Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

[hipsterdufus]

"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
...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
...Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise; Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick
Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, July 14 1994

As usual, for the liberal democrats:
Clinton does it = OK
Bush does it = Bad! Bad!

This administration has been wrong on their interpretation of judicial law on more than one occasion. This is TESTIMONY not legislation.

The same line of reasoning was used to inter Japanese-Americans in WW2.

 

[Caine]

-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick
Testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, July 14 1994

As usual, for the liberal democrats:
Clinton does it = OK
Bush does it = Bad! Bad!

Even though I am already looking at her testimony... please...inform us of what she says next...........

 

[M14 Shooter]

This administration has been wrong on their interpretation of judicial law on more than one occasion. This is TESTIMONY not legislation.

Please note that -this- administration is using the same argument as the -prior- administration.

So:
Was Clinton wrong when he did it?
If so, where were the complaints from the people complaining now?
If these people did not complain then, how do they have standing to complain now?

I'd like to see the reactions then from all the democrats crying today.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even though I am already looking at her testimony... please...inform us of what she says next...........

No, no - I insist.
YOU tell us.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Please note that -this- administration is using the same argument as the -prior- administration.

So:
Was Clinton wrong when he did it?
If so, where were the complaints from the people complaining now?
If these people did not complain then, how do they have standing to complain now?

I'd like to see the reactions then from all the democrats crying today.

Clinton may have been wrong too, if I had known about this tryanical abuse of power back in 1994, I would have been screaming just as loudly my friend.
I have no desire to turn this country into a dictatorship, no matter who is in charge.

Why would Jay Rockefellor have to HAND WRITE this letter to VP Cheney about his concerns, if this was all above board and common knowledge?

Letter from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Vice President Cheney regarding NSA domestic wiretapping, July 17th 2003.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html

 

[Caine]

No, no - I insist.
YOU tell us.

Hmmmm.... Nah... Im going to post the link, which is the proper thing to do (also, since its a PDF file I have access to, I don't feel like typing everything)

http://www.cnss.org/Gorelicktestimony.pdf

Basically, She goes on to say that she supports legislation that calls for warrant restsrictions under FISA, but warns that the effectiveness of the intelligence gathering depends on how the legislation is crafted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically, She goes on to say that she supports legislation that calls for warrant restsrictions under FISA, but warns that the effectiveness of the intelligence gathering depends on how the legislation is crafted.

And...?
Does that somehow mollify her position that what Bush did was within his power?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clinton may have been wrong too, if I had known about this tryanical abuse of power back in 1994, I would have been screaming just as loudly my friend.

I'm not so conserned about you... its the Pelosis and Reids and Kennedys of the world.

You will agree that if they did not complain then, they have no standing to complain today - correct?

 

[Caine]

And...?
Does that somehow mollify her position that what Bush did was within his power?

You must be one speedy reader.
DID YOU READ IT?
Or did you just read my paragraph and fail to read the rest of it... Im not going to paraphrase the whole damned thing for you, like I said, its in PDF, and Im not going to read anything to you, you know how to read. Read it, then make more baseless biased assumptions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You must be one speedy reader.
DID YOU READ IT?
Or did you just read my paragraph and fail to read the rest of it... Im not going to paraphrase the whole damned thing for you, like I said, its in PDF, and Im not going to read anything to you, you know how to read. Read it, then make more baseless biased assumptions.

Blah blah blah.

Dont avoid the question -- answer it.

Does that somehow mollify her position that what Bush did was within his power?

 

[Caine]

Blah blah blah.

Dont avoid the question -- answer it.

Does that somehow mollify her position that what Bush did was within his power?

LOL... if you read the damned PDF file you'd understand...
Im not answering anymore of your questions until you start actually reading my links.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL... if you read the damned PDF file you'd understand...
Im not answering anymore of your questions until you start actually reading my links.

Ah.
Intellectual cowardice.
Typical.

 

[Caine]

Ah.
Intellectual cowardice.
Typical.

LOL....
Your personally attacking me... and I'M the one who has "intellectual cowardice" as you state.

Read the link... then post, otherwise, stop being absurd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL....
Your personally attacking me... and I'M the one who has "intellectual cowardice" as you state.
Read the link... then post, otherwise, stop being absurd.

I have.
And I'm not sure at ALL what your point is.
Aside from the things already mentioned:

-She says specifically that the administration takes the position that the warrant clause of the 4th amendment doesnt apply to searches at hand.
-She says specifically that the current bill in question does not meet what she says are th eneeds of the administration, given its position.

Youlre going to have to do better than "read the link" if you want to be anything other than absurd.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I'm not so conserned about you... its the Pelosis and Reids and Kennedys of the world.

You will agree that if they did not complain then, they have no standing to complain today - correct?

No I won't - because I can't verify that you are comparing the same thing.

For instance - why would Bush go out of his way three times in his press conference to chastise the NYT for reporting a story that you say is old news from 1994? I believed he called it a "shameless act" to report this classified information. But you are arguing that in PUBLIC TESTIMONY - Jamie Gorelick said the whole thing was kosher.

I think we need more info before we jump to decisions.

 

[Caine]

I have.
And I'm not sure at ALL what your point is.
Aside from the things already mentioned:

-She says specifically that the administration takes the position that the warrant clause of the 4th amendment doesnt apply to searches at hand.
-She says specifically that the current bill in question does not meet what she says are th eneeds of the administration, given its position.

Youlre going to have to do better than "read the link" if you want to be anything other than absurd.

So, because she 'TAKES THE POSITION' on something doesn't put Clinton in the position of Bush. Your comparison was ignorant.

Why was it ignorant? Because she blatently states MANY times throughout that document that the Administration supports a form of warrant legislation to protect the civil liberties of Americans, because they are important. What Administration doesn't want more power? Yes, I understand where your argument is coming from, disreguarding that throughout her testimony she states that the Administration supports the legislation as long as it dosen't restrict them to a point of not being able to be effective.

Bush, on the other hand, decides to take the power into his own hands by not getting the warrants.

Clinton's assistant Attorney General only made testimony that they would like to come to an agreement on the way the legislastion is crafted.
Bush decides to take the power into his own hands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, because she 'TAKES THE POSITION' on something doesn't put Clinton in the position of Bush. Your comparison was ignorant.

Her position was that of the Clinton adminstration.
To argue otherwise is ignorant.

Why was it ignorant? Because she blatently states MANY times throughout that document that the Administration supports a form of warrant legislation to protect the civil liberties of Americans, because they are important.

With significant caveats, as well as the CLEAR view that the 4th amendment warrant clause does NOT apply to the sort of information gathering in question.

What Administration doesn't want more power? Yes, I understand where your argument is coming from, disreguarding that throughout her testimony she states that the Administration supports the legislation as long as it dosen't restrict them to a point of not being able to be effective.

Like I said - 'with caveats'.

Bush, on the other hand, decides to take the power into his own hands by not getting the warrants.

Which, the Clinton administration argues, are not necessary.

Clinton's assistant Attorney General only made testimony that they would like to come to an agreement on the way the legislastion is crafted.
Bush decides to take the power into his own hands.

Power which the Clinton administration argues he had.

 

[MSgt]

I didn't think that it was being abrasive I thought it was making a generalization.
Anyway you are right Democrats could be "exagerating the issue." That is why I'd like to sit back and see what (if anything) transpires over this. If there is somehting illegal happening then it needs to be addressed.
I've never mentioned "police state" although I have seen the words fly around. I believe the thought is if the President can make an arbitrary decision to tap into 'suspects' phones and it's a secret then what's to stop him/her from not tapping? When does he shut it off? This could be a long war. Tapping phones and spying on emails and the like could be the new standard of America; slowly erroding the very rights we fight to protect.

All it takes is for someone to say "hey the government condones wire taps and survielence to get information (leagl or not) why can't we do it to put criminals behind bars?" That is how our leagl system works. "everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"

All it takes is for soimeone to set a precident somewhere to allow it everywhere. It may seem far fetched but you can't rule out the possibility.

Makes sense. However, this is the same type argument that is used by people regarding issues like abortion......

-"No abortion no matter what. I don't care if the baby is deformed or if the woman was raped. NO ABORTION, because we don't want to open that door."

-"No cloning no matter what. I don't care that one day we will be able to duplicate kidney's, hearts, and lungs. NO CLONEING, because we don't want to open that door."

Historical progress has always demanded an open door. The same can be said for our securities. What keeps that open door in check is the fact that our votes determine the official and we can dictate that every 4 years.

 

[MSgt]

Well, I have a few problems with this. Firstly, the law is already tough enough and provides for everything the president needed to gather intel to prevent terrorist plotting. He chose instead to ignore the law and procede with his own program with absolutely no judicial oversight. What it appears to amount to, as I said before, is that he didn't want to be limited to whom or what organizations he could spy on within the US. Given the "rubber stamp" nature of the FISA court and how easy it is to obtain a warrant therefrom, that would indicate to me that he was spying on people he shouldn't have been spying on.

The president is grasping at very weak legal straws, if you will, using the exact same arguments that Richard Nixon used to defend the actions. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously at that time that the president, even in times of war, does not get a blank check to create law on his own. This is the very reason FISA was created in the first place.

And one more thing... If the president's actions are found to be illegal, and I really don't see how they could be found legal, given the nature of the crime, we may not have to wait another 3 years for another president after all, according to Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution. This isn't to say that this will happen, only that it could happen. Given the laws that have apparantly been violated, and given that there is already such a strong Supreme Court precedent on the matter, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

My point exactly. You can't make a law "tougher" - not in this country.

 

[Caine]

Her position was that of the Clinton adminstration.
To argue otherwise is ignorant.

Didn't mean it that way, I think I worded that retarded.

Which, the Clinton administration argues, are not necessary.

Yeah, umm.... what Executive isn't going to want the ability of warrantless searches? Just look how pissed Bush got during his Press Confrence yesterday in talking about the NSA "Scandal" and the Patriot Act Extention (which he falsely stated they were trying to let expire, to deliberately confuse the gullible). Im not denying that. Your getting me and MANY others wrong, as usual. They are going to argue that they aren't necessary, but at the same time you MUST understand that they respect the Congress's intrest for the civil liberties of the citizens, and respect the need for legislation that places warrant restrictions. Maybe you aren't mentioning this for a reason??????

Power which the Clinton administration argues he had.

As stated above.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, umm.... what Executive isn't going to want the ability of warrantless searches?

And so, back to my point:
Where were the howls and screams from the Democrats when this came up in 1994?

They are going to argue that they aren't necessary, but at the same time you MUST understand that they respect the Congress's intrest for the civil liberties of the citizens, and respect the need for legislation that places warrant restrictions.

Odd you say this, given the clear statement warrants in these cases are not necessary.
And, your implication that the Bush administration -doesnt- respect Congress' interest for the civil interest of the people is partisan rhetoric and has no place here. Stay on topic.

 

[Caine]

And so, back to my point:
Where were the howls and screams from the Democrats when this came up in 1994?

Can you prove it to me that he did this after legislation was made requiring warrants???????

Odd you say this, given the clear statement warrants in these cases are not necessary.
And, your implication that the Bush administration -doesnt- respect Congress' interest for the civil interest of the people is partisan rhetoric and has no place here. Stay on topic.

Umm.. I thought the topic was "Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US. No?
Also, its only the clear statement to you because you fail to understand anything that doesn't support your argument of Clinton...

Clinton....Clinton.....Clinton....Clinton....Clinton....Clinton....Clinton.

 

[MSgt]

I say "spy away." I'm not a danger to my country so I don't care. If their spying catches some cell or some jackass white kid that decides that he is Islamic and wants to prove his allegiance by blowing up a building full of women and children...I say it was worth it. I bet any would be victims would agree.

The argument?...."But what about my right to look up cooking recipes in private.":roll:

 

[hipsterdufus]

And so, back to my point:
Where were the howls and screams from the Democrats when this came up in 1994?


Odd you say this, given the clear statement warrants in these cases are not necessary.
And, your implication that the Bush administration -doesnt- respect Congress' interest for the civil interest of the people is partisan rhetoric and has no place here. Stay on topic.

You're putting up a strawman then knocking it down. Classic.

Rest assured that Newt and Co. would have appointed a special prosecutor and moved forward with impeachment procedings against Clinton if what you claim here is true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can you prove it to me that he did this after legislation was made requiring warrants???????

Why do I need to?
The adminstration argued that warranmts were not necessary.
The administration argued that laws requiring a warrant ran afoul of the powers of the administration
If there were no whines from the democrats then, what standing do they have to whine now?
Where were the whines?

Umm.. I thought the topic was "Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US. No?
Also, its only the clear statement to you because you fail to understand anything that doesn't support your argument of Clinton...Clinton....Clinton.....Clinton....Clinton....Clinton....Clinton

Just illustrating the partisan bigotry from the Democrats - thanks for the help.