Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gman8343

Reports: Bush Authorized NSA to Spy in U.S.

Recommended Posts

I am a law abiding citizen, so I have no problem here.

Yes. Take your medication and go back to sleep. The government will take care of everything.

I don't understand responses like this. All that happened was the president authorized an agency that normally spies outside US borders and on foreign officials located in the US to also spy on private citizens inside the US who are suspected of being terrorists. Bush didn't authorize the NSA to conduct spying on anyone they wish. And he didn't authorize them to do any more than "electronic" surveillance of international telephone calls and international e-mails. Something which the NSA already had the capability to do.

What medication is it that I'm supposed to be taking?

Stasi...KGB...NSA...Don't worry about it! It could never happen here...

The point is...is that it MAY be illegal. The President is not above the law...and MAY be p*ssing in the face of our system of checks and balances. May as well BE a dictator...if he can do whatever he wants 'cause he's the PRESIDENT... :no:

Flick on the hand - law of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a wartime Prez.  He's doing nothing different than FDR did.

FDR actually was at war. Congress - as the Constitution mandates - declared war twice in 1941. Bush is at war 'cause he SAYS so...and most in Congress supinely agreed to LET him say so... :hot:

So Bush isn't at war?

Bush is at war...with the demons in his head...with his Dad...with the Constitution and the American people. Yes...Bush is at war. :thumbdown:

your logic was a bit convoluted there, you said it was ok when FDR was "at war", then you say Bush is at war because he "says so", yet then immediately point out that Congress agreed to go to war. So really, you just like to contradict yourself. The nice thing is it only took you 2 sentences to do so, rather than like 8 paragraphs so thanks for saving us all the gobbledy #####.

Read it again...slower this time, Tommy. :loco:

so I ask again, is Bush at war? You're failure to answer the question seriously implies that you do not want to step into the trap you set for yourself here. You have implied that Bush is not at war, so therefore his "doing nothing different than FDR did" is not the same as what FDR did, because Bush being not at war somehow deligitimizes his actions hence. Now if you imply that Bush is not at war and then fail to back up your argument with evidence, then you are not a serious commentator, just a hack throwing stones.

My simple point is: IMHO...Our nation is not at war...in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress. Thus...whatever Constitutional powers the President declares are his...as Commander-in-Chief during "war time" are illegitimate.

Congress gave the president the authority to pursue a war. We do not need a formal declaration to be at war, your "opinion" notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a wartime Prez.  He's doing nothing different than FDR did.

FDR actually was at war. Congress - as the Constitution mandates - declared war twice in 1941. Bush is at war 'cause he SAYS so...and most in Congress supinely agreed to LET him say so... :hot:

So Bush isn't at war?

Bush is at war...with the demons in his head...with his Dad...with the Constitution and the American people. Yes...Bush is at war. :thumbdown:

your logic was a bit convoluted there, you said it was ok when FDR was "at war", then you say Bush is at war because he "says so", yet then immediately point out that Congress agreed to go to war. So really, you just like to contradict yourself. The nice thing is it only took you 2 sentences to do so, rather than like 8 paragraphs so thanks for saving us all the gobbledy #####.

Read it again...slower this time, Tommy. :loco:

so I ask again, is Bush at war? You're failure to answer the question seriously implies that you do not want to step into the trap you set for yourself here. You have implied that Bush is not at war, so therefore his "doing nothing different than FDR did" is not the same as what FDR did, because Bush being not at war somehow deligitimizes his actions hence. Now if you imply that Bush is not at war and then fail to back up your argument with evidence, then you are not a serious commentator, just a hack throwing stones.

My simple point is: IMHO...Our nation is not at war...in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress. Thus...whatever Constitutional powers the President declares are his...as Commander-in-Chief during "war time" are illegitimate.

Congress gave the president the authority to pursue a war. We do not need a formal declaration to be at war, your "opinion" notwithstanding.

Yours neither, of course... :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My simple point is: IMHO...Our nation is not at war...in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress. Thus...whatever Constitutional powers the President declares are his...as Commander-in-Chief during "war time" are illegitimate.

The Supreme Court held that the president can declare war and unilaterally send troops into battle. There has been no congressional declaration of war since WWII, therefore all the presidents during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1st Gulf War under your definition were acting illigitimately.

the president has constitutional commander in chief powers, he has them, period. Not just this president, any president.

I guess I just disagree that FDR was any better or worse than Bush based on a declaration of war. And I also have a contention with your assertion we aren't at war. I consider the fight against Al Qaeda a war, and further the two military theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan to be war zones.

Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1998.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a Christmas party tonight and everyone agreed. Law abiding people have nothing to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a Christmas party tonight and everyone agreed. Law abiding people have nothing to worry about.

What did they think of your Ollie North thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush today:

He acknowledged during the address that he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."

Sounds like he was prosecuting the war on terror.

You're making a mistake, on these boards that war was long, long ago, and no longer exists. We are safe, be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
War Powers Act History...

(November 7, 1973), law prescribing the balance of power between the president and Congress in declaring war. The act requires the president to inform Congress within forty-eight hours of military action in a hostile area. Forces must be removed within sixty to ninety days unless Congress approves of the action or declares war. The resolution, prompted by the aggressive actions of Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon without congressional approval or a declaration of war during the Vietnam War, was passed over Nixon's veto.

I believe Congress gave the President a resolution of force before any invasion took place therefore they pre-approved it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you Koya. I think this is a huge over-stepping of the constitution and our civil liberties. I sensed the administration was heading this direction when they passed the Patriot Act in the first place. Now that it has shown true, good luck in getting the 60 votes needed to pass some new version of the Patriot Act. The process to get the warrants was an easy thing to do. That keeps everything above board. Right now the executive branch has unlimited power to spy on anyone (and reports show that has included peace activists, etc that have zero connection to terrorism). I don't need the government secretly spying on Americans. If they want to do it, they should be required to show cause and get a warrant. It's that simple. If they believe that person is linked to terrorists, then they have cause. FISA has granted those warrants / wiretaps all the time for just cause. Spying on peace activists likely would not be approved though and that is what the problem is.If I was a Senator, I would veto all versions of the Patriot Act that allow this abuse of power. I am actually pleased that some Republican Senators have joined in this fight. For those that do not see this, what if the government changed to all Democrats and they decided that since terrorists all use guns, the government wants to use surveillence on everyone that owns a gun (since some of these people are clearly using those guns for bad things). That is the slippery slope. Show just cause and get a warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you Koya. I think this is a huge over-stepping of the constitution and our civil liberties. I sensed the administration was heading this direction when they passed the Patriot Act in the first place. Now that it has shown true, good luck in getting the 60 votes needed to pass some new version of the Patriot Act. The process to get the warrants was an easy thing to do. That keeps everything above board. Right now the executive branch has unlimited power to spy on anyone (and reports show that has included peace activists, etc that have zero connection to terrorism).

I don't need the government secretly spying on Americans. If they want to do it, they should be required to show cause and get a warrant. It's that simple. If they believe that person is linked to terrorists, then they have cause. FISA has granted those warrants / wiretaps all the time for just cause. Spying on peace activists likely would not be approved though and that is what the problem is.

If I was a Senator, I would veto all versions of the Patriot Act that allow this abuse of power. I am actually pleased that some Republican Senators have joined in this fight.

For those that do not see this, what if the government changed to all Democrats and they decided that since terrorists all use guns, the government wants to use surveillence on everyone that owns a gun (since some of these people are clearly using those guns for bad things). That is the slippery slope. Show just cause and get a warrant.

Wasn't the government using surveillence on the Branch Davidians in Waco because of their guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My simple point is: IMHO...Our nation is not at war...in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress.  Thus...whatever Constitutional powers the President declares are his...as Commander-in-Chief during "war time" are illegitimate.

The Supreme Court held that the president can declare war and unilaterally send troops into battle. There has been no congressional declaration of war since WWII, therefore all the presidents during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1st Gulf War under your definition were acting illigitimately.

the president has constitutional commander in chief powers, he has them, period. Not just this president, any president.

I guess I just disagree that FDR was any better or worse than Bush based on a declaration of war. And I also have a contention with your assertion we aren't at war. I consider the fight against Al Qaeda a war, and further the two military theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan to be war zones.

Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1998.

Please :link: me to this Supreme Court ruling...or rulings. Seriously - if you've time and inclination. Bueno says the same thing...and I simply find that hard to believe...and can't find otherwise. I DO in fact, believe Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton and both Bushes were/are "warring" illegally...to the very great detriment to our nation. The Constitution seems clear on who can declare a state of war...that being, of course...THE PEOPLE'S representatives.

In the absence of certitude from the Supremes on this question...I'll go with what I "know" and what feels right...ignorant or not...! ;)

Enough hijack, I guess... :hophead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you Koya. I think this is a huge over-stepping of the constitution and our civil liberties. I sensed the administration was heading this direction when they passed the Patriot Act in the first place. Now that it has shown true, good luck in getting the 60 votes needed to pass some new version of the Patriot Act. The process to get the warrants was an easy thing to do. That keeps everything above board. Right now the executive branch has unlimited power to spy on anyone (and reports show that has included peace activists, etc that have zero connection to terrorism).

I don't need the government secretly spying on Americans. If they want to do it, they should be required to show cause and get a warrant. It's that simple. If they believe that person is linked to terrorists, then they have cause. FISA has granted those warrants / wiretaps all the time for just cause. Spying on peace activists likely would not be approved though and that is what the problem is.

If I was a Senator, I would veto all versions of the Patriot Act that allow this abuse of power. I am actually pleased that some Republican Senators have joined in this fight.

For those that do not see this, what if the government changed to all Democrats and they decided that since terrorists all use guns, the government wants to use surveillence on everyone that owns a gun (since some of these people are clearly using those guns for bad things). That is the slippery slope. Show just cause and get a warrant.

As worrisome as it is to have a President abuse his powers (or at least act in a manner where such abuse could easily occur, since there is no check or balance, and we should all know that power corrupts, which is why it is so utterly important to keep those checks and balances), is the propensity for those who align themselves with the President politically to protect these actions.

Like I said, Conservative my ###. Less government power, unless he's my guy!

Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a Christmas party tonight and everyone agreed. Law abiding people have nothing to worry about.

Is this sarcasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a Christmas party tonight and everyone agreed. Law abiding people have nothing to worry about.

Is this sarcasm?

I'd put the money on fishing, or naivete (read: Stupidity)

Really not sure which, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys are aware, the wingnuts are already trying to spin this story by infusing it with a key falsehood. (I suspect even the conservative bloggers and neocons think Bush might be in some serious trouble. After all, they have to lie in order to defend him.)

READ ABOUT IT HERE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, I am shocked. Bush is going after the messenger.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.

Once again, when you #### up, just discredit whomever had the sense of duty to let the truth be told. Honestly, our President is, imo, just not intelligent enough to understand all the nuances that are so important for the modern Presidency during an era of war and a sophisticated world political and economic structure.

Worse yet, he doesnt even understand the ideals of accountability (never had it prior to this job, where he would either have responsibilities shifted away from him, or have failures rewarded or at the least not punished), what freedom and Liberty really mean, what the true American Ideal should stand for, what his OWN ideology is supposed to preach (conservativism, less government, less spending) and when he is confronted with someone that DOES try to hold him accountable, he seems to always go after that source, discredit it, do harm to that source as opposed to either stating his case diplomatically with openness and honesty while trying to harm the source almost as a deterrent to other potential whistle blowers.

Man, this is one sad Presidency. History is going to be more harsh toward Bush than even I realized, but a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My simple point is: IMHO...Our nation is not at war...in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress. Thus...whatever Constitutional powers the President declares are his...as Commander-in-Chief during "war time" are illegitimate.

The Supreme Court held that the president can declare war and unilaterally send troops into battle. There has been no congressional declaration of war since WWII, therefore all the presidents during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1st Gulf War under your definition were acting illigitimately.

the president has constitutional commander in chief powers, he has them, period. Not just this president, any president.

I guess I just disagree that FDR was any better or worse than Bush based on a declaration of war. And I also have a contention with your assertion we aren't at war. I consider the fight against Al Qaeda a war, and further the two military theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan to be war zones.

Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1998.

Please :link: me to this Supreme Court ruling...or rulings. Seriously - if you've time and inclination. Bueno says the same thing...and I simply find that hard to believe...and can't find otherwise. I DO in fact, believe Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton and both Bushes were/are "warring" illegally...to the very great detriment to our nation. The Constitution seems clear on who can declare a state of war...that being, of course...THE PEOPLE'S representatives.

In the absence of certitude from the Supremes on this question...I'll go with what I "know" and what feels right...ignorant or not...! ;)

Enough hijack, I guess... :hophead:

here's a good start

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys are aware, the wingnuts are already trying to spin this story by infusing it with a key falsehood. (I suspect even the conservative bloggers and neocons think Bush might be in some serious trouble. After all, they have to lie in order to defend him.)

READ ABOUT IT HERE.

Just because one idiot blogger is not focusing on the correct portion of FISA, doesn't mean that your idiot blogger has it right either.

Electronic surveillance under FISA is defined as:

the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States

50 USC Sec. 1801(f)(3)

Bush authorized the NSA to surveil INTERNATIONAL telephone calls and e-mails. By definition, these communications do not fall under FISA.

Please panties, quit relying on people just as misinformed as you to support your attempts to misinform the FBGs who will not do their own research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, when you #### up, just discredit whomever had the sense of duty to let the truth be told.

How did Bush #### up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, when you #### up, just discredit whomever had the sense of duty to let the truth be told.

How did Bush #### up?

I meant the past failings of this administration. Be it mission accomplished, fudging health care figures, outing wives of strong dissenters or building a false / disingenuious case for war.

This administration has a pattern of behavior that I find rather repulsive. This has nothing to do with ideology by the way. Another example of how different father and son have been during their time as President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you guys are aware, the wingnuts are already trying to spin this story by infusing it with a key falsehood. (I suspect even the conservative bloggers and neocons think Bush might be in some serious trouble. After all, they have to lie in order to defend him.)

READ ABOUT IT HERE.

Just because one idiot blogger is not focusing on the correct portion of FISA, doesn't mean that your idiot blogger has it right either.

Electronic surveillance under FISA is defined as:

the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States

50 USC Sec. 1801(f)(3)

Bush authorized the NSA to surveil INTERNATIONAL telephone calls and e-mails. By definition, these communications do not fall under FISA.

Please panties, quit relying on people just as misinformed as you to support your attempts to misinform the FBGs who will not do their own research.

Talk about dissembling...

Here are the OTHER 3 definitions of "electronic surveillance"...

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...01----000-.html

We all ride our high horses sometimes... :hophead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone found an actual broken law yet?

No? Carry on then.

The fact that a President with the track record of this administration has made these admissions is of no concern to you whatsoever?

That is awfully trusting of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a wartime Prez.  He's doing nothing different than FDR did.

FDR actually was at war. Congress - as the Constitution mandates - declared war twice in 1941. Bush is at war 'cause he SAYS so...and most in Congress supinely agreed to LET him say so... :hot:

So Bush isn't at war?

Bush is at war...with the demons in his head...with his Dad...with the Constitution and the American people. Yes...Bush is at war. :thumbdown:

your logic was a bit convoluted there, you said it was ok when FDR was "at war", then you say Bush is at war because he "says so", yet then immediately point out that Congress agreed to go to war. So really, you just like to contradict yourself. The nice thing is it only took you 2 sentences to do so, rather than like 8 paragraphs so thanks for saving us all the gobbledy #####.

Read it again...slower this time, Tommy. :loco:

so I ask again, is Bush at war? You're failure to answer the question seriously implies that you do not want to step into the trap you set for yourself here. You have implied that Bush is not at war, so therefore his "doing nothing different than FDR did" is not the same as what FDR did, because Bush being not at war somehow deligitimizes his actions hence. Now if you imply that Bush is not at war and then fail to back up your argument with evidence, then you are not a serious commentator, just a hack throwing stones.

My simple point is: IMHO...Our nation is not at war...in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress. Thus...whatever Constitutional powers the President declares are his...as Commander-in-Chief during "war time" are illegitimate.

OK, we aren't at war...nor are we under attack...nor are there plots to kill Americans here at home...nor are there sleeper cells...buildings fell in New York because of outdated building codes. With or without the formal declaration, the Prez still has his Constitutional obligations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone found an actual broken law yet?

No?  Carry on then.

The fact that a President with the track record of this administration has made these admissions is of no concern to you whatsoever?

That is awfully trusting of you.

what a racket

drum up phony charge after phony charge. Baseless allegation after baseless allegation to create the impression of smoke. And then when you drum up aphony controversy, you can say "look at his track record."

nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a simple question:What is the difference between "spying" and "surveillance"? Seriously. Are police officers and detectives needing to run to see a judge before they conduct a stake-out on a "person of interest" in a criminal case?I'm not defending Bush in any way! I just wonder what it actually means when Bush authorized "spying" in the United States...... :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone found an actual broken law yet?

No?  Carry on then.

The fact that a President with the track record of this administration has made these admissions is of no concern to you whatsoever?

That is awfully trusting of you.

what a racket

drum up phony charge after phony charge. Baseless allegation after baseless allegation to create the impression of smoke. And then when you drum up aphony controversy, you can say "look at his track record."

nice

Think what you want, I am in no mood to rehash 5 years of behavior and countless discussions on this very board. If you really think this particular president and administration with their particular and repeated pattern of behavior is all above board and straight with the American people, congress and what we stand for as a nation, you are entitlted to your belief.

But goodness, you are lying to yourself. Even if you want this guy in there ideologically, there must be some things that would concern you.

I suppose you had Carter apologists as well, back in the day... thankfully no message boards to save their pleas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think what you want, I am in no mood to rehash 5 years of behavior and countless discussions on this very board. If you really think this particular president and administration with their particular and repeated pattern of behavior is all above board and straight with the American people, congress and what we stand for as a nation, you are entitlted to your belief.But goodness, you are lying to yourself. Even if you want this guy in there ideologically, there must be some things that would concern you.I suppose you had Carter apologists as well, back in the day... thankfully no message boards to save their pleas.

Koya,I don't want to hear five years worth of stuff either, but what EXACTLY is the administration's "track record" related to these issues? Flawed intelligence related to Iraq and Al Qaeda/WMDs?! YES, though that was multiple levels of government and multiple administrations (Clinton and Bush), and the administration was acting upon the information they (thought) they had. Tightening the screws a half-turn TOO far to the right after 9/11? Probably. Some financial question-marks related to Dick Cheney's off-the-field activities?! Possibly. FEMA and New Orleans? Well, I'm more in the camp that the "locals" blew donkeys on that issue, but FEMA and (ultimately) the administration DO need to share some of that blame. However, 90+ percent of Bush's supposed "track record" is rumor and hearsay.Where there is smoke there is generally a fire, I'll give you that! However, until our society changes its laws to reflect "guilty until proven innocent", I wouldn't go so far as to throw Bush's "track record" on the table as Exhibit A....... <insert witty remark about Bush/Iraq and "guilty until proven innocent" here>. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think what you want, I am in no mood to rehash 5 years of behavior and countless discussions on this very board.  If you really think this particular president and administration with their particular and repeated pattern of behavior is all above board and straight with the American people, congress and what we stand for as a nation, you are entitlted to your belief.

But goodness, you are lying to yourself.  Even if you want this guy in there ideologically, there must be some things that would concern you.

I suppose you had Carter apologists as well, back in the day... thankfully no message boards to save their pleas.

Koya,

I don't want to hear five years worth of stuff either, but what EXACTLY is the administration's "track record" related to these issues? Flawed intelligence related to Iraq and Al Qaeda/WMDs?! YES, though that was multiple levels of government and multiple administrations (Clinton and Bush), and the administration was acting upon the information they (thought) they had. Tightening the screws a half-turn TOO far to the right after 9/11? Probably. Some financial question-marks related to Dick Cheney's off-the-field activities?! Possibly. FEMA and New Orleans? Well, I'm more in the camp that the "locals" blew donkeys on that issue, but FEMA and (ultimately) the administration DO need to share some of that blame. However, 90+ percent of Bush's supposed "track record" is rumor and hearsay.

Where there is smoke there is generally a fire, I'll give you that! However, until our society changes its laws to reflect "guilty until proven innocent", I wouldn't go so far as to throw Bush's "track record" on the table as Exhibit A....... <insert witty remark about Bush/Iraq and "guilty until proven innocent" here>.

:popcorn:

As I am watching football, really not into rehashing all the issues. I even mentioned them before - Iraq intelligence, the Plame issue, way back when they fudged numbers for their Healthcare proposal, sacking people who dissent within government agencies... there really are a lot of examples each of which has its own individual level of "proof" vs "smoke"

That said, I am not putting Bush on trial. I am stating that I have concerns. Granted, if he shared my ideologly, my concerns might not be as serious, although after this many potential abuses of power by an administration that has always been almot draconian in its methods, allowing for almost no transparency I would thinkr egardless my ideology I would be concerned.

Which is probably why Congress, which DOES align itself (majority wise) with the President is FINALLY feeling a bit uneasy itself, as is demonstrated by the recent quotes of republicans stating that they (congress) has been lax in its duties to check the Executive Branch.

Of course, it is this lax (read: non existent) oversite from Congress that makes us wonder more if the smoke is evidence of fire, or whether the smoke is not a cause for concern.

Sadly, no one has shown me that there is not cause for concern... so the smoke is still an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am watching football, really not into rehashing all the issues. I even mentioned them before - Iraq intelligence, the Plame issue, way back when they fudged numbers for their Healthcare proposal, sacking people who dissent within government agencies... there really are a lot of examples each of which has its own individual level of "proof" vs "smoke"That said, I am not putting Bush on trial. I am stating that I have concerns. Granted, if he shared my ideologly, my concerns might not be as serious, although after this many potential abuses of power by an administration that has always been almot draconian in its methods, allowing for almost no transparency I would thinkr egardless my ideology I would be concerned.Which is probably why Congress, which DOES align itself (majority wise) with the President is FINALLY feeling a bit uneasy itself, as is demonstrated by the recent quotes of republicans stating that they (congress) has been lax in its duties to check the Executive Branch.Of course, it is this lax (read: non existent) oversite from Congress that makes us wonder more if the smoke is evidence of fire, or whether the smoke is not a cause for concern.Sadly, no one has shown me that there is not cause for concern... so the smoke is still an issue.

Koya,I can agree with 100% of what you said in this post. :goodposting: That said, there are MILLIONS of people out there who have already "tried and convicted" Bush on any number of counts. They'll cite executive privilege or other items as justification for why no "concrete" evidence has been found in a great-many of the issues that have been raised. That said, anyone who does not feel a bit uneasy at seeing all of the "smoke" rising out of the White House has gone 180-degrees in the OTHER direction (innocent regardless of what evidence reveals itself). :no: What we will never probably know or understand is just how reliant the Bushies were on their Al Qaeda intelligence as a hold-over from the Clinton administration. I know that in every professional job I have had, it has taken me MONTHS to really get the hang of things and make my own strong mark on the job! Bush had been in office for around eight months when 9/11 happened....and the question I ALWAYS want to hear the answer to (but will never have the opportunity) is "What would Gore have done differently?!" As the World Trade Center was still smoldering, can you imagine the public outcry if Gore would have gotten up and said "We need the blessing of the U.N. Security Council before we respond."?! People wanted a strong response, and Bush delivered. Where things got derailed was how quickly we moved into Iraq without locating Bin Laden. Now Iran is starting to do a lot of sabre-rattling again.....so we'll see where all this goes. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spy on suspected terrorists inside the US?  Oh the horror!

They're not suspected terrorists. They're regular law-abiding US citizens.

:lmao: They all are until they blow someone up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spy on suspected terrorists inside the US?  Oh the horror!

They're not suspected terrorists. They're regular law-abiding US citizens.

:lmao: They all are until they blow someone up.

How do we know that the people who were "spyed" on were U.S. citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spy on suspected terrorists inside the US?  Oh the horror!

They're not suspected terrorists. They're regular law-abiding US citizens.

:lmao: They all are until they blow someone up.

How do we know that the people who were "spyed" on were U.S. citizens?

Have you been paying attention to this story at all? Do you watch the news? read newspapers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a simple question:

What is the difference between "spying" and "surveillance"? Seriously. Are police officers and detectives needing to run to see a judge before they conduct a stake-out on a "person of interest" in a criminal case?

I'm not defending Bush in any way! I just wonder what it actually means when Bush authorized "spying" in the United States...... :shrug:

Police do need a court order to tap someone's phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spy on suspected terrorists inside the US?  Oh the horror!

They're not suspected terrorists. They're regular law-abiding US citizens.

:lmao: They all are until they blow someone up.

WTF? You consider someone who's planning a terrorist attack law abiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spy on suspected terrorists inside the US?  Oh the horror!

They're not suspected terrorists. They're regular law-abiding US citizens.

:lmao: They all are until they blow someone up.

How do we know that the people who were "spyed" on were U.S. citizens?

Have you been paying attention to this story at all? Do you watch the news? read newspapers?

Not any more than his "brave leader" George, apparently :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spy on suspected terrorists inside the US?  Oh the horror!

They're not suspected terrorists. They're regular law-abiding US citizens.

:lmao: They all are until they blow someone up.

How do we know that the people who were "spyed" on were U.S. citizens?

Have you been paying attention to this story at all? Do you watch the news? read newspapers?

The hijackers on 9/11 were not U.S. citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting observations based on this article. I'll only exerpt the parts that are relevant to my observation.

"It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

President Bush and other administration officials also have said congressional leaders had been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it.

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Saturday that she had been told on several occasions about unspecified activities by the NSA. Pelosi said she expressed strong concerns at the time.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations

The last first. A narrowly-defined program used in a manner consistent with the law international communications of people inside the US with a clear link to terrorist organizations is exactly what we need to prevent further terrorist attacks. If that is what is happening, where is the problem?The more troubling aspect next: The Democrat leadership knew about the program and kept silent until it was politically expedient to speak out. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting observations based on this article. I'll only exerpt the parts that are relevant to my observation.

"It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President    Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

President Bush and other administration officials also have said congressional leaders had been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it.

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Saturday that she had been told on several occasions about unspecified activities by the NSA. Pelosi said she expressed strong concerns at the time.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations

The last first. A narrowly-defined program used in a manner consistent with the law international communications of people inside the US with a clear link to terrorist organizations is exactly what we need to prevent further terrorist attacks. If that is what is happening, where is the problem?

The more troubling aspect next: The Democrat leadership knew about the program and kept silent until it was politically expedient to speak out. What a bunch of hypocrites.

If these people had clear links to A-Q, then why not just get a warrant, instead of breaking the law? The president saying it isn't enough to make it so.

The president, acting as Commander in Chief, cannot overrule statute.

The government can't spy on American citizens without a warrant. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting observations based on this article. I'll only exerpt the parts that are relevant to my observation.

"It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

President Bush and other administration officials also have said congressional leaders had been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it.

Reid acknowledged he had been briefed on the four-year-old domestic spy program "a couple months ago" but insisted the administration bears full responsibility. Reid became Democratic leader in January.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Saturday that she had been told on several occasions about unspecified activities by the NSA. Pelosi said she expressed strong concerns at the time.

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used in a manner "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it targets only international communications of people inside the U.S. with "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations

The last first. A narrowly-defined program used in a manner consistent with the law international communications of people inside the US with a clear link to terrorist organizations is exactly what we need to prevent further terrorist attacks. If that is what is happening, where is the problem?

The more troubling aspect next: The Democrat leadership knew about the program and kept silent until it was politically expedient to speak out. What a bunch of hypocrites.

If these people had clear links to A-Q, then why not just get a warrant, instead of breaking the law? The president saying it isn't enough to make it so.

The president, acting as Commander in Chief, cannot overrule statute.

The government can't spy on American citizens without a warrant. End of story.

Repeating this ad nauseum does not make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the senate is now filibustering renewal of the Patriot Act. While legal, it seems quite cheap. Bush says he has the authority to warrant the taps. Until the Supremes say otherwise, it's legal. No one has brought forward any abuse of the warrants except for the existence of the warrants themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the senate is now filibustering renewal of the Patriot Act.  While legal, it seems quite cheap.  Bush says he has the authority to warrant the taps.  Until the Supremes say otherwise, it's legal.  No one has brought forward any abuse of the warrants except for the existence of the warrants themselves.

I suppose George could strangle a hooker with pig intenstines and take a crap on her stomach, but if he assured us it was legal, then by gum it would be legal unless the Supreme Court said otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the senate is now filibustering renewal of the Patriot Act. While legal, it seems quite cheap. Bush says he has the authority to warrant the taps. Until the Supremes say otherwise, it's legal. No one has brought forward any abuse of the warrants except for the existence of the warrants themselves.

In a 1972 case, the Supremes held that even in the face of great harm, the President is not allowed to authorize warrantless surveillance. U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 US 297

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=407&invol=297

It's long...but well worth the read.

I know..."9/11". :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick Cheney:

t's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

What a shameless moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Feingold on the Today show this morning. Interestingly, he said that he'd been in government for X years, and he'd never been more sure that a president had done something wrong than he is with this issue. Those are very strong words. He also talked about how the FISA allows for warrentless wire taps in exigent circumstances for a period of 72 hours. This gives the government time to get proper authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Services Court without losing a lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Feingold on the Today show this morning. Interestingly, he said that he'd been in government for X years, and he'd never been more sure that a president had done something wrong than he is with this issue. Those are very strong words. He also talked about how the FISA allows for warrentless wire taps in exigent circumstances for a period of 72 hours. This gives the government time to get proper authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Services Court without losing a lead.

That's what I don't get anout what the President may have done. It's not like FISC ever really clamps down on what warrants can be issued. I guess the more pressing question is, what's so special about these cases that FISC wouldn't give them the necessary warrants and if FISC wouldn't give them the warrants what/ who are they spying on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick Cheney:

t's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

What a shameless moron.

:rolleyes:

Your Bush hatred knows no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick Cheney:

t's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

What a shameless moron.

:rolleyes:

Your Bush hatred knows no bounds.

I think we just get a bit upset that the President that got re-elected against our greatest hopes admitted to spying on Americans even though that's probably illegal, and showed no remorse about it, even going so far as to say it was right and making up specious claims that he consulted Congress, which is clearly not the case.

I'd just like Republicans to ask themselves: what is freedom if the government is allowed to spy on you at their discretion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dick Cheney:

t's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

What a shameless moron.

:rolleyes:

Your Bush hatred knows no bounds.

I think we just get a bit upset that the President that got re-elected against our greatest hopes admitted to spying on Americans even though that's probably illegal, and showed no remorse about it, even going so far as to say it was right and making up specious claims that he consulted Congress, which is clearly not the case.

I'd just like Republicans to ask themselves: what is freedom if the government is allowed to spy on you at their discretion?

Yes, I'm sure they are spying on me and you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure they are spying on me and you.

That would depend on what books we check out at the library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.