George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

Randman your views are evidently way different then the vast majority of people that have spoken on this subject so far. Members of Congress on both sides are demanding answers and what was the legal justification. Not just blogs, but newspaper editorials across the country are critical. I have linked to a number of them on my blog. Bruce's Ideas, Thoughts and Observations. Careful the liberal viewpoints may permanently scar the psyche of conservatives.This president has decided that he is above the law. Do he and his handlers not understand that being president does not give one unlimited powers? Is there be a time and place where american citizens need to be surveilled? Sure there are. We have mechanisms for that. We have courts, we have search warrants and we have the police and the FBI. To have the NSA or CIA spying on US citizens in the US is wrong and illegal. He must be called to account. The administration needs to be shown that THEY are not above the law. It is not OK to break laws and and to deny civil liberties in the name of protecting America from terrorists. If we have our civil liberties destroyed and removed than those that want to destroy our way of life have won. President Bush has given the terrorists an overwhelming victory. He accuses his critics of waving a white flag and giving up. President Bush has become as effective as a fifth coulumn in the US. He has ineptly played into their hands and is actively helping to destroy the freedoms, liberties and way of life they so hate about the United States.

Please expand on this. Please cite souces and specifics.Thanks

HMMM NO. Not legally. Yes the capability is there, we know it is there, but to have the President authorize the use with our court approval is ILLEGAL. There is a huge difference about what can be done and what is ordered to be done or used.P.S. Why must you always be so rude and self-righteous. Get off the high horse.

Waste of time? Truth?
You are the rudest poster I think I have ever seen. I don't care if this is coffee house. You post assertions and statements but refuse to back them up with facts. You brought it up so it is up to you to support or retract. I asked for my personal knowledge what you were basing these broad unsubstantiated statements on. I guess if you do not have any proof or evidence(wow this aint the first time is it) then we should just ignore these statements from you. Anyone can say anything claiming it is true. The current administration does it all the time. The job of anyone interested in truth is to question. Force people to substantiate and validate their assertions and statements. The reason our country is in the position it is is because no one questioned. No one asked for the proof. No one pulled back the curtain to see who the wizard really is. The media failed us and we failed ourselves.
Therefore, if you are going to make assertions, comments or accusations, either back them up or expect me to be on your ass until you do. Do not insult my intelligence or education. I have done NOTHING to insult you, all I have ever done is asked you to back up your comments with hard facts and evidence. If you cannot handle that then maybe you should find something else to do with your time.

What did you want me to say about MI ultra or echelon? They exist? Yes, but legally to obtain and use info from them a search warrant is needed. We are discussing legality not capability. Another fine distinction you seem unable to grasp.I think I have made a decision to not debate with you any more. I do not need to spend my time with someone that refuses to be civil. You sound like a child and act like one. I will point out your glaring falsehoods on threads but will not reply to your rude posts. This speaks volumes. It shows you are incapable of listening to reasonable aqrguments. You have preconceived ideas and thoughts on every issue. You will not listen to reason, so it is senseless to debate with you. And still you do not reply to my original request for back up on your claims. So typical.Your mantra is truly "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

OK Randman a little bit of advice. Quit relying on Newsmax for your sources.
As for echelon here you go.
The Echelon Myth
Testimony given to Congress in 2000 (back when Republicans pretended to care about this sort of thing) by then FBI Director George Tenet would seem to indicate (surprise!) that NewsMax and the other apologists are wrong:I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency . There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.This message has been edited by Theodoric, 12-20-2005 04:29 PM

Based on what evidence? No one even knows who most of them are. The administration has done everything in such secrecy we do no know what they are using for evidence to justify saying they are suspected terrorists. What about Jose Padilla? He is a US citizen.Why is ROckefeller an idiot? What is the basis for that opinion?

I don't want hear any more of the argument that CLinton started Echelon in that puts him in same position as Bush.1) Even if it were true, it still doesnt make Bush ok to do it.
2) IT ISN"T EVEN TRUEUse critical analysis when you read stuff on the web. Drudge is not always correct and usually he isn't.What Drudge says:Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”What Clinton actually signed:Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.ThinkProgress

I don't beleive he ever went to Iraq. Would have been kind of stupid since Saddam wouldn't want anyone like that in Iraq. The thing is we have no idea what Padilla did. That is the issue he was held for 3 years with no charges. The government made some sort of announcement about a dirty bomb, but no evidence was ever announced.
Padilla, arrested as he stepped off a flight from Pakistan, was initially held on suspicion of planning a so-called "dirty bomb" attack inside the US. However the November 2005 indictment makes no mention of that allegation. Instead Padilla is charged with aiding terrorists and conspiracy to murder US nationals overseas.There is rule of law. Without that we are not a democratic country.

Then he deserves a day in court on why they originally held him.AS for Iraq. There is nothing, anywhere, that mentions he went to Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Pakistan, yes. Iraq, NO.
By the way YOU are the one that said he went to Iraq. SO, I believe it is up to you to provide the evidence. As for Saddam, if Padialla was Al Quaida, he would not want him in Iraq. No matter what the administration wants to say there is no link between Iraq and Osamma. Osama thought Saddam was as bad or worse than the West.
But you truly miss the whole point. There are laws, there are rules. Yes they have not always been followed in the past, but that in no way justifies what is happening now. If the gov't has such a good case against him, they should have charged him a long time ago. Not three years after he was detained.

I will give you Iraq, since this is the only source I have see it listed I will grant it to you.I pity your world view. THat world view is part of the problem we have now. We live in a society that is supposed to believe in "innocent until proven guilty". People like you ahve allowed the current administration to hijack our ideals, because YOU do not believe that. Why and how can you condemn him to death when there has been no evidence presented yet? And dont give me the BS about twentysomething idealist. That has nothing to do with any of this and is just an attempt by you to deflect. I am no twentysomething and no idealist. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the RESPONSIBILITY of citizens to demand they be followed. Just because something is done doesnt make it right and we shouldn't just accept it.

The link Tal supplied is an opinion. It is supportive of the presidents view. Tal has a way of taking anything that supports his view as gospel. There are a lot of conservatives that are very against the view expressed in the Tribune article.The funniest thing is who wrote the article They hate Clinton but are willing to use him and anything from his administration to justify themselves.This message has been edited by Theodoric, 12-22-2005 02:05 PM

I said it before on this thread.From post #27 Every day more information comes out about him and other conservatives that have been laying loose and fast by the rules. I post every day about this rogues gallery on my blog.
Bruce's Ideas, Thoughts and ObservationsI'd love to get peoples thoughts and ideas of what I have to say and what I choose to post about.

Tal,Read the reality of the op-ed piece you say justifies Bush. Do you understand what op-ed means. It is an opinion. It is not hard fact or law. OPINION. The facts behind the op-ed piece Tal referenced

Then he had Brown killed in a plane crash?
Is there proof or is this some sort of right wing conspiracy theory?
I suppose you have proof that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed too.But that is neither here or there. I have given no Dems a pass on spying. If something had come out like is coming out now, I would have been strongly against. Probably more than I am now, because it is worse to be deceived by people you want to trust.The argument that other presidents did this or that holds no water. Reps are so quick to jump on Dems, but refuse to face the fact their people are crooks and criminals.