pay them? And they're bitching about not getting to take a month off?

Over $100,000 per year.

MY legislature had better start adhering to the promises they made last november when MY vote brought them into power

They kept some of their promises.

i would love nothing more than to see a democrat elected president in 08, but with the way the dems are handling things now, it's hard to tell........

It is indeed hard to tell.

I wish they do away with their long recesses. It does nothing for the country.



Over $100,000 per year.



They kept some of their promises.



It is indeed hard to tell.


i'm always glad to see your posts and think "FINALLY someone gets it!" :)

HAHA!! Same here. Unfortunately for the legislature though, Bush does have the authority to keep them in session.

I have written to Pelosi and Reid (Before this whole illegal wiretap bill got brought up) asking them to not recess to deal with getting Iraq fixed, getting AGAG impeachment going, and getting investigations wrapped up instead, but, to my chagrin, neither has written back.

My place of employment doesn't give me a month off with pay. I barely get payed anything at all, if i don't have over 40 hours a week. I think that Senators and Congressmen should get 2 weeks off, because they do need to go home and listen to their constituents, but I think that we pay them over 100,000 a year because they have to fly back and forth on things like weekends to speak with their constituents.

i'm always glad to see your posts and think "FINALLY someone gets it!" :)

It is is it not :)

I am glad that you and I can have a wonderful talk here and not get into a heated argument. To many of these debates are very heated.

I have written to Pelosi and Reid (Before this whole illegal wiretap bill got brought up) asking them to not recess to deal with getting Iraq fixed, getting AGAG impeachment going, and getting investigations wrapped up instead, but, to my chagrin, neither has written back.

we need more people like you


they haven't written me back yet either :mad:



i'm beginning to think they only respond to michael moore :D

It is is it not :)

I am glad that you and I can have a wonderful talk here and not get into a heated argument. To many of these debates are very heated.

all too well!


i'm just hoping to find something that i disagree with you on, so that we CAN have a healthy debate on it :p

but alas, so far, you and i are very much alike



maybe i'll have to start playing devil's advocate............

I have written to Pelosi and Reid (Before this whole illegal wiretap bill got brought up) asking them to not recess to deal with getting Iraq fixed, getting AGAG impeachment going, and getting investigations wrapped up instead, but, to my chagrin, neither has written back.

Did you expect them to? The investigation resolution is in the House Rules committee and stuck there as of right now. As to Iraq, everyone is waiting to see what the report will say in September.

Did you expect them to? The investigation resolution is in the House Rules committee and stuck there as of right now. As to Iraq, everyone is waiting to see what the report will say in September.

Judiciary, actually, but close. And they shouldn't be waiting until September, because we can already see the failures of the PResident's plan now.

As to Iraq, everyone is waiting to see what the report will say in September.


i'm sure we're all holding our breath

J And they shouldn't be waiting until September, because we can already see the failures of the PResident's plan now.


true true

but iraq's failure won't be "official" until the september report


that's how politicians do it mate :)

Judiciary, actually, but close. And they shouldn't be waiting until September, because we can already see the failures of the PResident's plan now.

According to thomas.loc.gov it is in the House Committee on Rules

true true

but iraq's failure won't be "official" until the september report


that's how politicians do it mate :)

The Dems don't have to be slaves to the beltway mindset.

The Dems don't have to be slaves to the beltway mindset.

i totally agree with you in principle


but if they want votes, they have to at the very least seem to appease the beltway


trust me, people in the beltway are, well, they're crazy, and any successful politician HAS to throw them a bone from time to time

i totally agree with you in principle


but if they want votes, they have to at the very least seem to appease the beltway


trust me, people in the beltway are, well, they're crazy, and any successful politician HAS to throw them a bone from time to time

Which is regretable.

Which is regretable.

indubitably

okay, here's my devil's advocate stance, hope it works!




HOWEVER, in a democracy, even the craziest, most close minded citizens are afforded their rights to elect representatives to office.


and the beltway constitutes a legitimate representation of the people of america, and politicians who are elected by them are obligated to carry out their ideas through legislation

thus, we must learn to coexist with them and their culture if we wish to uphold democracy

Yep its official: I'm doing one of two things.

1) Moving the Britain and joining the British Army...just for the hell of it.
2) Joining the French Foreign Legion.


If our Government is so stupid/incompetent/evil to do this shit, then I want no part of protecting it.

Yep its official: I'm doing one of two things.

1) Moving the Britain and joining the British Army...just for the hell of it.
2) Joining the French Foreign Legion.


If our Government is so stupid/incompetent/evil to do this shit, then I want no part of protecting it.

lol, lil frustrated eh?

lol, lil frustrated eh?

Oh yeah. lol

Oh yeah. lol


lol


to be honest, it's a little frightening, the current state of american politics



because if you look all throughout history, it was under similiar circumstances, the people becoming disenfranchised by all current political representatives within government that has led to revolutions

or to a strong undying loyalty to one particular reformer who promises reform but once elected, delivers tyranny

lol


to be honest, it's a little frightening, the current state of american politics



because if you look all throughout history, it was under similiar circumstances, the people becoming disenfranchised by all current political representatives within government that has led to revolutions

or to a strong undying loyalty to one particular reformer who promises reform but once elected, delivers tyranny

Under the Constitution, we do have the right to overthrow our own government and form a new one.

Under the Constitution, we do have the right to overthrow our own government and form a new one.


which article is that?

which article is that?

It depends on how one wants to interpret the IX and X amendments.

which article is that?
Article -III, the Not in the Constitution Clause.

It depends on how one wants to interpret the IX and X amendments.

true true

me likes the IX amendment, i use it as much as i can lol



but for some reason, if you try and start a revolution and you're arrested and go to court, i don't think the judge will rule in your favor


they usually reserve the IX amendment for privacy and all that jazz

Article -III, the Not in the Constitution Clause.

lol, wiseass :p

The White House threatened them with not letting them go dick around more than they already do and waved their fingers yelling "terrorism!"
"omg, terrorism, if we don't let the White House tap phones and record emails without warrant, the terrorists will win! Free wiretapping for everyone!"

The White House threatened them with not letting them go dick around more than they already do and waved their fingers yelling "terrorism!"
"omg, terrorism, if we don't let the White House tap phones and record emails without warrant, the terrorists will win! Free wiretapping for everyone!"

come now, don't be shy, tell us what you really think

It is official. The US House approved the intelligence bill.

It is official. The US House approved the intelligence bill.

*sigh*

Here's a link... (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.terror05aug05,0,1558019.story)

Yeah, they caved to veto threats and that Bush would take away their vacation.

But.

I notice that this bill does not cover US citizens, only foreign nationals "reasonably" outside the US.

Of course I could be wrong...

...

*Cheetos*

*sighs*

Won't matter to their reelection.
The average yahoo doesn't care about the wire tapping.
Might as well get their vacation.

And Bush, not that your reading this, two branches of government does not automatically beat the other. The government doesn't work like that. K?

this is indeed a very sad day for every american



it sets the precedent that it's okay for the government to infringe upon our rights in the name of security

and that is a very VERY dangerous precedent to set


i hope the congressmen sleep soundly on their vacation.....

I notice that this bill does not cover US citizens, only foreign nationals "reasonably" outside the US.

Of course I could be wrong...

Pretty sure you are. They calls are coming into or going out of the US from US citizens.

Pretty sure you are. They calls are coming into or going out of the US from US citizens.

No, they are not. The only reason this is a big deal at all is that these calls are being routed through US switching centers, located in the United States.

Congress can't just allow the president to wiretap, they don't hav the authority to circumvent the constitution.

This whole thing was in response to a recent FISA ruling that stated that even calls made by foreigners, in foreign countries, to foreigners in foreign countries still needed a warrant if it was routed through US switching centers. Which surprised a few people.

So take what you want from this, but remember it does NOT authorize listening in on american conversations, or conversations made in america by foreigners. Merely foreign conversation made by foreigners in foreign countries that are routed through the US.

No, they are not. The only reason this is a big deal at all is that these calls are being routed through US switching centers, located in the United States.

Congress can't just allow the president to wiretap, they don't hav the authority to circumvent the constitution.

This whole thing was in response to a recent FISA ruling that stated that even calls made by foreigners, in foreign countries, to foreigners in foreign countries still needed a warrant if it was routed through US switching centers. Which surprised a few people.

So take what you want from this, but remember it does NOT authorize listening in on american conversations, or conversations made in america by foreigners. Merely foreign conversation made by foreigners in foreign countries that are routed through the US.



hmmmmmmmm, i think you're right


but i still have a problem with it, because if it's being utilized by american run operations, then it should fall under the rule of law of america, which would be the constitution

and the constitution clearly outlaws such a thing

hmmmmmmmm, i think you're right


but i still have a problem with it, because if it's being utilized by american run operations, then it should fall under the rule of law of america, which would be the constitution

and the constitution clearly outlaws such a thing

Except it's not so clear. We can accept every american is protected under the constitution. One can even argue that every person within the United States is protected under the constitution.

But surely we can't argue that every person in the world is protected by the constitution. This is obviously silly. So two foreigners talking in two foreign countries...obviously no protection there.

So they are not protected. They are not american, or in america. So if THEY are not afforded constitutional liberties, then their conversation is thus not protected. If their conversation isn't protected, then there is no constitutional requirement.

That's basically the simple explanation. Foreigners in foreign countries have no rights under the constitution, ergo their conversations are not constitutionally protected. The mere fact it routes through the united states makes the listening in POSSIBLE, but the conversation itself is not what is protected.

Except it's not so clear. We can accept every american is protected under the constitution. One can even argue that every person within the United States is protected under the constitution.

But surely we can't argue that every person in the world is protected by the constitution. This is obviously silly. So two foreigners talking in two foreign countries...obviously no protection there.

So they are not protected. They are not american, or in america. So if THEY are not afforded constitutional liberties, then their conversation is thus not protected. If their conversation isn't protected, then there is no constitutional requirement.

That's basically the simple explanation. Foreigners in foreign countries have no rights under the constitution, ergo their conversations are not constitutionally protected. The mere fact it routes through the united states makes the listening in POSSIBLE, but the conversation itself is not what is protected.


i see your point


but it still strikes me as a slippery slope.....

i see your point


but it still strikes me as a slippery slope.....

It is to an extent, but merely a slope that we've been on before. In the past presidents COULD do this. It wasn't believed that FISA extended to this kind of conversation. A recent ruling put is BACK in that situaiton, and this law puts us where we were again.

I don't like it. I don't agree iwth it. But it has constitutional backing, and it's not like they're listening in on private conversations of americans (legally, anyway).

It is to an extent, but merely a slope that we've been on before. In the past presidents COULD do this. It wasn't believed that FISA extended to this kind of conversation. A recent ruling put is BACK in that situaiton, and this law puts us where we were again.

I don't like it. I don't agree iwth it. But it has constitutional backing, and it's not like they're listening in on private conversations of americans (legally, anyway).

yeah, i just don't trust anything that the bush administration proposes to congress

you just get this feeling in the back of your head that they're up to something much more sinister than it appears......

I don't like it. I don't agree iwth it. But it has constitutional backing, and it's not like they're listening in on private conversations of americans (legally, anyway).

And there be the rub.

If they wanted to, they probably could, and then cover their tracks electronically or through good ol' "deniability".

And there be the rub.

If they wanted to, they probably could, and then cover their tracks electronically or through good ol' "deniability".

sure, but then again, they could do that without this bill anyway.

This proves that the dumbassocrats in congress are no better than president Bush. They worry more about their precious vacation, than what is right for America, kind of like how Mr. Bush was on vacation at his ranch in 2001, doing nothing, while he knew that terrorists planned to attack the US.

We agree on that.

There is a rather obvious connection 'twixt how much $ a person rallies up in an election cycle and how many compromising connections they have to make in order to "merit" the funds.
Ergo ...
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b131/Colodia/Republicans.jpg

Whoops, i mean ...

http://www.perrspectives.com/images/banana_repubs_120105.jpg

Dadburnit, not that either ...

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13160

Erm ... hold on, gotta shuffle ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Canada

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7710/90/1600/Neoconservatives2.jpg

http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm

... oh yeah!
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/112005/mokhiber.html

http://www.oilempire.us/bushbinladen.html

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/

Didn't the NSA already do this?

Or was it previouslly just wholey foregin originating?

MY GOSH DOES THIS MEAN THEY CAN LOOK AT OUR INTERNET FILES NOW -- STORED IN THE US!!!! OH NOOOOS.

Domestic spying transperancy bill approved yet?

PHONE SEX AND PORN NOW GOVERNMENT ALLOWED EVEN IF THE WORHS ARE AMERICAN and the JOHN A FOREIGNER!!!!

the other part -- do the other countries think it is legal to spy on them???????

i see your point


but it still strikes me as a slippery slope.....

One that they had already crossed.

yeah, i just don't trust anything that the bush administration proposes to congress

you just get this feeling in the back of your head that they're up to something much more sinister than it appears......

Which begs the question:

Is Bush really stupid or is he just pretending to be stupid.

This proves that the dumbassocrats in congress are no better than president Bush. They worry more about their precious vacation, than what is right for America, kind of like how Mr. Bush was on vacation at his ranch in 2001, doing nothing, while he knew that terrorists planned to attack the US.

And Bill Clinton was receiving a blow job while the terrorists were doing their planning of this. It is a known fact that the planning was going on during the Clinton Administration and not the Bush administration.

Which begs the question:

Is Bush really stupid or is he just pretending to be stupid.

Oh fuck if we really have the time to determine that, what with all the timewasting we're already doing here on NS.
:rolleyes:

Best guess is to use the examples he's already set.
If every ACTION is stupid, then it's not really important if he AGREES to it or actually INITIATES it.

He's at the VERY LEAST stupid by proxy ... i mean, look at his party AND his supporters!

And Bill Clinton was receiving a blow job while the terrorists were doing their planning of this. It is a known fact that the planning was going on during the Clinton Administration and not the Bush administration.Show some honor and include how many attempts he took to rectify the situation, as compared to the republicans who had OTHER FUCKING PLANS about the time you're talking about, or save yourself the humiliation.

Poor show, lad.

In fact, since this is such a bad post on your part, i'll include the part about Condi lying under oath about how many threat warnings were received between April and September of 2001.
Yes, 2 thousand fucking one.
52.
Not "one" vague reference entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike".
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

How about Feb. 10th, 2005, New York Times, Lichtblau the author?

The article explained that the Federal Aviation Administration "received 52 intelligence reports" that mentioned Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001, and that the FAA warned airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

This information was included in a staff report by the 9/11 Commission dated August 26, 2004. The 9/11 Commission report found that there was "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11," but that this intelligence "did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures." Although the report did not find that the government had advance information about the specific September 11, 2001, attacks, it reported that the FAA took various measures to warn airport security officials about "the possibility of a suicide hijacking."

Show some honor and include how many attempts he took to rectify the situation, as compared to the republicans who had OTHER FUCKING PLANS about the time you're talking about, or save yourself the humiliation.

Enlighten me. How many times did Clinton try to interrupt the 9/11 planning sessions? Obviously he failed utterly in doing so.

Poor show, lad.

Actually, you are a poor show! See I can say it too. Grow up.

*snip*

Oh um. I see people really want to grasp at straws. Does not derail the fact that things were done under Clinton and he did not do much about it. Why? Because it was uncertain that they would actually do what they did. Warnings were passed but no one from either party did much to act on said warnings.

That my friend, is a cold hard fact. Now that you are done with your biasness (and it is obvious), mind actually debating without preconceptions?

Enlighten me. How many times did Clinton try to interrupt the 9/11 planning sessions? Obviously he failed utterly in doing so.

Research it.
When you're talking about "utter failures", let's talk about going to Iraq and giving up on Bin Laden.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html
Show me Clinton saying that. Do it. Step up or step off.
Do it.
You might actually find something out about him other than blowjobs.


Actually, you are a poor show! See I can say it too. Grow up.Oh really? I stepped up, you stuck with rhetoric. Give up the republican philosophy here, eh?

Parrot complex part and parcel for republican bullshit. Certainly you're above it?

Oh um. I see people really want to grasp at straws.
Straws or Clinton's cock? It sounds like wistfulness.

Does not derail the fact that things were done under Clinton and he did not do much about it.It actually, if you bother to pay attention, DOES derail your end of your assumptions there. Pay attention.
Why? Because it was uncertain that they would actually do what they did. Warnings were passed but no one from either party did much to act on said warnings.The differences are many.

That my friend, is a cold hard fact. Rich. As rich as ever, of course, Corny.
Now that you are done with your biasness (and it is obvious), mind actually debating without preconceptions?YOU are going to argue about "preconceptions" while providing nothing but rhetoric and some sycophantic fellatic longing?
Maybe this isn't your forte. You should try photoshop or maybe amateur botany.

Seems you're busy getting your green thumb or something, so i'll help you along as much as i need to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2
U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
CIA Trained Pakistanis to Nab Terrorist but Military Coup Put an End to 1999 Plot

By Bob Woodward and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01

In 1999, the CIA secretly trained and equipped approximately 60 commandos from the Pakistani intelligence agency to enter Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, according to people familiar with the operation.
:eek:
The article CONTINUES?
Well, you'll have to get around to reading it, i guess.
Further, you'll have to make the painful deduction of timeframe - as in, WHO was the president at the time?
Not Bush.
When Bush got brought up earlier as to his attitude towards Bin Laden - of whom are family friends, mind you, the answer ... from Bush's mouth himself ... was what?
?
Here's a hint:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12940558&postcount=99


Oh right. I'm the one with the "poor show".


And what are our soldiers dying for right now? What is it again? Where's rhetoric take you in that case?

Research it.
When you're talking about "utter failures", let's talk about going to Iraq and giving up on Bin Laden.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html
Show me Clinton saying that. Do it. Step up or step off.
Do it.

*sighs* I see you jumped away from 9/11. Figures.

You might actually find something out about him other than blowjobs.

About how he helped save millions of muslims despite the UN doing jack shit? I applauded that? Or how about the fact that he pulled us out of Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident? That was a disaster. Domestically, he was good. He was even semi decent when it comes to foreign policy. Was he one of the best Presidents? No but he is in the top 10 in my book.

Oh really? I stepped up, you stuck with rhetoric. Give up the republican philosophy here, eh?

Rhetoric? No rhetoric here. The fact remains that the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon and whatever that fourth target was was done during the Clinton Administration and carried out under the Bush administration. Tell me. Where's the rhetoric?

Parrot complex part and parcel for republican bullshit. Certainly you're above it?

Oh yes. I do my level best to speak truthfully when it comes to political issues. That is more than what I can say for several on this forum from both sides.

Seems you're busy getting your green thumb or something, so i'll help you along as much as i need to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2

:eek:
The article CONTINUES?
Well, you'll have to get around to reading it, i guess.
Further, you'll have to make the painful deduction of timeframe - as in, WHO was the president at the time?
Not Bush.

Right Clinton who trained Pakistanis to capture him instead of doing it himself. OOPS!! He had several opportunities to get Bin Laden and did not do so.

When Bush got brought up earlier as to his attitude towards Bin Laden - of whom are family friends, mind you, the answer ... from Bush's mouth himself ... was what?

The family's friendship has nothing to do with Osama himself. I really wish people learn that. That is like saying I was friends with Stalin's father and by extension, his son. That is not the case. I have friends among adults but not their children.

Ahh once again Corny proves he's too ignorant to prevent getting his ass handed to him, and too dim to realize it happened.

Right Clinton who trained Pakistanis to capture him instead of doing it himself.

This image amuses me. "instead of doing it himself". Was Bill Clinton supposed to be air dropped into Afghanistan rambo style and find Osama?

*sighs* I see you jumped away from 9/11. Figures.
How in the FUCK is that away from 9/11? You're not good at attention. You should skip the idea of involving yourself with plants, that could be unfortunate and unpleasant.
Now you're being completely, utterly absurd. You remind me of Mr. Wensleydale. You remember the end he came to, and his epitaph.



About how he helped save millions of muslims despite the UN doing jack shit? I applauded that? Or how about the fact that he pulled us out of Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident? That was a disaster. Domestically, he was good. He was even semi decent when it comes to foreign policy. Was he one of the best Presidents? No but he is in the top 10 in my book.
NOW who's bouncing out of 9/11? :rolleyes:
It's not a popularity contest to me, really. I didn't like Clinton that much.
As a matter of principle, however, he was much better in most respects than Bush.
And when you make arguments about who's distracted by what, whose priorities are where, you get shown up real quicklike. That's the nature of my response, which obviously didn't waver much.
As far as what you COULD have dug up on Clinton, well, whaddya know, i already took care of it.
Here, for example, is more from that exact same article that i provided, when taking care of it:
The Pakistani commando team was up and running and ready to strike by October 1999, a former official said. "It was an enterprise," the official said. "It was proceeding." Still stung by their failure to get bin Laden the previous year, Clinton officials were delighted at the operation, which they believed provided a real opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. "It was like Christmas," a source said.

The operation was aborted on Oct. 12, 1999, however, when Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who refused to continue the operation despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it.
How hard was that to stay ON TOPIC?



Rhetoric? No rhetoric here. The fact remains that the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon and whatever that fourth target was was done during the Clinton Administration and carried out under the Bush administration. Tell me. Where's the rhetoric?
The rest of your responses. I figured that you might've kept track.



Oh yes. I do my level best to speak truthfully when it comes to political issues. That is more than what I can say for several on this forum from both sides.When you say "truth", you're not saying that from a fundamentalist point of view, are you?
Other than that, you're right that many don't bother to back themselves up.

Ahh once again LC proves he's too ignorant to prevent getting his ass handed to him, and too dim to realize it happened.

*yawns*

Once again, you are acting very arrogant. Sorry for speaking a truth that the 9/11 attacks were planned under Clinton and not the Bush Administration.

This image amuses me. "instead of doing it himself". Was Bill Clinton supposed to be air dropped into Afghanistan rambo style and find Osama?

Maybe you miss understood what I ment? Would not be the first time you did that.

*yawns*

ADD kicking in?

Once again, you are acting very arrogant.

I tend to act arrogant when I'm right.

Sorry for speaking a truth that the 9/11 attacks were planned under Clinton and not the Bush Administration.

That's cute. Also largely a given as the Bush administration had only been going on about 9 months. Show me someone who argued otherwise?

The argument, of course, is not WHEN the attacks were planned, but WHICH president took the most affirmative steps in stopping Bin Laden in the first place.

Although it doesn't surprise me that when you've totally run out of arguments, you try to change the discussion. Really though, if you don't have the intellecutal wherewithall to have the argument, I suggest not trying.

Maybe you miss understood what I ment? Would not be the first time you did that.

would not be the first time you entirely, 100% missed the point. It's not even the first time today.

Really, it's not even the first time this thread.

Hell, it's not even the first time on this PAGE of the thread.

Ahh once again Corny proves he's too ignorant to prevent getting his ass handed to him, and too dim to realize it happened.

And he was doing so well!
:(

would not be the first time you entirely, 100% missed the point. It's not even the first time today.

Really, it's not even the first time this thread.

Hell, it's not even the first time on this PAGE of the thread.
Ouch!
As The Nazz so eloquently puts it ... "That's gonna leave a mark".

ADD kicking in?

Umm..I do not have ADD.

I tend to act arrogant when I'm right.

No you tend to be arrogant even when you are wrong.

That's cute. Also largely a given as the Bush administration had only been going on about 9 months. Show me someone who argued otherwise?

Show me where I am saying that Bush was blameless.

The argument, of course, is not WHEN the attacks were planned, but WHICH president took the most affirmative steps in stopping Bin Laden in the first place.

Obviously, not Clinton as the link so thoughtfully provided shows.

In the aftermath of last month's attacks on the United States, which the Bush administration has tied to bin Laden, Clinton officials said their decision not to take stronger and riskier action has taken on added relevance. "I wish we'd recognized it then," that the United States was at war with bin Laden, said a senior Defense official, "and started the campaign then that we've started now. That's my main regret. In hindsight, we were at war."

Outside experts are even more pointed. "I think that raid really helped elevate bin Laden's reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world," said Harlan Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero."

Everyone is to blame, including both presidents.

This image amuses me. "instead of doing it himself". Was Bill Clinton supposed to be air dropped into Afghanistan rambo style and find Osama?

Al Gore would've... and with his bare hands.

Family Guy reference, people

Right Clinton who trained Pakistanis to capture him instead of doing it himself. OOPS!! He had several opportunities to get Bin Laden and did not do so. Well, at least he took him seriously. Instead of, obviously, Bush.


The family's friendship has nothing to do with Osama himself. I really wish people learn that. That is like saying I was friends with Stalin's father and by extension, his son. That is not the case. I have friends among adults but not their children.
Perhaps you need to do more research on granting reconstruction jobs after bombings, eh?
And to any layperson, there seems to be somewhat of a strange and uncomfortable coincidence between Bush's attitude/actions/statements and his relationship to the bin Laden (and Sauds for that matter, since it was how many Saudis in the 9/11 attacks - and the NOTAM situation with those same family members being shuttled out).

No you tend to be arrogant even when you are wrong.

Here's your little problem. You keep thinking you're "right" even when you're totally 100% wrong.

Tell me corny, in a lawsuit, which one is the prosecutor again? And who is the one that gets found guilty? And what's that reasonable doubt?

Obviously, not Clinton as the link so thoughtfully provided shows.

Only in your magical mystical world of make believe bullshit does "I could have done more" = "I didn't do as much as the next guy"

Nobody, again, disputed that Clinton COULD have done more. It's the question of did he, even though he could conceivably have done more, still do more to prevent it than Bush?

The fact that there were more steps clinton could have taken in no way invalidates the fact that bush took virtually none. The fact that Clinton's efforts could have, in hindsight, been more aggressive doesn't change the fact that Bush made NO efforts.

Your whole premise was that Clinton was just off getting a blow job when Osama planned all this. That has been already demonstrably proven as false. You are just wrong. It's been shown that you are wrong.

Except you can't possible admit to yourself that you are wrong, so in some warped attempt to try to convince yourself (because god knows it has to be yourself you're trying to convince because there's no way in hell anyone takes you seriously around here anymore, you long since burned up whatever shred of credibility you may have garned in the first few days pretending not to be Corneliu) that of course that's not what you said.

Of course you didn't say THAT. No no you didn't say that. You obviously meant something else. Surely you meant "Clinton could have done more" not "Clinton didn't do anything". Surely you meant "Clinton did more than Bush" not "Clinton just got his dick sucked".

Because if you didn't mean that, then that would mean you went spouting off your ass without the slightest fucking clue as to what in hell you were talking about.

Again.

Perhaps you need to do more research on granting reconstruction jobs after bombings, eh?

You mean Haliburton? Show me where I supported the way they got it.

And to any layperson, there seems to be somewhat of a strange and uncomfortable coincidence between Bush's attitude/actions/statements and his relationship to the bin Laden (and Sauds for that matter, since it was how many Saudis in the 9/11 attacks - and the NOTAM situation with those same family members being shuttled out).

You mean with the authorization by someone other than Bush? Bush never even authorized it. Clarke (I think) Authorized it. Nice try with that last line.

Al Gore would've... and with his bare hands

family guy, 20 points.

Then Cheney would shoot Karl Rove and Antoine Scalia

You mean with the authorization by someone other than Bush? Bush never even authorized it. Clarke (I think) Authorized it. Nice try with that last line.

Oh right, of course. Somebody ELSE did it, someone lower in the heirarchy. Obviously Bush can't be held responsible for things that happen in his administration.

Oh yes, underlings just go ahead and make crucial decisions about national security without any input from the whitehouse all the fucking time. Of course, Bush had NOTHING to do with it. What the fuck? You think the buck stops there or something?

Umm..I do not have ADD.

That's a shame. At least then you'd have an excuse for your complete and total inability to stick on topic.

Here's your little problem. You keep thinking you're "right" even when you're totally 100% wrong.

No where in this thread am I claiming that I am right. I am claiming that the Planning for 9/11 took place under Clinton which is a cold hard fact. Something even you cannot deny.

Tell me corny, in a lawsuit, which one is the prosecutor again? And who is the one that gets found guilty? And what's that reasonable doubt?

Relevence?

Only in your magical mystical world of make believe bullshit does "I could have done more" = "I didn't do as much as the next guy"

Um ok?

Nobody, again, disputed that Clinton COULD have done more. It's the question of did he, even though he could conceivably have done more, still do more to prevent it than Bush?

We do not know all that Bush did to prevent it! That much is obvious so to claim that Clinton did more is obvious because he was in office for several years to get Bin laden and Bush was only in office 9 months. To compare what both people did to get Bin Laden is uncomparable.

The fact that there were more steps clinton could have taken in no way invalidates the fact that bush took virtually none.

That we know of at least.

The fact that Clinton's efforts could have, in hindsight, been more aggressive doesn't change the fact that Bush made NO efforts.

That we know of.

Your whole premise was that Clinton was just off getting a blow job when Osama planned all this. That has been already demonstrably proven as false. You are just wrong. It's been shown that you are wrong.

Um yea... maybe one should take sarcasm lessons.

Umm..I do not have ADD.
That doesn't leave room for many pleasant or somewhat easily rectifiable psychophysiological conditions.


Obviously, not Clinton as the link so thoughtfully provided shows.Apparently you weren't paying attention to the FULL ARTICLE.

Strangely enough THE PART I PROVIDED FROM THE ARTICLE!:
Still stung by their failure to get bin Laden the previous year, Clinton officials were delighted at the operation, which they believed provided a real opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. "It was like Christmas," a source said.

The operation was aborted on Oct. 12, 1999, however, when Sharif was overthrown in a military coup led by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who refused to continue the operation despite substantial efforts by the Clinton administration to revive it.

Everyone is to blame, including both presidents.
And now, the difference of attitude between the two presidents.
The blame CONTINUES with Bush. That's the fucking difference.
Is Bush distracted by blowjobs? At least Clinton seems to have some sincere regret, whereas Bush is simply "truly not that concerned".
NOT EVEN A FULL FUCKING YEAR PASSED.

Still stung by their failure to get bin Laden the previous year, Clinton officials were delighted at the operation, which they believed provided a real opportunity to eliminate bin Laden. "It was like Christmas," a source said.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Now can what can you be expected to think here, Corny?

BTW - real life might just actually keep me from the apparent futility of commerce with you.
So i'll implore you to stay away from plants.

And now that the threadjacking is done.

The House and Senate approve of this and so we shall see how long it takes for the first lawsuit to be filed.

No where in this thread am I claiming that I am right.

That's remarkably telling

I am claiming that the Planning for 9/11 took place under Clinton which is a cold hard fact. Something even you cannot deny.

And something nobody has tried to deny.

Relevence?

Just demonstrating your tendancy to spout off on topics you know nothing about? Did you or did you not say that little piece in my sig?

Um ok?



We do not know all that Bush did to prevent it! That much is obvious so to claim that Clinton did more is obvious because he was in office for several years to get Bin laden and Bush was only in office 9 months. To compare what both people did to get Bin Laden is uncomparable.



That we know of at least.



That we know of.

Ahh got to love that. It went from "Clinton was just getting his dick sucked" to "well, bush could have done more than Clinton we don't know!" Only in your fucked up mentality does ignorance make your right.

If we don't know that he did, and we don't know that he didn't, what exactly was your point by trying to create the comparison, given your already admitted ignorance?

Most people hwen they know they don't know something about a topic...don't try to talk about it.

Um yea... maybe one should take sarcasm lessons.

Maybe one should get a dictionary and find out what sarcasm means, because this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12940500&postcount=94) ain't it.

Fail.

You mean Haliburton? Show me where I supported the way they got it.How'd you put it? Off topic already. If i meant "Halliburton" i would've said "Halliburton".
Work with what we gave you, and not what the little voices are telling you (unless the voices are from the plants, telling you to stay away)



You mean with the authorization by someone other than Bush? Bush never even authorized it. Clarke (I think) Authorized it. Nice try with that last line.
It would appear this has been addressed already.

We do not know all that Bush did to prevent it! That much is obvious so to claim that Clinton did more is obvious because he was in office for several years to get Bin laden and Bush was only in office 9 months. To compare what both people did to get Bin Laden is uncomparable.
...
That we know of at least.



That we know of.
Oh, comparisons are quite easy.

I'm The Decider!
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

That we know of.
Walk away. Just ignore them.