Americans overwhelming support President Bush in wiretapping.

[cnredd]

As previously noted the Aldrich Ames argument is not an accurate one. ALL CIA employees sign a waver that allows for wiretaps and surveillance WITHOUT a warrant.

Signing a waver is equal to authorization from a court IMHO. It has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening now.

You need to read it again...

The Aldrich Ames story mentioned wan't talking about wiretaps...It dealt with physical warranteless searches that were NEVER ADDRESSED through FISA or the courts, but that still wasn't the issue I was addressing...

The issue was this...

Why did Clinton have FISA amended to include warrentless searches AFTER one was conducted on Aldrich Ames???

aps wanted to know the logic of trying to change a law AFTER the law was broken...The 1995 FISA Amendment is a perfect example of this...

Notice the bottom of the article I've linked to...

Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy, argued Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless. Gorelick went on to explain that A [traditional] search can only be made when there's probable cause to believe a crime is involved, whereas a national-security search can be made at a substantially earlier stage. We often don't know what we're looking for when we go in, she observed.

My very first sentence afterward...

This is the EXACT same logic used with wiretapping!!!...You simply don't know what you're looking for beforehand, so how the heck could a warrant help it?...

Here's the way I see it...

1995, the hotel adds a pool...They put up a sign saying "NO DIVING...anyone who dives will be ejected"...

Then in 2002, because of new technology, hotel management adds a diving board...One would THINK that makes the sign null & void, but the Democratic lifeguards at the hotel rally around and say the sign should NOT be taken down..."Hey!...The law's the law!", they proclaim...

Someone dives off of the diving board...Do you eject that person because of some stupid sign that has now been rendered pointless because of the new technology added to the pool?...

Most Democrats="Yes"
Most Republicans'"Grow up"

 

[ANAV]

And you were in Viet Nam?? I used to think Viet Nam vets were strong, brave Americans. I never thought of them as cowardly. I guess there are exceptions to everything.

I'll defend my brother Chief on this one. NavyPride made it all the way to Senior Chief Petty Officer, the second highest enlisted rank, while serving in an era where promotions where not easy to come by in the Navy. He did not accomplish this by being a coward. I am still striving to reach what he accomplished.

Not when the "war" has no end in sight. We're not fighting an enemy, we're fighting an ideology. We don't have any definitive victory condition in the "war on terror," so it could conceptually go on forever, like the war on drugs and the war on poverty. Under no circumstances would I be willing to give the government perpetual war powers.

Tell the men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq we are not fighting an enemy. Ideologies don't shoot and set off bombs, people do, our enemies do. I'm willing to give the government all the power it needs to keep me safe (well within reason but you know what I mean). Hell, I'd be in favor of raising taxes to better fund the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, the military and any other organization that protects me.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You need to read it again...

The Aldrich Ames story mentioned wan't talking about wiretaps...It dealt with physical warranteless searches that were NEVER ADDRESSED through FISA or the courts, but that still wasn't the issue I was addressing...

The issue was this...

Why did Clinton have FISA amended to include warrentless searches AFTER one was conducted on Aldrich Ames???

Why you've chosen to use a Drudge Report accusation as fact is a question I cannot answer but I do know the assertion that Clinton ordered the AG to permit warrantless searches is simply untrue, and has been one of those tactics people like Drudge use to further their point of view even when it's a lie.

So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?

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.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

My source goes on to say:

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.

Surely you can see the big difference here? This is not about partisan politics, this is about facts and truths. Drudge lied, Bush is violating the law IMHO, and hopefully due process will eventually clarify what is legal or illegal. We cannot decide it in this forum, though it does make for a good debate.

What's surprising to me here is that so few if any of the Conservatives/Neocons/Republicans in this community disagree with Fearless Leader on this one and actually go out of their way to make inaccurate analogies (often to their favorite "excuse" Bill Clinton).

BTW - Drudge made similar untrue accusations about President Carter doing what Bush is doing, but that too is simply a lie.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

So in review the Aldrich Ames argument is invalid, the Clinton and Carter arguments are untrue and that leaves Godfather Vito Bush as the person who has decided to violate our civil rights to "protect" America. To me it's a further power grab by a group of evil people whose agenda is to control government and all of us which will translate into great personal power and great personal wealth for those who support the Bush Mafia.

 

[SAMMY1]

Hey Don't Speak For Me, You Are A Jackoff. If You Want To Lose Your Rights, Move To China! If You Found Out They Were Doing This To You,you Would Be The Frist One To Bitch And Moan. And The Funny Part Would Be Is That You Let Them And Didn't Even Know It.

We The People: This Even Applies To You Jackoff! Get Your Head Out Of Where It Is And Get Real!

 

[aps]

Because there is nothing in FISA that says you can OR can't in certain instances...

What does this mean? That there is nothing in FISA that says you can wiretap without a warrant or you can't wiretap without a warrant in certain instances?

FISA, without a doubt, requires a warrant prior to conducting surveillance. There are 2 exceptions--the 72-hour rule and the first 15 days after a declaration of war.

The Dept. of Justice claims that the President's Article II powers essentially trumps FISA in the name of national security. It also states that the President had these powers from the legislation passed after September 11th. Those allegations could be credible had Congress not stated specificially when passing the FISA legislation that FISA was the exclusive means by which surveillance may be conducted. Congress has that right, and the President is required to abide by Congress's legislation.

Why did Clinton have FISA amended to include warrentless searches AFTER one was conducted on Aldrich Ames???

Thanks to a warrant authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno, a team of agents from the sprawling National Security Division had permission to enter the Ames home in Arlington, Va. There was only one minor problem. The attorney general of the United States does not have the authority to order a warrantless physical search of a citizen's home, argued Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University National Law Center. The Aldrich Ames search in my view was obviously and egregiously unconstitutional...

...Now eager to put a stamp of judicial impartiality on the hazy executive branch doctrine of inherent authority, the Justice Department immediately got behind the bill to expand the FISA court's power. Soon after Ames pleaded guilty last year to spying, administration officials began arguing that adherence to traditional Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens would unduly frustrate counterintelligence efforts against spies operating in the U.S.

Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy, argued Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless. Gorelick went on to explain that A [traditional] search can only be made when there's probable cause to believe a crime is involved, whereas a national-security search can be made at a substantially earlier stage. We often don't know what we're looking for when we go in, she observed.

This is the EXACT same logic used with wiretapping!!!...You simply don't know what you're looking for beforehand, so how the heck could a warrant help it?...

I don't know enough about this situation to speak intelligently on it. I'm not trying to cop out of this part of the discussion--I just dont feel like reading all the facts involved. And not to be mean, I don't care about that. If it was discovered that Clinton overstepped his presidential authority, I would have no problem with him being held accountable for such.

Now...

Here's the difference...

1995 - Democrats in Congress who agreed with this logic(WHY? - A Democratic President) and expanded it to include warrantless searches...They would've included wiretaps at the time if they had crystal balls and knew that $10 phone cards and disposable phones would cause a problem...

2002 - Democrats in Congress who DO NOT agree with this logic(Why? - A Republican President) and do a 180 when it comes to the exact same issue...

Imagine the stupid logic...FISA gets amended in 1995 to include warrantless searches but doesn't in 2002 when it comes to warrantless wiretaps?

What changed?

Oh yeah...The new guy has an (R) after his name...:roll:

Considering that the republicans have controlled Congress since Bush was elected president, tell me how the president was unable to get Congress to expand FISA. Are you telling me that republicans in Congress would have told Gonzales that it would vote against Bush wanting to conduct surveillance in the name of national security? I have a hard time thinking that the democrats would have enough power to prevent Congress from expanding FISA. If that was the case, I would think that the republicans would welcome the opportunity to show Americans how democrats don't care about national security.

That argument by Gonzales sounds like a bunch of BS if you ask me.

I am willing to let this issue be decided by Congress and/or the Supreme Court, should a case make it that far.

 

[aps]

Hey Don't Speak For Me, You Are A Jackoff. If You Want To Lose Your Rights, Move To China! If You Found Out They Were Doing This To You,you Would Be The Frist One To Bitch And Moan. And The Funny Part Would Be Is That You Let Them And Didn't Even Know It.

We The People: This Even Applies To You Jackoff! Get Your Head Out Of Where It Is And Get Real!

I would recommend you read the rules of this message board before you go ranting like this.

Are you in middle school, by the way?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Give me Liberty, or give me more consumables just wouldnt quite ring a bell with Patrick Henry.

Jon Stewart had one the other day: Give me Liberty or give me 10% off at COSCO.

The Libertarians and those in the GOP who realize that unchecked executive powers would/could be a disaster in the wrong hands.

Forget about Bush for a second and imagine how it would be if Pat Robertson had been successful in his presidential bid. Or insert any politician you absolutely despise.

 

[KCConservative]

Hey Don't Speak For Me, You Are A Jackoff. If You Want To Lose Your Rights, Move To China! If You Found Out They Were Doing This To You,you Would Be The Frist One To Bitch And Moan. And The Funny Part Would Be Is That You Let Them And Didn't Even Know It.

We The People: This Even Applies To You Jackoff! Get Your Head Out Of Where It Is And Get Real!

Nice knowing you, Sammy.....not.

 

[cnredd]

Why you've chosen to use a Drudge Report accusation as fact is a question I cannot answer but I do know the assertion that Clinton ordered the AG to permit warrantless searches is simply untrue, and has been one of those tactics people like Drudge use to further their point of view even when it's a lie.

So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

My source goes on to say:

Surely you can see the big difference here? This is not about partisan politics, this is about facts and truths. Drudge lied, Bush is violating the law IMHO, and hopefully due process will eventually clarify what is legal or illegal. We cannot decide it in this forum, though it does make for a good debate.

What's surprising to me here is that so few if any of the Conservatives/Neocons/Republicans in this community disagree with Fearless Leader on this one and actually go out of their way to make inaccurate analogies (often to their favorite "excuse" Bill Clinton).

BTW - Drudge made similar untrue accusations about President Carter doing what Bush is doing, but that too is simply a lie.

So in review the Aldrich Ames argument is invalid, the Clinton and Carter arguments are untrue and that leaves Godfather Vito Bush as the person who has decided to violate our civil rights to "protect" America. To me it's a further power grab by a group of evil people whose agenda is to control government and all of us which will translate into great personal power and great personal wealth for those who support the Bush Mafia.

A) So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?...

It doesn't matter what he signed in 1995 when he took actions BEFORE 1995...Ames' physical warrantless search was done BEFORE ANYTHING was signed in 1995...

If the wiretaps, right now...this very second...were given a greenlight, the very first thing people would spew is , "OH, it's ok NOW, but it wasn't then, so what he did was still illigal."

That SOUNDS nice, but the fact that Clinton had something done, THEN created a FISA amendment AFTERWARD proves that any changing of laws after the fact doesn't negate the fact that that laws were rendered pointless beforehand...

That's only "A"...Now we go to three parts I wish I didn't have to write just to clear things up...

B) Did you read the article I originally sourced?...It's from an anti-establishment website called media filter...check it out...They are FAR from Conservative...I used that site on purpose so I wouldn't be accused of partisan hackery...

Something which you accused me of anyway...

Thanks...:roll:

C) How about this angle?...Did you read the article I originally sourced?...Once again...check it out...EVERYTHING mentioned in that article has a year starting with "19" and NOT "20"...There was not ONE INSTANCE where Bush or any his Administration's duties or actions were mentioned...If you read it, it appears that the article could've been (and just might have been) written BEFORE Bush was even President!!!!...

And yet you spiel on about Bush...Once again...the article was just an example of how every President has done what you say Bush is doing now("power grab")...

Here's the actual quote pertaining to that from the article...

Reportedly, the Clinton administration had not always been enthusiastic about expanding the court's powers. Like its predecessors, it operated under the assumption that the executive already had inherent authority to exempt itself from Fourth Amendment constraints and could order warrantless searches to protect national security. Nonetheless, the government avoided allowing this inherent authority to be tested in the courts.

Remember aps's question a few posts ago?...

Why would they even discuss going to Congress if the President had the authority all this time to conduct warrantless surveillance?

Why?...Because GWB is acting in the very same manner as his predecessors!

As I've said...Read the article again...You can see how this line of thinking was BEFORE Bush was even around...This "power grab" that you speak of, with all of this "vito" rhetoric, is nothing new...

D) What's with the hard-on for Drudge?...And why did you decide to throw it out while responding to one of my posts?...

I have no idea what Drudge thinks nor do I care...I've never mentioned him or his opinion when writing on this topic..For you to go on a Drudge diatribe is very confusing when there hasn't been any reference to him by me previously...

If you're gonna reach the conclusion that what I write is somehow equal to what he writes, you can go right ahead and do that...It's rediculous, but there's no law against it...

If someone says they believe in Jesus, will you say they must be followers of Pat Robertson?...

If someone says they own a gun, will you say they must be a big Charton Heston fan?...

Then what's this "cnredd said something Drudge has said, so he MUST be getting his thoughts from Drudge" bullshit?!?!?

What Drudge says is what Drudge says...what I say is what I say...I didn't take anything written or implied from him, and for you to make that insinuation is too far reaching to comprehend...

 

[26 X World Champs]

A) So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?...

It doesn't matter what he signed in 1995 when he took actions BEFORE 1995...Ames' physical warrantless search was done BEFORE ANYTHING was signed in 1995.

Not sure why you want me to repost again that Ames and all CIA employees sign a waiver that permits for them to be wire tapped, searched etc.? Did you forget this vital truth? If he signed it, then he was not searched illegally, was he?

That SOUNDS nice, but the fact that Clinton had something done, THEN created a FISA amendment AFTERWARD proves that any changing of laws after the fact doesn't negate the fact that that laws were rendered pointless beforehand.

I see it differently. I see it as Clinton saw that the law needed to be revised and went through the legislative channel to get it passed and put into law. Vito Bush has done no such thing, and hasn't proposed anything either. He just took the law into his own hands.

C) How about this angle?...Did you read the article I originally sourced?...Once again...check it out...EVERYTHING mentioned in that article has a year starting with "19" and NOT "20"...There was not ONE INSTANCE where Bush or any his Administration's duties or actions were mentioned...If you read it, it appears that the article could've been (and just might have been) written BEFORE Bush was even President!!!!...

And yet you spiel on about Bush...Once again...the article was just an example of how every President has done what you say Bush is doing now("power grab").

Did you also forget that the topic of this thread is about Don Vito Bush? Seems to me that when someone cites previous presidents as precedent for what they perceive Bush is doing today legally or perhaps illegally it makes perfect sense to tie the various parts together, but that's just my humble opinion.

Here's the actual quote pertaining to that from the article...

Reportedly, the Clinton administration had not always been enthusiastic about expanding the court's powers. Like its predecessors, it operated under the assumption that the executive already had inherent authority to exempt itself from Fourth Amendment constraints and could order warrantless searches to protect national security. Nonetheless, the government avoided allowing this inherent authority to be tested in the courts.

You seem to be suggesting that I'm not reading what you posted but I actually feel the same way, or that you're not comprehending what I posted? Here AGAIN, is the point I made in rebuttal to what you reposted above.
So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?

Quote:
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.

Shall I restate what I just posted? Clinton NEVER spied on anyone on American soil without a warrant, BUSH is doing it right this very minute, and that is the entire point of this thread.

To recap, Clinton never spied or violated anyone's civil rights if they were on US soil but Josef Bush is violating countless people's civil rights every single day. That is the crux of this thread and my posts...

 

[KCConservative]

Bush is violating countless people's civil rights every single day.

Other than suspected terrorists, name one.

 

[Navy Pride]

And you were in Viet Nam?? I used to think Viet Nam vets were strong, brave Americans. I never thought of them as cowardly. I guess there are exceptions to everything.

I am not worried when people like you question my courage........My record speaks for itself and besides what do you know about Viet Nam? You were only a glitter in your daddys eye then my young friend..........

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just checking in to subscribe to this thread. I have had my phone tapped by the Feds. I didn't mind.

 

[Kelzie]

Just checking in to subscribe to this thread. I have had my phone tapped by the Feds. I didn't mind.

Really?!? That's so cool. I want my phone tapped...

 

[AlbqOwl]

Really?!? That's so cool. I want my phone tapped...

LOL, well you have to work for an organization that is suspected of subversive activities. In my case it was an ecumenical church organization. But some of its volunteers were engaged in a separate illegal activity so we were all suspect.

I wasn't involved in the activity, but when I found out that the phone was tapped, I thought it was pretty cool too. :smile:

 

[cnredd]

Not sure why you want me to repost again that Ames and all CIA employees sign a waiver that permits for them to be wire tapped, searched etc.? Did you forget this vital truth? If he signed it, then he was not searched illegally, was he?

Here is your first mention of this...

Oh, BTW - Don't waste our time with the CIA traitor Aldrich Aimes because he signed a release that permitted the government to tap his phones without a warrant, as does everyone who works for the CIA.

Now here is your second mention...

Not sure why you want me to repost again that Ames and all CIA employees sign a waiver that permits for them to be wire tapped, searched etc.?

Not sure why you mentioned ONLY "taps" in the first one, then revised your position to include "search etc"...

Also, your insistance of including anything FISA amended in 1995 becomes moot when Asst. Atty. General Jamie Gorelick TESTIFIED before the Intelligence Committe on July 14th, 1994 with these EXACT words...

At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, 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 has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General...

Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President’s authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted...

...In considering legislation of this type, however, it is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities...

...The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that the Fourth Amendment requires all searches to be reasonable, including those conducted for foreign intelligence purposes in the United States or against U.S. persons abroad. For the reasons I just mentioned, however, we believe that the warrant clause of the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to such searches. We are satisfied, therefore, that Attorney General approval of foreign intelligence searches pursuant to the President’s delegation of authority in Executive order 12333 meets the requirements of the Constitution.

Now let's take a gander at Executive order 12333, which was signed by Reagan in 1981...

(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.

Now figure this out...

If Reagan signs an order that says it A-ok for the Atty. General to approve ANY TECHNIQUE for which a warrant would be required, he is CLEARLY indicating anything warrantless.

Now check out the last sentence..."Electronic surveillance, as defined in the FISA Act of 1978..."

That mentions HOW the surveillance is conducted...NOT how the surveillance was APPROVED...

The beginning already makes it clear the Atty. General is given the authority...

If it was the way you want it, that would mean that this Order was in direct violation of FISA, which means we've had an illigal Order on the books for 25 years...

Is that your claim?...:2wave:

I see it differently. I see it as Clinton saw that the law needed to be revised and went through the legislative channel to get it passed and put into law. Vito Bush has done no such thing, and hasn't proposed anything either. He just took the law into his own hands.

Then why did the President push for an amendment to show inherent authority which he already had????....Puzzling, ain't it?

Did you also forget that the topic of this thread is about Don Vito Bush? Seems to me that when someone cites previous presidents as precedent for what they perceive Bush is doing today legally or perhaps illegally it makes perfect sense to tie the various parts together, but that's just my humble opinion.

Crazy little thing called "precedent"...When Bush is out of office, start counting the number of times the new President says or does something and people start mentioning "Just like Bush" or "Not like Bush"....

Buy a calculator that can add really high numbers...

You seem to be suggesting that I'm not reading what you posted but I actually feel the same way, or that you're not comprehending what I posted? Here AGAIN, is the point I made in rebuttal to what you reposted above.
So what did Clinton sign exactly in February 1995?

You keep showing me the same thing from 1995...Yet it's already been established that he had the inherent authority BEFORE your amendment...

Shall I restate what I just posted? Clinton NEVER spied on anyone on American soil without a warrant, BUSH is doing it right this very minute, and that is the entire point of this thread.

Doesn't matter if he did it once or a million times...If Clinton had the authority to do it...which he did...he could've...

But that would involve defending National Security...something he wasn't too keen on...

With a war going on in Iraq and the continued presence of an organization that wants us all dead, it's perplexing why you WOULDN'T want your President to be doing this...

To recap, Clinton never spied or violated anyone's civil rights if they were on US soil but Josef Bush is violating countless people's civil rights every single day. That is the crux of this thread and my posts...

get a new crux...yours is broken...

And read the title pertaining to the "crux" of this thread...

Americans overwhelming support President Bush in wiretapping.

Funny...That doesn't SOUND like the crux of your posts...


BTW - No response to my "Drudge" discussion?...Convieniently left it out instead of explaining why you used him when responding to my post?

Here it is again...

D) What's with the hard-on for Drudge?...And why did you decide to throw it out while responding to one of my posts?...

I have no idea what Drudge thinks nor do I care...I've never mentioned him or his opinion when writing on this topic..For you to go on a Drudge diatribe is very confusing when there hasn't been any reference to him by me previously...

If you're gonna reach the conclusion that what I write is somehow equal to what he writes, you can go right ahead and do that...It's rediculous, but there's no law against it...

If someone says they believe in Jesus, will you say they must be followers of Pat Robertson?...

If someone says they own a gun, will you say they must be a big Charton Heston fan?...

Then what's this "cnredd said something Drudge has said, so he MUST be getting his thoughts from Drudge" bullshit?!?!?

What Drudge says is what Drudge says...what I say is what I say...I didn't take anything written or implied from him, and for you to make that insinuation is too far reaching to comprehend...

And your response would be???????...:2wave:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Not only did Reagan sign such an executive order but so did Carter and it was in Carter's administration that FISA was passed in the first place. Clinton also signed such an executive order, and I bet if we went digging so did Bush 41.

 

[Hoot]

Why did Clinton have FISA amended to include warrentless searches AFTER one was conducted on Aldrich Ames???

aps wanted to know the logic of trying to change a law AFTER the law was broken...The 1995 FISA Amendment is a perfect example of this...

I really don't understand the logic in this statement?

There was NO FISA law in place regarding physical searches when Clinton had Ames' home searched.

The amendment was put in place, as you refer, in 1995...after Clinton had Ames searched...therefore...there was no FISA law, regarding physical searches, for Clinton to break.

You're trying to make it sound like Clinton broke the law as a weak defense of the actions of Bush.

 

[Hoot]

And bringing up the rear: "Brokeback Mountain".

Is this supposed to be some kind of pun? Freudian slip?

Here's one for you...please take no offense, as it's just a joke...

Why do so many Navy guys keep re-enlisting?

ANS: Because they just can't stand to leave their buddies behind.

 

[cnredd]

I really don't understand the logic in this statement?

There was NO FISA law in place regarding physical searches when Clinton had Ames' home searched.

The amendment was put in place, as you refer, in 1995...after Clinton had Ames searched...therefore...there was no FISA law, regarding physical searches, for Clinton to break.

You're trying to make it sound like Clinton broke the law as a weak defense of the actions of Bush.

Absolutely NOT!...

I agree with what Clinton did wholeheartedly...

In fact, here are my exact words from a post made ONE MONTH AGO...

This is, by no means, an attack on Clinton...

When it comes to stuff like this, I totally agreed with it then as I do now...

I guess you are under the assumption that because I am a Conservative, I MUST be bashing Clinton every chance I get...

That would be wrong...:shrug:

 

[Hoot]

Also, your insistance of including anything FISA amended in 1995 becomes moot when Asst. Atty. General Jamie Gorelick TESTIFIED before the Intelligence Committe on July 14th, 1994 with these EXACT words...

"At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, 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 has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General..."

Gee...I missed the part in there where it says anything about DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE?!

 

[Hoot]

Absolutely NOT!...

I agree with what Clinton did wholeheartedly...

In fact, here are my exact words from a post made ONE MONTH AGO...

Well..gee...if you'll look at my post of just a few minutes ago...you'll see your own quote where you say ...."After the law was broken."

Therefore...in my coffee deprived, early morning state of mind...you are saying Clinton broke a law that did not even exist at the time.

Not being very fair to Clinton, there are you?

 

[cnredd]

"At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, 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 has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General..."

Gee...I missed the part in there where it says anything about DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE?!

"For foreign intelligence purposes"...Unlike what is sipped from the kool-aid punch bowl of the current partisans, EVERY instance of warrantless wiretapping involved at least one party that was on foreign soil...

Every...not "some"...not "a few"...not "most"....

"Every"...

From the Attorney General...

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

 

[AlbqOwl]

"At the outset, let me emphasize two very important points. First, 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 has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General..."

Gee...I missed the part in there where it says anything about DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE?!

There is no 'domestic surveillance' as you are thinking of it in this case. The surveillance that is being done is from or to the USA to foreign locations. That clearly puts it within the scope of foreign intelligence.

However, in the case of my own phone being tapped, that was almost certainly domestic surveillance though related to illegal immigration. It was during the Reagan administration and it was almost certainly done without an official warrant to do so.

To think that 'foreign intelligence' cannot involve US citizens just flies in the face of reason.

 

[Hoot]

There is no 'domestic surveillance' as you are thinking of it in this case. The surveillance that is being done is from or to the USA to foreign locations. That clearly puts it within the scope of foreign intelligence.

There is nothing in Janet Reno's words that allude to this.

However, in the case of my own phone being tapped, that was almost certainly domestic surveillance though related to illegal immigration. It was during the Reagan administration and it was almost certainly done without an official warrant to do so.

To think that 'foreign intelligence' cannot involve US citizens just flies in the face of reason.

I think it flies in the face of the Constitution.