Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,469 Year: 3,726/9,624 Month: 597/974 Week: 210/276 Day: 50/34 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 59 of 220 (271127)
12-20-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
12-17-2005 6:11 PM


Hi Holmes!
This was a program that started in previous administrations. You've heard of the NSA massive computer-gathering program called Echelon. 60 Minutes did a story on this in February of 2000. Bill Clinton was still in office. Steve Kroft did it. Here's the transcript and it's all about how we go about making sure we don't nab the wrong people. But to say that this all started with Bush is the same thing that the Democrats are saying about virtually everything that happens in the world, it all started in 2001, and prior to that we were at peace and everybody was singing kumbaya, and there was no problem. There was no global warming. There was no environmental destruction. There wasn't any terrorism. There was none of this stuff until Bush came into office. There was no vote fraud -- no electioneering, none of this -- until Bush came into office.
"Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on US Calls During the 1990s -- Under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by US citizens and citizens of other countries under a super-secret program code named Echelon. On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration's instituted a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices. When it secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the US to search for evidence of terrorist activity without obtaining court-approved warrants, but in fact the NSA had been monitoring private telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the nineties, all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
Furthermore...
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Newsbusters
So is Bush still responsible for breaking everybodies civil liberties?
This message has been edited by Tal, 12-20-2005 02:14 PM

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2005 6:11 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2005 4:51 PM Tal has replied
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2005 6:24 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 63 of 220 (271222)
12-20-2005 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Modulous
12-20-2005 4:51 PM


Interesting, how can he be resonsible when he didn't start it?

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 12-20-2005 4:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 12-21-2005 1:34 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 4:53 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 12-21-2005 5:53 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 100 of 220 (271646)
12-22-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
12-21-2005 12:58 PM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
Given that Bush said himself that court warrants are necessary to keep those activities Constitutional, doesn't that show that according to his own statements he ought to be impeached? Or at least charged with something?
No.
"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.
Speaking of impeechments for blowjobs...
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.
Washington Times
WHAT? President Clinton was spying on US Citizens that he KNEW had no foreign intelligence value? Why, this is a direct assault on our civil liberties! IMPEECH HIM!
Hmm...I don't remember hearing that from liberals at the time. But now they sure are shouting it. Luckily, all that is needed to show you for the fools you are is recent history.
So, Homles, for you to be consistent you must have supported the impeachement of the former disgraced, disbarred, President William Jefferson Blithe Clinton.
This message has been edited by Tal, 12-22-2005 09:24 AM

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 12:58 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 9:54 AM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 102 of 220 (271657)
12-22-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Silent H
12-22-2005 9:54 AM


Re: President Bush declares his own actions Unconstitutional
I AM consistent... How about you? You guys beat Clinton to death for everything he did. Indeed your first citation was to a 60 Minutes piece (aka liberal media) knocking Clinton's activities, and included REPUBLICANS decrying those actions. Where are you guys now?
Carter did it, Reagan did it, Bush 41 did it, Clinton did it. I guess we should have impeeched them all. Now that Bush is doing it, it is somehow illegal? The law is clear on this issue, but somehow it is a MAJOR news story. This will go the way of the Koran-Flusing, Bush-was-AWOL, Rove-leaked-CIA-name, Delay-broke-the-law, and every other failed attempt to get Bush or his administration.
This message has been edited by Tal, 12-22-2005 10:07 AM

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 9:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by FliesOnly, posted 12-22-2005 10:36 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 10:43 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 106 of 220 (271744)
12-22-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
12-22-2005 11:51 AM


Re: Tal or other conservatives.
The problem that this shows is that the executive becomes in all ways a monarchy or dictatorship as long as the FEAR of war exists. And now that we have reduced war to terrorism, the FEAR of terrorism. Thus, as always, dictatorship put into effect and propagated through fear of the other by the public.
I'll take this first. Here is a list of terrorist attacks in the last 20ish years.
1979 - Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982-1991 - Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983 - April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984 - Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985 - April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986 - April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988 - Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993 - Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996 - June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998 - Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000 - Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001 - Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.
Now, would you classify terrorism as just a fear, or a reality? I classify it as a reality.
Now, lets clear up if the President has the authority to to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails.
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.
What do you think Bush should be held accountable for, exactly? As far as oversight goes, I would think the Senate Select Comittee on Intelligence already does this.
Here is thier Juristiction:
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs.
Reports | Intelligence Committee
That mechanism is already there.
This message has been edited by Tal, 12-22-2005 02:09 PM

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 11:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by FliesOnly, posted 12-22-2005 2:25 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2005 2:58 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 111 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-22-2005 3:20 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 113 by arachnophilia, posted 12-22-2005 4:27 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 115 by jar, posted 12-22-2005 4:56 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 12-22-2005 7:04 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 142 of 220 (273458)
12-28-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Theodoric
12-27-2005 10:57 AM


Re: time of war
More importantly randman, did they find a damn thing? NO!!!!!
1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
source USA today
source Washington Post
highlight
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
source Sfgate
source BBC News
Yeah, haven't found a damn thing have we? And that is just a partial list.
This message has been edited by Tal, 12-28-2005 10:18 AM

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 12-27-2005 10:57 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Theodoric, posted 12-28-2005 10:37 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 144 by Silent H, posted 12-28-2005 11:19 AM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 152 of 220 (283137)
02-01-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
01-31-2006 7:20 AM


Re: Like I asked you before
Schraf..yes, it is legal, but too stir the pot a little bit...
quote:
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - INTELLIGENCE
Jan. 31, 2006 - 9:21 p.m.
Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans
By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.
Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.
“MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.
Defense Department and Army regulations “allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities,” Noonan continued.
“Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute ”collection’ under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails receiving ”for use,’ ” he added. (Army Regulation 381-10, “U.S. Army Intelligence Activities,” was reissued on Nov. 22, 2005, but had not previously been disclosed publicly.) “Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected, retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy,”
The distinction between “receiving” and “collecting” seems “to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework,” wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday’s edition of Secrecy News.
“This in turn makes it harder to understand why the NSA domestic surveillance program departed from previous practice.”
Aftergood was alerted to the existence of the memo by another security expert, John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, who thought that “there is enough ambiguity in the language that with a bit of creativity in managing the U.S. persons files there would have been not too much trouble” applying existing rules to the warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency.
Link
This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 11:19 AM

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 01-31-2006 7:20 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 12:32 PM Tal has replied
 Message 174 by nator, posted 02-01-2006 7:14 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 154 of 220 (283184)
02-01-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
02-01-2006 12:32 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
If it's legal, then why did Bush say he had to go around the law, and that the wiretapping couldn't be done under the law?
If you can't do something because a law doesn't allow it, that makes doing it illegal.
Bypassing a law is not the same as breaking it. For instance, the Davis Beacon law and Jones Act were both bypassed after Hurricane Katrina hit. The Environmental Protection Agency suspended certain federal fuel standards in response to possible diesel and gasoline shortages. Are these laws? Yes, but there are provisions written that allow them to be bypassed in certain circumstances.
How can Bush bypass FISA?
Despite the secrecy of the ongoing domestic surveillance, the White House had Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the nation's No. 2 intelligence official, brief reporters:
”The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief covers war-related powers such as ordering the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept enemy communications wherever they originate, Gonzales said. The 9/11 attacks, he said, showed the enemy was in the USA.
”A resolution Congress passed Sept. 14, 2001, gave Bush power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to prevent further attacks, language Gonzales said implicitly authorized war-related surveillance...
He and Gonzales said it was essential to bypass the legal requirements to obtain secret court warrants for such operations because they had to move quickly to stop terrorist threats...
And from Associated Press
"It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" asked Bush..
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government officials had to prove to a secretive intelligence court that there was "probable cause" to believe that a person was tied to terrorism. Bush's program allows senior NSA officials to approve surveillance when there was "reason to believe" the call may involve al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Hayden maintained that the work was within the law. "The constitutional standard is reasonable. ... I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we are doing is reasonable," he said at the National Press Club.
And the most important point:
Hayden said the effectiveness of the surveillance operations has been eroded by public disclosure, even though the program is continuing.
Congrats to all of you lefties. You have helped the enemy. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this. If you are talking to Al Qeada, we want to know about it.
And by the way, MI can get intel on you anyway..with no warrant.
This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 01:29 PM

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 12:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2006 1:59 PM Tal has replied
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 2:02 PM Tal has replied
 Message 160 by Omnivorous, posted 02-01-2006 2:28 PM Tal has replied
 Message 163 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-01-2006 3:34 PM Tal has replied
 Message 175 by nator, posted 02-01-2006 7:24 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 157 of 220 (283198)
02-01-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Chiroptera
02-01-2006 1:59 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
Sure, as long as I get to listen in on your conversations whenever I think that there may be some problems. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, either.
If talking to to Al Qeada...listen all you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2006 1:59 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 2:24 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 158 of 220 (283200)
02-01-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
02-01-2006 2:02 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
He didn't "brief Congress", he told a handful of congresspeople who were not allowed to object or indeed, comment at all.
Link? Source? News Article? Anything?
Why shouldn't that happen with warrants? Why should it happen against the law?
I've already explained bypassing. As to the answer of why...speed.
Get real. Do you think bin Laden is so stupid he couldn't expect us to be tapping his phones?
Yes, Al Qeada made phone calls to people in the US. They still do, but not as much thanks to all lefties screaming about their civil libetries disappearing.
The only one helping the enemy is Bush apologists like you.
What's your logic behind this statement? My logic is that Al Qeada now KNOWS we monitor ALL international calls. Some of the smarter ones probaly won't make as many phone calls to the US when they otherwise would. Democrats have gimped us a little on the Intel gathering.
Look, I want you to think long and hard about the next president. Pretend he's one of those liberals you hate. Pretend he's totally unhinged.
Think about the powers you've just put in his hands. Do you own a gun, Tal? Do you think that's something an ultra-liberal president might want to know about?
A Democrat is president. Al Qeada calls someone in the US. I still want that President's Intel to know about it.
You guys complain that Bush didn't connect the dots for 911. Now you complain when we try to connect the dots.

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 2:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:27 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 183 by nator, posted 02-02-2006 7:12 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 187 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 12:23 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 161 of 220 (283209)
02-01-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Omnivorous
02-01-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
That's because you don't understand it.
I undertand fully. We are at war. There is an enemy both overseas and in the US. When they make calls from overseas to the US, we want to know what they are saying.
Your justifications and that accusation are about as transparently stupid as Bush saying he didn't want a law against torture becuase he didn't want terrorists to know we wouldn't torture them, though of course we never would, really, never have, no kidding, heh heh.
So if Al Qeada is calling John Snuffy, you don't want to know about it?
You may recall the initial expose of the illegal wiretaps described "thousands" of intercepts: are we really to believe that thousands of Americans are chatting up Al Qaeda on international lines? Al Qaeda has that many agents in the U.S., but haven't managed to blow up even a dog pound since 9/11?
Maybe that's because we've been listening to Al Qeada conversations since then?
Hello.
Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 02:59 PM
This message has been edited by Tal, 02-01-2006 03:26 PM

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Omnivorous, posted 02-01-2006 2:28 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Omnivorous, posted 02-01-2006 3:50 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 164 of 220 (283216)
02-01-2006 3:41 PM


It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
So let's see, he has authority based on the Constitution, previous Presidents have used it, federal courts have appoved it, and members of Congress have been kept informed.
What is illegal about this agian?

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:42 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 166 of 220 (283218)
02-01-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
02-01-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Like I asked you before
So basically what you are saying is that the president now has war-time powers forever and the constitution is suspended.
Refer to the message above. He is authorized by the Constitution.
You can not win a war on terror and declare the end to hostilities. So either the constituion is permenanently suspended or we aren't really at war.
If he is authorized by the Constitution, how is it suspended?
And yes, we are really at war.

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-01-2006 3:34 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-01-2006 9:47 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 167 of 220 (283219)
02-01-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by crashfrog
02-01-2006 3:42 PM


The fact that none of those things are true.
Proof? Evidence? Link? Anything?
Impeech him then.

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:48 PM Tal has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5699 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 170 of 220 (283223)
02-01-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by crashfrog
02-01-2006 3:48 PM


When a known liar makes a statement, the onus of evidence is on he who offers his statements as evidence, not he who challenges them.
Ah, so you have zero evidence, zero links, zero sources, or zero anything really.

The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men
Hamas Charter
What's your favorite line?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2006 3:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024