• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

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.
I suggest you read Caine's link.
A simple 'you were right' will be all the apology I need.
 
M14 Shooter said:
I suggest you read Caine's link.
A simple 'you were right' will be all the apology I need.

I read the testimony before posting this, but I'll take the time to explain here:

Like I said - this is a straw man.

The entire testimony is a comment on strengthening existing legislation to better serve the security of our nation.

Most of it addresses how "physical" searches need to be addressed, and compares these"physical" searches to existing legislation on electronic surveillance.

This is not law here - it is opinion.

Rush has been on a witchhunt for Gorelick since the 9/11 commission was formed. Is he behind this dribble?

p2 & 3 - Gorelick is commenting on how adjustments to FISA may be needed to give Clinton more power. That's not skiting the constitution, that advising congress on making changes to existing legislation to better serve the countries security.

p4 - Gorelick comments on the checks and balances of FISA that Bush seems to have ignored.

p6 & 7 - Gorelick comments that the administration wants to find the proper balance of security and civil liberties through open legislative means.

images
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
I
The entire testimony is a comment on strengthening existing legislation to better serve the security of our nation.
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.

Most of it addresses how "physical" searches need to be addressed, and compares these"physical" searches to existing legislation on electronic surveillance.
Yes.. and that the nature of this elint necessitated that warrants be bypassed.

This is not law here - it is opinion.
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.

Rush has been on a witchhunt for Gorelick since the 9/11 commission was formed. Is he behind this dribble?
Talk about strawmen...

Where were the Democratic cries of outrage in 1994?
 
M14 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!
Who here said when Clinton does it it's good, Shooter (McGavin)? :rofl
 
M14 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?
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....


Just illustrating the partisan bigotry from the Democrats - thanks for the help.
Ummm.... The title of the thread is.... Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US.
Partisan bigotry? Who brought up Clinton in the first place?
Are you just angry because your arguments mean nothing and you continue to act like an illiterate not reading what I post?
 
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.
Show me where Clinton did this without Warrants after laws were in place that required Warrants.[/quote]

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.


Talk about strawmen...

Where were the Democratic cries of outrage in 1994?
Because no law had been broken yet.
 
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.
That's funny because I believe we need abortion and cloning.

Anyway...you're saying that we should have the capability (If need be) to aurthorize 'legal' illegal wire taps and surveilence? Why not cut through the chase and make legal attempts at getting warrants?
 
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....
Perhaps YOU need to visit the website you so very kindly included in your post.
MY argument is based on the apparent lack of complaint from the dems when the Clinton administration made the same argument that the Bush administration is making.
Nothing you've posted, above, has any relevqnce to that.
Can you show that the Democrats were outraged at the Clinton Administrations pilicies?
Yeah... thought so...

Ummm.... The title of the thread is.... Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US.
Partisan bigotry? Who brought up Clinton in the first place?
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.

Are you just angry because your arguments mean nothing and you continue to act like an illiterate not reading what I post?
Dream on, poser-boy.
You havent addressed a SINGLE thing in my argument -- and you won't, because you know you can't.

The liberal democrats have a double-standard -- when their guy does it, its OK; when Bush does it, its not. If you had any intellectual honest in you, you'd admit it, and you;d admit that this is one of those cases.
 
Caine said:
Show me where Clinton did this without Warrants after laws were in place that required Warrants.
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.

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.
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.
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.


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?
 
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.
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.
 
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?

I can't wait to read the answer to this! LOL

Everything I've read states that Capitol Hill, Congress, CNN...you name it...they all knew Clinton asked the Senate for new laws regarding wiretapping.

This hardly sounds like Clinton was doing anything under the table...unlike Bush, who skirted the courts and did what he wanted. I'm sure this has been addressed before, but who knows what Bush was listening to? Political enemies?

Do a search on "Clinton and Wiretapping." There's all kinds of info out there about how Clinton wanted tougher laws and more lenience for surveillance. This was all common knowledge...Clinton went public with his attempts to make FISA a stronger surveillance tool.

Frankly I'm getting tired of the argument from the right, when they have no defense for Bush, saying something like..."Oh yeah, well what about Clinton?"

I'm also amazed at the arrogance of Bush to stand up there and basically admit to committing a felony...as if he's saying to America..."Bring it on!"
 
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?

That is an interesting thought, Scotty.
 
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:
 
the law is already tough enough and provides for everything the president needed to gather intel to prevent terrorist plotting.

Thats your opinion. 9/11 happened. You're wrong.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Thats your opinion. 9/11 happened. You're wrong.

So what did Bush mean when he said the following on April 20, 2004:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040420-2.html
 
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:

It was lame.....
I can't imagine the thought that went into Bush telling the nation that lawmakers are trying to let the Patriot Act expire, when they have clearly stated they wish to extend it for a few months in order to better debate what is needed and what isn't.

I can't imagine the thought that went into Bush telling the nation warrantless Spying was well within his means when he earlier told everyone that all wiretapping required court supervision... as stated in Aps's post above.

Hmm...... Flip Flopper??????
 
Any issues this country should be concerned about on this thread yet?...

Nope?...

I'll come back later...
 
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.
 
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.

Okay, we can agree to disagree at this point. Why even mention wiretapping and getting a court order in the first place? At that time, he put the terrorists on notice that he was going to wiretap. I doubt the terrorists know our procedures of getting a court order, and if they do, then they know how easy it would be for the President to get one. It doesn't make sense, oldreliable. He went out of his way to discuss this issue when he didn't need to.
 
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.
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:
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?
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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?

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.
 
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.

Caine, I am so sick of the Bushies invoking 9-11. Bush, Cheney, and Condi have all stated that this kind of wiretapping was necessary or thousands of lives could be lost. Shut up!

Did anyone notice that when Bush talked about Osama bin Laden in yesterday's news conference, he initially called him Saddam. Oh brother. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom