- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,622
- Reaction score
- 68
- Location
- Toledo-ish OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I suggest you read Caine's link.hipsterdufus said: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 said:I suggest you read Caine's link.
A simple 'you were right' will be all the apology I need.
Its also a description of the Admoinistrations position and policy prior to any such legislation. Whatever the reason for it, the testimony -clearly- shows that the administration did not see any need for warrants.hipsterdufus said:I
The entire testimony is a comment on strengthening existing legislation to better serve the security of our nation.
Yes.. and that the nature of this elint necessitated that warrants be bypassed.Most of it addresses how "physical" searches need to be addressed, and compares these"physical" searches to existing legislation on electronic surveillance.
It is official policy of the administration. It doesnt need to be law to show that it was OK when Clinton did it, but not OK when Bush did it.This is not law here - it is opinion.
Talk about strawmen...Rush has been on a witchhunt for Gorelick since the 9/11 commission was formed. Is he behind this dribble?
Who here said when Clinton does it it's good, Shooter (McGavin)? :roflM14 Shooter said:-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!
http://www.hookedonphonics.comM14 Shooter said: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?
Ummm.... The title of the thread is.... Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US.Just illustrating the partisan bigotry from the Democrats - thanks for the help.
Show me where Clinton did this without Warrants after laws were in place that required Warrants.[/quote]M14 Shooter said:It is official policy of the administration. It doesnt need to be law to show that it was OK when Clinton did it, but not OK when Bush did it.
Because no law had been broken yet.Talk about strawmen...
Where were the Democratic cries of outrage in 1994?
That's funny because I believe we need abortion and cloning.GySgt said: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.
Perhaps YOU need to visit the website you so very kindly included in your post.Caine said:http://www.hookedonphonics.com
Did you not notice that they supported legislation? Do you not realize that legislation was passed? Do you have evidence that Clinton after the legislation was passed conducted a physical search without the warrant?
Okay... thought so....
What part "the Democrats are whining now, but didnt whine when Clinton did it" dont you get? Brining up Clinton illustrates the partisan bigotry of the Democrats, and illustrates their lack of sincerity in their current complaints.Ummm.... The title of the thread is.... Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US.
Partisan bigotry? Who brought up Clinton in the first place?
Dream on, poser-boy.Are you just angry because your arguments mean nothing and you continue to act like an illiterate not reading what I post?
I dont have to.Caine said:Show me where Clinton did this without Warrants after laws were in place that required Warrants.
Psst...The fact that Bush refused to get the warrants when he had 72 hours AFTER the fact to do so is the Arguments of the Democrats at this point of time. The rest of your argument means nothing until you can prove that Clinton did not have warrants and conducted "physical" searches.
Ummm... Until you can show me where Clinton actually authorized the searches without warrant, I can assure you that The Democrats angry now and the lack of Democrats angry then, all rests in the fact that the FISA rules had not been broken.M14 Shooter said:I dont have to.
The fact is, as I have stated numerous times, and as you refuce to accept, is that the Clinton administration claimed there was no need for a warrant, and the democtrats did not scream bloody murder.
Psst...
There are no physical searches in question here - its all ELINT.
You;re arguing a strawman.
M14 Shooter said:I dont have to.
The fact is, as I have stated numerous times, and as you refuce to accept, is that the Clinton administration claimed there was no need for a warrant, and the democtrats did not scream bloody murder.
Psst...
There are no physical searches in question here - its all ELINT.
You;re arguing a strawman.
I assume the folk in congress have thought about the possiblity of Bush spying on them. Of the 500 or so warrants Bush has requested only 4 or so I believe were denied. It's extremely easy to get them. The only reason I could see Bush going over the courts head to get them is so he could spy on non-terrorist suspects too.... like members of congress perhaps? I think the main issue to congress will be that Bush went over their heads and the courts with this and that he could conceivably be spying on them too. A bipartisan group of senators have already joined together to demand a probe.hipsterdufus said:If I were a reporter at Bush's press conference I would have asked the following question.
"In the administration's interpretation of the law, would there be anything to stop you from spying on the Kerry campaign or liberal journalists? Since you have publicly accused both of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "
The answer is no - and I wouldn't put it past them. When/if a special prosecutor is named I hope they dig deep. They may find a 21st Century Watergate break in - all neatly wrapped up in protecting our safety.
tecoyah said:So....M-14...lets say Clinton indeed was guilty of these searches. What then would you have done to him, if he was guilty of bypassing the laws in place?
scottyz said:The only reason I could see Bush going over the courts head to get them is so he could spy on non-terrorist suspects too.... like members of congress perhaps?
the law is already tough enough and provides for everything the president needed to gather intel to prevent terrorist plotting.
oldreliable67 said:Thats your opinion. 9/11 happened. You're wrong.
Deegan said:Kerry has spoken on the issue, brace yourself now, you're really going to have to put your thinking cap on to rise to his intellectual level......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_co/kerry_domestic_spying
BOSTON - Domestic spying authorized by the White House "doesn't uphold our Constitution" and President Bush's defense of the practice is "lame," Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday. :rofl
I can't even begin to imagine the thought that must have gone in to that statement.:roll:
oldreliable67 said:aps,
Lets be real. It was a public appearance. You don't really expect the Pres to disclose his own secret program in such a situation (or at all) and thereby help our enemies, do you? Remember, this NSA program is highly likely to be based on new technology, or perhaps an extension and/or significant improvement to the old Echelon program. For Bush, or anyone else, to disclose the program and/or its capabilities to our enemies does a huge disservice to all Americans. But that was then; this is now.
I grant you that al Qaeda has certainly long ago learned that their communications are not secure. Hence, most reports now suggest that they are using human couriers whenever their need for security is paramount. But they are also reportedly making extensive use of 'throw-away' cell phones. We have no way of knowing, at least not yet, but I'm guessing that the NSA now has some improved capability for tracking these as well. If so, the NYT article has no doubt made al Qaeda even more cautious.
I'm assuming that there will be congressional hearings, and indeed think there should be. The cats out of the bag now; given the seriousness, both potential and perceived, hearings seem appropriate. The worrisome aspect of hearings is the likelihood that some of the highly classified technology will get out - congressional hearings are notoriously leaky.
Make no mistake: if it is ultimately ruled that Bush exceeded his authority and the program is illegal, I'll join you in sending him the metaphorical river. But, right here, right now, all we have are our opinions based on what we read and hear.
I agree, although what we do know is that the wiretaping in this case was not warranted. What we don't know is if by some weird way this is allowed, with that said, Aps's post and article goes to show that the President himself promised that these things do not go unchecked, which now proves to be false, which tells us he KNEW that he needed warrants, OR, he was lying. I don't like either one of those really, as it makes our government look like a bunch of incompetent fools. That being said... ...oldreliable67 said:Make no mistake: if it is ultimately ruled that Bush exceeded his authority and the program is illegal, I'll join you in sending him the metaphorical river. But, right here, right now, all we have are our opinions based on what we read and hear.
What would be the difference by him stating that he is allowed to conduct warrantless wiretaping if he could do so? Why would he have to tell us that they are warranted, and then go about the surveillance without the warrant? If he were to have mentioned during that same statement that he is also allowed to conduct them warrantless, as he says he can, he would be disclosing no more information than what he did, in that statement, and therefore would not be helping our enemies no more by telling us he CAN do it without a warrant as opposed to he HAS to have a warrant.oldreliable67 said:Lets be real. It was a public appearance. You don't really expect the Pres to disclose his own secret program in such a situation (or at all) and thereby help our enemies, do you?
Caine said:What would be the difference by him stating that he is allowed to conduct warrantless wiretaping if he could do so? Why would he have to tell us that they are warranted, and then go about the surveillance without the warrant? If he were to have mentioned during that same statement that he is also allowed to conduct them warrantless, as he says he can, he would be disclosing no more information than what he did, in that statement, and therefore would not be helping our enemies no more by telling us he CAN do it without a warrant as opposed to he HAS to have a warrant.
The label of 'helping our enemies' gets stamped onto anything that does not make the administration look good.
aps said:Yes yes...I agree. Is the person being wiretapped informed that they are being wiretapped? NOPE. So how does informing the terrorists that we are wiretapping without obtaining a court order any different than informing them that we will obtain a court order prior to wiretapping?
Caine said:Its not, personally, I think its an argument made, with the connection of "helping the terrorist" to confuse those who live in fear of terrorism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?