Topic: Should George Bush have the authority to autho
started by: Expatriate
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 17 2005,1:45 pm
Poll Question: Should President George Bush have the authority to authorize secret eavesdropping on American citizens? He's President George Bush, not King George Bush, the founders wrote the Constitution with far sighted possibilities in mind, and we may now be at that juncture. The founders provided us with the ability to impeach any Government should it take away our liberties or any President, should he attempt to act like a King or an Emperor.
Posted by Spidey on Dec. 17 2005,2:07 pm
I don't think he should have that right at his own discretion. However ... Like anything else, if there is reason and all steps have been taken, then yes, I think he should be able to.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 17 2005,3:08 pm
How many civil liberties are you willing to give up in order to live in a free society?
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 17 2005,5:28 pm
We are a democracy, not a dictatorship, yet............With Mr Bush as our president, we are losing our rights one by one........If the peons cant be controlled by fear take some of their rights away...... 
.........ned
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 17 2005,7:03 pm
| Quote (Ned Kelly @ Dec. 17 2005,5:28pm) |
| We are a democracy, not a dictatorship, yet............With Mr Bush as our president, we are losing our rights one by one........If the peons cant be controlled by fear take some of their rights away...... .........ned |
do you really think that the Administration is looking to use this opportunity to listen in to conversations between nit wits at Eddies Bar and the Web Room...
they are targeting terrorists and they are trying to get details of possible terrorist plots - as simple as that...
if you believe anything else then you probably believe in the boogey man, too...
this thread is a typical example of why they say that one can achieve the results that they want in a poll - just based on the wording of the question in the poll...
for example if this poll were to be changed from:
| Quote |
| Should President George Bush have the authority to authorize secret eavesdropping on American citizens? |
to:
| Quote |
| Should President George Bush have the authority to authorize secret eavesdropping on suspected terrorists? |
I believe you would get different results...
but that's just me...
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 17 2005,7:14 pm
No way! NSA isn't going to care if you're not paying for your cable, or if you just stole your neighbors shovel. They've got bigger fish to fry. Either way though, we have a right to privacy.If people keep giving away their rights, in some attempt to keep America safe, what the hell are we protecting anyway! Politicians, police, and intelligence agencys will always make promises that they won't abuse the authority if we get scared into giving away our rights. We need more than just promises made at press conferences.
Abraham Lincoln-
| Quote |
| America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
Osama Bin Laden-
| Quote |
| And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act under the disguise of fighting terrorism. |
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 17 2005,7:53 pm
Any right you give away to government can and will be abused.This are the same folks who brought you the drug war run amok.
Posted by Wolfie on Dec. 18 2005,2:40 am
Just playing devils advocate here, so put away the flame throwers. What if, and it might be a big if, the people that are on the list of names of people to be monitored arent US citizens. What if they are in the US on student visas, or work visas, and actually citizens of another country. If they do fall into that catagory, doesnt that eliminate them from the blanket of freedoms we as US citizens get to enjoy. Also the last time I read the Bill of Rights, the right to privacy was not on the list. Food for thought.
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 18 2005,4:33 am
More like chit for a moron to eat. Right to privacy not on the list? Why, you are retarded ain't ya... 
right of privacy: an overview
Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti), 4th (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv), and 5th (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv) Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life.
"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."
"There is a sacred realm of privacy for every man and woman where he makes his choices and decisions-a realm of his own essential rights and liberties into which the law, generally speaking
"He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor safety."
The honourable Ben Franklin
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 18 2005,11:02 am
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Dec. 17 2005,7:03pm) |
| if you believe anything else then you probably believe in the boogey man, too... |
I don't believe in the boogey man....but Bush's handlers scare the hell out of me........................
.........ned
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 18 2005,2:25 pm
Condi Rice was on Meet The Press this morning and she says that it was only people with ties to AlQaeda and it was only international calls and international email - I am so glad that someone is monitoring that situation...if this bothers you so much then I assume you think FDR should have been impeached for the ethnic Japanese that were interned in American camps during World War II...
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 18 2005,5:46 pm
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Dec. 18 2005,2:25pm) |
| Condi Rice was on Meet The Press this morning and she says that it was only people with ties to AlQaeda and it was only international calls and international email - I am so glad that someone is monitoring that situation... |
Secretary Rice looked like she was more than a little uncomfortable, she was ask several times the following Question without an adequate answer:
What is the legal authority? What is the constitutional authority for the president to eavesdrop on American citizens without getting court approval?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE answers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer.....
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R-PA): It's inexcusable to have spying on people in the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law beyond any question.
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 19 2005,2:26 am
If the case for someone being a terrorist suspect is so compelling, why not just take the five minutes to get the court order?Why do we have to trash the Constitution to get something that was available all along?
Posted by Gomer on Dec. 19 2005,11:50 am
Our founding fathers were morons. The right to a fair trial, to representation, to privacy, ect.. were all misguided and gave the plebs far too much freedom. Yes my fellow citizens, our great leader GWB knows what is legal, what is moral, and what is right for us all. (and iraqi's too) Do not mistake the legality of his actions. As in egypt, our king is a god and therefore can do nothing but what is right. It is you who question his actions that deserve his wrath. The almighty will consider you an enemy of the state if you speak anything other than his truth in a public place such as this forum. His agents are everywhere (jimbo) and once one of them turns you into the homeland security (SS for short) you will know the true power of his authority.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 19 2005,12:48 pm
warrantless surveillance is nothing new, can you say ECHELON
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 19 2005,2:51 pm
Bush says: As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.Repo can you find anything in Artical 2 of the U.S. Constitution about the President's authority to wiretap U.S. Citizens without court approval?
< U.S. Constitution Artical II >
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 19 2005,4:20 pm
Gomer, comparing the Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 19 2005,4:53 pm
| Quote (Expatriate @ Dec. 19 2005,2:51pm) |
| Bush says: As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. Repo can you find anything in Artical 2 of the U.S. Constitution about the President's authority to wiretap U.S. Citizens without court approval? < U.S. Constitution Artical II > |
You are always good for the out of context or abbreviated quote - are we running short on bandwidth or did you just fall asleep after reading his first sentence on the subject...
Let's see if this gives you a tad better focus:
| Quote |
| As president and commander in chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda. After September the 11th, one question my administration had to answer was, using the authorities I have, how do we effectively detect enemies hiding in our midst and prevent them from striking us again? We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks. So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorize the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. This program is carefully reviewed approximately every 45 days to ensure it is being used properly. Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program. And it has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties. This program has targeted those with known links to al Qaeda. I've reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens. Another vital tool in the war on terror is the Patriot Act. After September the 11th, Congress acted quickly and responsibly by passing this law, which provides our law enforcement and intelligence community key tools to prevent attacks in our country. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. It allows federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools already used against other types of criminals. |
by the way - Condi didn't say,
| Quote |
| I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer..... |
the transcript for that show will be out in about 2 weeks and then we can post the exact quotes...
I haven't trusted your quoting since you posted the nonsense about what you said President Bush said about UBL and al-Qaeda before 9/11 - remember when you said that he stated that they were like mosquitos - and he wasn't going to worry about them...
you play it a little fast and loose with the truth - that is wreckless at best and is in fact dishonest...
Posted by Berserker on Dec. 19 2005,5:31 pm
Gomer the founding fathers didn't give the masses the right to vote or be heard. What they did, was give the right to land owners, which at the time was close to 99% W.A.S.P.s. This was one of the first major challenges to our constitution which the founding fathers had the forsight to know that there deffinately be things that needed changing. Thank god they were smart enough to think ahead. To bad many of our fellow country men/women have had the insight to ruin good constitutional rights, like the right to life, liberty, and the persuite of happiness. Some of our fathers attempted to ensure the rights of ALL people in America. However, in retrospect, when Jefferson wrote the freeing of slaves and rights ensured for all, including women, I would speculate that he knew it would never pass the majority of WASPs in attendance of the first meetings. That his "futile" attempt, may infact been for his own ego and reputation, so that he would look like a forward thinking man. Infact he was so for the freeing and equaling of slaves that when he died, he willed them to his children. The only ones who were freed are slaves of his that were suspect of being his own children. This from a man who never was very successful at business, or farming. His money came from his family, his wife's family, and early investments in growing businesses. His own nail manufacturing business was a MAJOR flop! Or we may still today be using Jefferson Nails, but we are not.As for Bush and his spying, that is bull$hiite. Some one earlier said that you give the goverment a right of yours and you will never get it back. They were right. The other problem is where does this "spying" stop? Do you think the government would say, "No this person is just talking to a friend in Europe, I don't need to monitor his/her email" Or "oh look this person isnt a terrorist but they are growing 100 plants of pot in the basement, we can't go after them on this information because we were suppose to be looking for spys with this e-tap"
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 19 2005,8:53 pm
The Neo-con Nazis that march in lock-step with the current administration must act and look an awful lot like the folks that decided that Japanese-Americans living stateside in 1942 needed to be interred. You can trust this administration to "do the right thing," or "stay the course," or whatever buzzwords apply. I remain skeptical...
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 19 2005,10:39 pm
| Quote |
by the way - Condi didn't say, Quote I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer..... the transcript for that show will be out in about 2 weeks and then we can post the exact quotes... |
MediaMatters.Org says that Rice said "I'm not a lawyer" 3 different times during the interview.
| Quote |
Instead, Russert allowed Rice to repeatedly insist that Bush "has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority" while avoiding specific explanations by saying, "I'm not a lawyer." For example, Russert asked Rice: "What is the legal authority? What is the constitutional authority for the president to eavesdrop on American citizens without getting court approval?" Rice responded: "The president is acting under his constitutional authority, under statutory authority." She then insisted, "I'm not a lawyer, but the president has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties." Without elaborating what she meant by "constitutional authority," Rice added that "the president is drawing on his constitutional authorities to protect the country." Russert noted that "[t]he law is very clear that a person is guilty of an offense unless they get a court order before seeking to wiretap an American citizen" and asked Rice why the president did not "get a court order." Rice responded: "The FISA is indeed an important source of that authority, and in fact, the administration actively uses FISA," adding that "the president has drawn on additional authorities that he has under the Constitution and under other statutes." When Russert asked Rice, "What are the other authorities?," Rice again responded: "I'm not a lawyer, but the president has constitutional authority and he has statutory authorities." Following Rice's acknowledgement that she knew about the program when it was authorized, Russert asked: "And what Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, Madame Secretary, is what is the authority that you keep citing? What law, what statute? Where in the Constitution does it say the president can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order?" Rice insisted that Bush "has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority" before once again explaining, "Now, I am not a lawyer." < http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190012 > |
Posted by Gomer on Dec. 20 2005,8:48 am
We should be more than skeptical. Outraged and demanding our liberties be protected is what we should be.
Posted by Berserker on Dec. 20 2005,8:57 am
Now thats better Gomer. Defend your rights till the end. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. It is the SOP of big government. And there are many examples.:angry:
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2005,1:49 pm
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Dec. 19 2005,4:53pm) | ||
by the way - Condi didn't say,
the transcript for that show will be out in about 2 weeks and then we can post the exact quotes... you play it a little fast and loose with the truth - that is wreckless at best and is in fact dishonest... |
Criticism
I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise..
Thomas Jefferson
Meet the Press puts out the transcript the same day, you can read it or watch at the following link...
yes Dr. Rice distinctively says three separate times I'm not a lawyer.
< Meet The Press >
Even staunch Republicans such as Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania say they are troubled by the Administrations actions.
I can understand the need for this type of surveillance but there's a protocol to be followed, the Executive branch of the government has bypassed the Judicial branch and upset the check and balance of the system.
I questioned the administration's decision to not seek court-approved warrants when FISA courts have almost never rejected them., and the warrants could be obtained retroactively. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, FISA courts have rejected only four of over 15,000 warrant requests made since 1979. That number includes over 4,000 warrant requests since the 9/11 attacks.
I can only suspect that the president wanted to avoid accountability possibly another Nixon era enemies list.
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,2:26 pm
Does this look like she said | Quote |
| I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer... |
SEC'Y RICE:
| Quote |
| Tim, first much all, the president has authorized – and it's important to talk about what he's actually authorized. He's authorized the National Security Agency to collect information about the activities of a limited number of people with ties to Al-Qaeda so that there is not a seam between the territory of the United States and the territory abroad. One of the most compelling outcomes of the 9-11 Commission was that a seam had developed. Our intelligence agencies looked out, our law enforcement agencies looked in, and people--terrorists could exploit the seam between them. So the president is determined that he will have the ability to make certain that that seam is not there, that the communications between people, a limited number of people with Al-Qaeda links here and conversations with terrorist activities outside will be understood so that we can detect and thereby prevent terrorist attacks. The president is acting under his constitutional authority, under statutory authority. I'm not a lawyer, but the president has gone to great lengths to make certain that he is both living under his obligations to protect Americans from another attack but also to protect their civil liberties. And that's why this program is very carefully controlled. It has to be re-authorized every 45 days. People are specially trained to participate in it, and it has been briefed to leadership of the Congress and including the leadership of the Intelligence Committee. So in a time when the war on terrorism is not just one in which people carry on activities outside the country but also activities inside the country, the president is drawing on his constitutional authority to protect the country. |
SEC'Y RICE:
| Quote |
| Tim, again, I'm not a lawyer, but the president has constitutional authority and he has statutory authorities. Tim, let's remember that we are talking about the ability to collect information on the geographic territory that is the United States. Some people are American citizens; others are not. What the president wants to prevent is the use of American territory as a safe haven for communications between terrorist operating here or people with terrorist links operating here and people operating outside of the country. |
SEC'Y RICE:
| Quote |
| Tim, the president has authorities under FISA, which we are using and using actively. He also has constitutional authorities that derive from his role as commander in chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority. Now, I am not a lawyer. And I am certain that the attorney general will address a lot of these questions but the fact is that the president has an obligation. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means both to protect and defend Americans physically from the kind of attack that we experienced on September 11, and to protect their civil rights and civil liberties and he is doing both. But I want to remind people that we are in a different kind of war. We're in a war where if we allow people to commit the crime, then thousands die. And so the ability to detect, the ability to disrupt-- this is a war where intelligence is the long pole in the tent. Because we can do everything we can to protect our ports, to make our borders more secure, to try and disrupt terrorists abroad, but if, in fact, people operate within the country as they were doing on September 11, then we're not going to be able to protect the country. |
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,2:30 pm
| Quote (Expatriate @ Dec. 18 2005,5:46pm) |
| CONDOLEEZZA RICE answers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer..... |
I watched the show - I know she said she wasn't a lawyer 3 different times - but reading the Ex-Patriot's post you would think that she blurted it out in succession like a babbling idiot...
she was trying to give a well thought out answer - while not pretending to be the total legal authority on the issue...
there is a big difference in how she stated she was not a lawyer three different times in the interview rather than the misconception that is left by posting that she said:
| Quote |
| I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer..... |
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2005,2:32 pm
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Dec. 20 2005,2:26pm) | ||
Does this look like she said
|
| Quote |
| I watched the show - I know she said she wasn't a lawyer 3 different times - but reading the Ex-Patriot's post you would think that she blurted it out in succession like a babbling idiot... |
Dr. Rice a babbling idiot...no, I merely said she repeated I'm not a lawyer several times and didn't answer the Question adequately.
Now if we're talking babbling idiots your grammar school posts qualify you for that position on this board..
Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 20 2005,2:58 pm
Ever notice how stupidly partisan this rhetoric gets? I have yet to hear someone be analytical enough to say something like, "You know, I really disagree with Mr. Bush's handling of X, but I think he did a good job with Y."Us or them. You're 100% with us or you're 100% against us. Both sides are guilty of this, and it accomplishes absolutely nothing...
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,3:25 pm
I agree with you - but I have to say that I have disagreed with the President on some issues... spending is out of control...
I also disagree with the GOP on gun control and tobacco - other than that - I am pretty much in lock step with the party...
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,3:31 pm
| Quote (Expatriate @ Dec. 20 2005,2:32pm) |
| Dr. Rice a babbling idiot...no, I merely said she repeated I'm not a lawyer several times and didn't answer the Question adequately. Now if we're talking babbling idiots your grammar school posts qualify you for that position on this board.. |
I'll defer to you as an expert on being a babbling idiot...
and the point remains that you lack the integrity to put up honest representations of what people like the President and Dr. Rice say...
you need to distort and exaggerate in order that you might be able to gain some sort of a tactical advantage - or find some like-minded poorly read person out there that will jump on your bandwagon of propaganda and help spread and smear your manure...
luckily there are people around to put you in check - as a matter of fact - checkmate Mr. Dishonest...
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,3:33 pm
tell us again how the President said the UBL and al-Qaeda were mosquitos that he wasn't going to be bothered with - he stated that at a security briefing - right... 
I love that story...
what a bull$hit artist you are...
Posted by Alfy Packer on Dec. 20 2005,5:03 pm
"W" is totally blind to there being anything wrong with the actions he takes. He is not the first President to suffer from poor vision but he is totally lacking in any facilities to compensate for his short comings. That does not make him a bad man, but it does make him truly dangerous.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2005,6:16 pm
Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein argued yesterday on The Diane Rehm show that, should Bush remain defiant in defending his constitutionally-abusive wire-tapping of Americans (as he has indicated he will), Congress should consider impeaching him.| Quote |
| BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want I don't need to consult any other branches that is an impeachable offense. It's more dangerous than Clinton's lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant. NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed. |
< http://thinkprogress.org/2005....offense >
Senators Chuck Hagel ® Nebraska and Olympia Snowe ® Maine call for probe of Bush's domestic-surveillance program.
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,6:45 pm
you can dream - there's no law against that... because President Bush will not be impeached - period...
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,6:50 pm
How different is what President Clinton did back in 1995 from what President Bush is doing now - feast your eyes:THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the 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.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
© Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
Posted by Wolfie on Dec. 20 2005,7:36 pm
Show me that the people that were/are being wiretapped for intel are American citizens and we might have an arguement. But if they are not then they do not have the same rights as American citizens do, plain and simple.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2005,7:45 pm
| Quote |
| How different is what President Clinton did back in 1995 from what President Bush is doing now |
| Quote |
| Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information. |
looks like he's still using the Court FISC
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2005,7:56 pm
| Quote (Wolfie @ Dec. 20 2005,7:36pm) |
| Show me that the people that were/are being wiretapped for intel are American citizens and we might have an arguement. But if they are not then they do not have the same rights as American citizens do, plain and simple. |
We don't know what the NSA has but read this on the Pentagon < Database on US Citizens >
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,8:39 pm
you chase down all the ghosts for us there, Ex-Patriot...have fun - myself - I'll support my President and my government as they try to protect me and my fellow citizens (even you) from more terrorist attacks like 9/11...
President Bush will never win with your crowd anyway - so in my opinion there really isn't any reason to worry about you and yours...
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 20 2005,8:41 pm
by the way, dope - did you miss this part of President Clinton's order... | Quote |
| Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the 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. |
Posted by twelvemice on Dec. 20 2005,11:01 pm
Should President George Bush have the authority to authorize secret eavesdropping on American citizens?George Bush is a complete idiot. He is an embarrassment to this country and all humankind for that manner. I don't understand how he ever became president in the first place. How anyone could be stupid enough to vote for him is beyond me. Anyway, due to his obvious limitations in intelligence (he is lucky he ever made it past 3rd grade) he should not have the authority to authorize anything. George Bush is just a puppet. I don't believe I am the only one who sees what a complete idiot he is and I seriously wonder who is really running this country. George Bush isn't smart enough to make any decisions on his own- so who is making the decisions? Cheney?
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 21 2005,12:55 pm
Cheney is the correct answer, give the mice the cheese................. ..........ned
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 21 2005,1:12 pm
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Dec. 20 2005,6:50pm) |
| How different is what President Clinton did back in 1995 from what President Bush is doing now - feast your eyes: EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 - - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES |
PHYSICAL SEARCHES means a person who's premises,
property, information, or material is the target of physical
search or any other person whose premises, property, information, or material was subject to physical search.
We were talking Electronic Surveillance DIM-WIT
But even PHYSICAL SEARCHES the Clinton Administration was smart enough use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court...like I said before that's the difference...
Bush will have to eat crow on the fiasco, the White House needs to promptly tell the NSA to return to following the rules, to get the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before monitoring Americans communications. Whether that be prior to or retroactively. The idea that all of this is being done to us in the name of national security doesn't cut it in America. Those are the unacceptable actions of a police state.
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 21 2005,2:15 pm
| Quote |
| Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, , to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. |
Do you think that wiretapping international calls of suspected al-Qaeda or checking international email to and from al-Qaeda sympathizers is somehow worse than:
| Quote |
| PHYSICAL SEARCHES means a person who's premises, property, information, or material is the target of physical search or any other person whose premises, property, information, or material was subject to physical search. |
I'll take my chance with President George Bush any day - you couldn't get my vote for dog catcher with your warped view of the world...
don't worry - a Democrat will eventually get into the White House - you'll just have to sit tight and be patient until that day gets here - no amount of dishonest voo-doo tricks by you and yours is going to hasten that day...
Posted by REPOMAN on Dec. 21 2005,2:19 pm
this post is especially for the Ex-Patriot...this is my prediction of what the Supreme Court will say to you and those that think like you if this issue ever ends up bofore them...
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 21 2005,2:19 pm
| Quote |
| On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation. < Story > |
It's hit the fan.
Posted by Gomer on Dec. 21 2005,2:23 pm
There have been several news stories about the patriot act and related intelligence gathering techniques used now by our government on its own citizens. 60 minutes and nightline both aired stories that were similar in nature. In one of the stories an anti war group comprised of middle - old aged people was infiltrated by a covert agent. Their phones were tapped, their lives analyzed, and the whistle was only blown on the governments watchfull eye because the undercover guy died in a motorcycle accident and his cover was blown by the local media story covering his death. I am sure the bakesale that funded bring our troops home buttons was in fact a hotbed of terrorist activity. Repoman you are an idiot for thinking the governments unlimited electronic communication monitoring will be self limited in any fashion. We have an inept bureaucracy that couldn't function before we broadened their scope, how do you think they will be magically better now that they have so much more information to sift through?
Nothing this president has done has made us any safer from terrorists. Giving up our freedoms and creating a government that openly spies on its civilians is a victory for the terrorists. Osama 2 Bush 0.
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 21 2005,2:52 pm
GW's so-called 'War on Terra' will play out as effectively as Reagan's so-called 'War on Drugs'. It will be as effective as someone trying to take out a swarm of locusts with a Daisy BB gun. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how the Muslim extremist mindset works can see this. A more effective strategy might follow along the lines of figuring out what aspects of U.S. foreign policy really inflame these people. No, the tired, old argument that "they hate us for our freedoms" doesn't hold water.If the hypocritical and supposedly Christian right really wanted to put their money where their mouths were, they'd get out of the Middle East, and leave Israel to its own devices. (If God can't protect His chosen people, nobody can.)
But nobody wants to talk about why bin Laden and his ilk are mad at us. And if you think Britney Spears and loose morals have something to do with it, you couldn't be more off the beam.
Read Michael Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. When you've finished that, read Alan M. Dershowitz' book Why Terrorism Works.
Posted by Ned Kelly on Dec. 21 2005,4:25 pm
As this story plays out, the Bush administration looks more and more like the Nixon administration. What will the coming chapters reveal?.... ............ned
Posted by GEOKARJO on Dec. 21 2005,4:29 pm
< Short News Clip on Iraq >
Posted by Wareagle11B on Dec. 21 2005,4:39 pm
Botto you are correct in that it goes beyond the mere "hating us for our freedoms" line. It isn't just our support for Israel either although that is a very major part of it. The hatred that Bin Laden and his ilk feel towards us is a combination of so much more than just what is being said by politicians and so called "think-tank" experts. We did satisfy one of the demands that so many Muslims have made by withdrawing our troops from Saudi Arabia the Islamic holy land. What many people fail to realize however is that so much of the middle east is sacred to Islam due to the fact that the history of their religion goes beyond just Saudi Arabia. Baghdad at one time was the seat of Islamic power when the Caliph (their Religious leader) resided in that city, Herat Afghanistan has the Blue Mosque which ranks as one of the top 10 holiest sites in Islam, Qom Iran has a major Shia Theological university where many of the top Shiite Ayatollahs, including Khomeini, studied and Karballah Iraq is holy to Shiites as well. So much of the middle east is holy to Muslims so it would perhaps be best if we left them to their own devices yes.
Posted by Gomer on Dec. 22 2005,8:30 am
Thats an interesting video clip George. I tried to find out some more details about it but I can't. Its posted on every conservative blog and it aired on Britt Hume's commentary program on Fox. I find it interesting that they found a women in non traditional garb who spoke english in Iraq. Since it is fox news I question where this video was shot. I wouldn't doubt that she lives in Chicago and was voting from abroad. Is it cold in Iraq this time of year? It must be since she is wearing a large winter coat & scarf. A quick check of the weather.com site says Baghdads current temp in the middle of the night there is 68 degrees. With no backstory available whatsoever this clip screams propaganda.
Also, although interesting, this has nothing to do with Bush's spying on us.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 22 2005,9:20 am
I can't believe there are 17 people that believe what the Bush administration did was okay. You 17 people need to read the following documents because you're obviously confused about the powers we give our government, and what powers we reserve for the citizens.
THE VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS,
| Quote |
SEC. 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. < http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm > |
The United States Constitution.
| Quote |
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. < http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm > |
Ponet's Treatise on Political powers
| Quote |
A king may no more commit idolatry than a private man: he may not take the name of God in vain, he may not break the Sabbath, no more than any private man. It is not lawful for him to disobey his parents, to kill any person contrary to God's laws, to be a whoremonger, to steal, to lie and bear false witness, to desire and covet any man's house, wife, servant, maid, ox, ass, or anything that belongs to another, more than any other private man. No, he is bound and charged under great pains to keep them more than any other, because he is both a private man in respect of his own person, and a public figure in respect to his office, which may appear in a great many places which I will recite. < http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ponet/polpower.htm > |
US Declaration of Independence
| Quote |
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. < http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm > |
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Dec. 22 2005,11:21 am
| Quote |
| But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. |
A-F'in-men
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 22 2005,3:50 pm
From the Chicago Tribune--Schmidt was the Associate Attorney General for the U.S. under President Clinton.| Quote |
| President had legal authority to OK taps By John Schmidt Published December 21, 2005 President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents. The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation. 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. But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power." FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment. Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose. But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again. ---------- John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. |
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 22 2005,3:58 pm
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "foreign" ?
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 22 2005,4:31 pm
Were these not "international" calls--some to foreign nationals?| Quote |
| Main Entry: for·eign Function: adjective : not being within the jurisdiction of a political unit (as a state); especially : being from or in a state other than the one in which a matter is being considered <a foreign company doing business in South Carolina> <a foreign executor submitting to the jurisdiction of this court> <a foreign judgment> |
From the Washington Times< http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm >
Regarding Jamie "Firewall" Gorelick
| Quote |
| "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 and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps. |
Foreign? In Clinton's case, he extended it to DOMESTIC
cases, as well. | Quote |
| Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority. One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants. In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects. Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security. In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government. That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases |
SIX Federal Courts upheld the decision, the Clinton and Carter administrations used it, it was upheld by Clinton's Deputy Attorney General , Clinton expanded it to include DOMESTIC spying--but now, when Bush uses it (effectively) in a post 9/11 climate, libbies jump all over it.
MORE HYPOCRITICAL FLIP/FLOPPING OF LIBERALS!
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 08 2006,11:27 am
1. NewsMax Poll: Bush Justified in Wiretapping Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's authorization to the National Security Agency to tap the private conversations of U.S. citizens to search for evidence of terrorist activity, an exclusive NewsMax.com poll reveals.
In one of the largest responses to a NewsMax poll ever, more than 150,000 people across the Internet have made their opinions known about this controversy.
And they resoundingly say that the President was justified in taking this action to protect America.
Here is a breakdown of the poll results for several key questions:
1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens?
Justified - 80%
Not Justified - 20%
2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap?
Yes - 23%
No - 72%
Not Sure - 5%
3) Do you believe President Bush's claim that he undertook this action to protect America?
Yes - 83%
No - 17%
4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush's actions?
Fair - 20%
Unfair - 80%
Posted by Liberal on Jan. 08 2006,11:28 am
It's from newsmax.com, hardly a credible source.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 08 2006,2:26 pm
Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Jan. 3-5, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1..
"Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?"
.
Required To Without a
Get Warrant Monitor Warrant Unsure
56% 42% 2%
Posted by Older and Wiser on Jan. 08 2006,3:07 pm
Condi Rice, "I'm not an attorney" 3x. BS, Political Science, PHD University of Denver, International Studies, MS University of Notre Dame, Political Science. George W, BS History, Yale, MBA, Harvard. (Thank you, thank you, thank you, they are NOT attorneys.) Now remember Bill and Hillary?
Who could forget the memorable. "It, does not mean it" referring to a quote during his impeachment hearings.
Posted by Older and Wiser on Jan. 08 2006,3:07 pm
Condi Rice, "I'm not an attorney" 3x. BS, Political Science, PHD University of Denver, International Studies, MS University of Notre Dame, Political Science. George W, BS History, Yale, MBA, Harvard. (Thank you, thank you, thank you, they are NOT attorneys.) Now remember Bill and Hillary? Who could forget the memorable. "It, does not mean it" referring to a quote during his impeachment hearings.
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 08 2006,3:56 pm
Compared to Spygate, what the definition of is, is, hardly applies....
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 09 2006,4:04 pm
| Quote (Ex-Patriot @ Jan. 08 2006,3:56pm) |
| Compared to Spygate, what the definition of is, is, hardly applies.... |
Still betting that there will be an impeachment of our President???
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 10 2006,4:11 am
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Jan. 09 2006,4:04pm) | ||
Still betting that there will be an impeachment of our President??? |
In the U.S. the House of Representatives can bring articles of impeachment against federal officials, including the president. Trial is by the Senate, which must convict by a two-thirds margin of the members present..
pissing in the wind or will dubya turn into the great uniter he told us he'd be...
Posted by REPOMAN on Jan. 10 2006,4:55 pm
I don't need an elementary school lesson from you on how an impeachment proceeding is brought about...we all just lived through one about 8 years ago...
my question is are you still saying that President Bush will be impeached...
it's a pretty easy question really - give it your best shot - a couple of weeks ago you were pretty sure of it...
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 11 2006,11:35 am
| Quote (REPOMAN @ Jan. 10 2006,4:55pm) |
| my question is are you still saying that President Bush will be impeached... : |
If the President continues to act as if 9/11 gave him license to be a dictator, side stepping the Constitution, carrying out impeachable actions, he will very likely reap the result. But a removal of the President which would put Cheney into power, would be a catastrophe.. So the answer to your question.....yes and no...
Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 11 2006,11:57 am
A former general has called for impeachment proceedings against Tony Blair, accusing the prime minister of misleading parliament and the public over the invasion of Iraq. General Sir Michael Rose, commander of UN forces in Bosnia in 1994, writes in today's Guardian: "The impeachment of Mr Blair is now something I believe must happen if we are to rekindle interest in the democratic process in this country once again". Britain was led into war on false pretences, he says. "It was a war that was to unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people and cause grave damage to the west's prospects in the wider war against global terror."
< Full Article >
Posted by dinomac on Sep. 04 2006,7:15 pm
I'd rather have a little invasion of privacy than the terrorists fighting us here on our soil! If the liberals get their way and cut back on what the government can and can't do, we can all look at a new way of life... won't look anything like the freedoms we now have... But by then, it will be too late. Yes... I don't care who listens in on my conversations... I'm not doing anything illegal... they wouldn't do it for long... too boring. They are only going to "bug" and listen to those people of "interest". Think of ALL the terrorists that have been stopped from killing thousands more Americans.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 04 2006,7:26 pm
| Quote (dinomac @ Sep. 04 2006,7:15pm) |
| I'd rather have a little invasion of privacy than the terrorists fighting us here on our soil! |
Sorry to have to break this to you, but that is what we are living right now.
With a blanket 'allow' policy, who is going to keep the checks and balances in place as far as who gets listened in on?
Would a racial profile give ample reason to eavesdrop on someone?
Would a personal oppinion posted on an internet forum board give ample reason?
How about if you posted something negative about local government's actions, would that give the green light to eavesdrop on your life because you chose to voice your oppinion and since it went against local government you may be a terrorist? (currently a right we still hold, so far.)
Posted by This is my real name on Sep. 04 2006,9:23 pm
Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. Step out of line, the man come and take you away.
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Sep. 04 2006,9:32 pm
Not paranoia, a realistic scenario if a blanket policy is put into law.Very typical of the fox watching the hen house.
Posted by This is my real name on Sep. 04 2006,9:35 pm
| Quote (Ole1kanobe @ Sep. 04 2006,9:32pm) |
| Not paranoia, a realistic scenario if a blanket policy is put into law. Very typical of the fox watching the hen house. |
I realize that. I used the word "paranoia" very tongue-in-cheek. I should have placed the emphasis on the last sentence in that post - because they will come and take you away, if you are labelled as a "terrorist".
Posted by Ned Kelly on Sep. 05 2006,5:07 am
"Terrorist, terrorist", The mantra of the neocons to scare the people and to keep themselve in office. A frightened populace is easier to govern. If you don't agree with our policy you could be a "terrorist". Terrorist is the Boogyman's new name....... 
........ned
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 05 2006,1:13 pm
| Quote |
| If you don't agree with our policy you could be a "terrorist". |
More liberal "It COULD happen!" fear-mongering from the party of CHICKEN (the sky is falling!) LITTLE.
No WONDER the left is against this--every time people are asked who is better at keeping the country safe, LEFTIES LOSE AGAIN!
Posted by Botto 82 on Sep. 05 2006,2:10 pm
| Quote (jimhanson @ Sep. 05 2006,1:13pm) | ||
More liberal "It COULD happen!" fear-mongering from the party of CHICKEN (the sky is falling!) LITTLE. No WONDER the left is against this--every time people are asked who is better at keeping the country safe, LEFTIES LOSE AGAIN! |
How many innocent Afghani and Iraqi and God-knows-what-other-nationality people are interred at Gitmo? I'll bet you're willing to believe none. MPR had a series of interviews with recently released detainees that had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's "War on Terra".
None of us matter to amBushCo, as none of us here are CEO's of large oil conglomerates or pharmaceutical companies. We could be locked up in some Koncentration Kamp, and these assclowns couldn't care less.
The American Century is over. Get used to it.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 05 2006,5:30 pm
Don't forget what the title to this thread is: | Quote |
| Poll Question: Should President George Bush have the authority to authorize secret eavesdropping on American citizens |
I'll go back to the question you didn't answer
| Quote |
| In 5 YEARS, how many "innocent" Americans have been prosecuted under terrorist laws? |
| Quote |
| We could be locked up in some Koncentration Kamp, and these assclowns couldn't care less. |
The REALITY--NO INNOCENT AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS BEEN UNJUSTLY CONVICTED UNDER THIS PROCEDURE--but terrorists HAVE been stopped by it--the most famous being the plot on the Brooklyn Bridge.
"Sky is falling", "we're all going to go to concentration camp" conspiracy theorists need to get a GRIP--the impersonal MACHINE checks for repetitive words or specific words--NOT UNLIKE THE GOOGLE SYSTEM WE ALL USE EVERY DAY. That ALSO checks documents for inclusion of specific words--but nobody seems to think THAT is "intrusive". You go through far more intrusive inspection every time you get on an airplane--and with the proliferation of security cameras, your movements are tracked more than you know--but nobody complains about THAT!
Once these sources are identified, and ONLY THEN, the line is checked (AGAIN, by a MACHINE) to see if one end of the connection is overseas. THEN it goes to a FISA court for a wiretap order. That's TWO machine filters (without anybody listening in) and a Federal judge panel before anyone can even listen to the conversation (let alone take any action). I'd say that is pretty secure and free from abuse--as the record demonstrates.
Contrast that with the security measures the LIBERAL FDR used during WW II. Wholesale roundup of thousands of American-born Japanese. FBI background checks on American-born people of German descent. Outright CONFISCATION of property for "the war effort"--no excuses, no explanation, just be gone. CENSORSHIP of the newspapers, radio, film, and even LETTERS HOME FROM OVERSEAS. Telephone calls were subject to MONITORING by FBI agents--no machine filtering for THEM! National identity papers to "prove" you are who you say you are--so you can get your RATIONED goods.
Having the machines and FISA courts looks pretty tame by comparison, doesn't it? Once again, LIBERALS JUST DON'T SEEM TO REALIZE THERE'S A WAR ON--a war where people are doing their level best to intimidate us, wreck our economy, and kill us.
You don't hear much from the Donks on this issue any more--like so many of their Wile E. Coyote plans, it backfired on them. MOST people are IN FAVOR of monitoring calls from terrorists overseas, or tracking their money. The Donks quickly dropped the issue.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 05 2006,10:13 pm
| Quote (jimhanson @ Sep. 05 2006,5:30pm) |
| Once these sources are identified, and ONLY THEN, the line is checked (AGAIN, by a MACHINE) to see if one end of the connection is overseas. THEN it goes to a FISA court for a wiretap order. That's TWO machine filters (without anybody listening in) and a Federal judge panel before anyone can even listen to the conversation (let alone take any action). I'd say that is pretty secure and free from abuse--as the record demonstrates. |
It seems that even the Judges on the FISA court would disagree with you on this one.
< Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers - Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping >
| Quote |
| Several judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said they want to hear directly from administration officials why President Bush believed he had the authority to order, without the court's permission, wiretapping of some phone calls and e-mails after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Of serious concern to several judges is whether any information gleaned from intercepts by the National Security Agency was later used to gain their permission for wiretaps without the source being disclosed. |
You know it's bad when even Judges on the FISA court are questioning the Presidents domestic surveillance program.
| Quote |
| You go through far more intrusive inspection every time you get on an airplane |
Apples to Oranges... People don't have an expectation of privacy when going through airport security. Legally, there's a huge difference between bomb sniffing dogs and metal detectors in airports, and domestic wiretaps used without following the already loose conditions of FISA.
I was in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh during a commercial break from Garage Logic, and Rush was using the same arguments you are to defend the Presidents wiretapping program.
| Quote |
| In 5 YEARS, how many "innocent" Americans have been prosecuted under terrorist laws? I don't know of ANY--do YOU? |
No, I don't know of any. More importantly though, why do you think people have to be proven "innocent" before they have a reasonable right to privacy?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 06 2006,1:43 pm
Judges--That was in January. As I understand it, the administration told them that there was no human "listening in" without a "hit" from the machine. Nothing has come out in the last 8 months--it must have satisfied them.Regarding my statement that it is more intrusive every time you go through airport security, or are filmed by surveillance cameras, you said
| Quote |
| People don't have an expectation of privacy when going through airport security. Legally, there's a huge difference between bomb sniffing dogs and metal detectors in airports, and domestic wiretaps used without following the already loose conditions of FISA. |
| Quote |
| I was in the car listening to Rush Limbaugh during a commercial break from Garage Logic, and Rush was using the same arguments you are to defend the Presidents wiretapping program. |
Second--maybe that would make TWO OF US WHO ARE RIGHT. With regard to my question whether ANYBODY had been falsely proven guilty during the 5 years of this ONEROUS ACT:
you replied | Quote |
| No, I don't know of any. More importantly though, why do you think people have to be proven "innocent" before they have a reasonable right to privacy? |
Can you imagine, in WW II, if someone had suggested that we shouldn't listen in on suspected German or Japanese spies in the U.S.? Or better yet--we broke the German code (Enigma) and the Japanese code (Purple) and were able to "listen in" on their orders--can you imagine the ACLU saying "We can't do that?"
One more time--LIBBIES DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS A WAR. Like Clinton, they want to fight it like a civil action. I have to ask--what do the DONKS believe is an acceptable way to fight terrorists?
This is a program that has been PROVEN effective. In 5 years, despite all of the BILLIONS of phone calls, not one person has been falsely imprisoned due to this act--and the Donks think that this is an affront to civil liberties?
Compare that record to Freeborn County.
Posted by Looking_In on Sep. 07 2006,11:20 am
nuf said
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 07 2006,11:36 am
Is that like the Dem theme song--"MOVE ON" ? Every time they find themselves in a hole, it's "move on"--don't want to talk about it.This is an important issue--CERTAIN to be an election issue. There is a lot of misinformation out there Let both sides air it out.
Posted by TheTruth on Sep. 07 2006,11:42 am
| Quote (jimhanson @ Sep. 07 2006,11:36am) |
| There is a lot of misinformation out there |
< Full Article >
| Quote |
| U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced repeated questions about the allegations during her recent trip to Europe but denied that the United States used European airspace or airports to transport detainees to countries where officials believed they would be tortured. Rice also denied that U.S. personnel engaged in torture, saying that U.S. interrogators abided by the Geneva Conventions. |
Posted by Looking_In on Sep. 07 2006,11:44 am
Who said it was directed at the republican point of view? Someone is quick to jump to assumptions....
I am actually not democratic nor republican. I have an open view on factual issues and do not base my opinion on mere beliefs.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 07 2006,4:05 pm
Truth--what in the world does that have to do with the theme of this thread? To remind you, it's | Quote |
| Poll Question: Should President George Bush have the authority to authorize secret eavesdropping on American citizens? |
| Quote |
| Who said it was directed at the republican point of view? Someone is quick to jump to assumptions.... |
Posted by Looking_In on Sep. 07 2006,4:27 pm
Jim, that was accidently posted on this board. That was supposed to be a response that someone had Instant messaged me about. I had the forum posting page open for this post at the time and the cursur was in the posting box.
**Have to many things going on at one time**Sorry for the confusion.
Now back to your regularly scheduled political awareness debates....
<~Beer = good