Bush Authorized NSA To Spy Inside US

[aps]

Sorry, but I don't have time to teach you reading comprehension.

Yeah, and we don't have time to teach you about the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. :roll:

LOL So why would we need the Patriot Act if the Constitution allows the president to wiretap without a warrant? :lol:

 

[Achilles2012]

So you protect freedom by destroying it. Uhum, sure. Perhaps by conservative logic, that makes sense.:roll:

In essence yes, Because you stupid Liberals dont understand that Freedom is never Free, and you have to lose some to gain more. Its a give and take situation.

 

[Caine]

In essence yes, Because you stupid Liberals dont understand that Freedom is never Free, and you have to lose some to gain more. Its a give and take situation.

Im a "stupid liberal" as you put it, and I DO realize that freedom isn't free.

What? What are you gonna do?

 

[Gill]

LOL So why would we need the Patriot Act if the Constitution allows the president to wiretap without a warrant?

Where exactly did I say that the Constitution allows the President to wiretap??

 

[aps]

Where exactly did I say that the Constitution allows the President to wiretap??

Your statement was that when Bush made the statement about wiretaps and getting a court order was that he was solely talking about the Patriot Act. So you think that the Patriot Act somehow limits the president in ways that the Constitution does not?

 

[libertarian_knight]

The Patriot Act was designed to protect the root freedoms of the people of the United states. However their are people in this world that think Freedom is free. Freedom is never free, get over it, ask the current soldiers and past veterans of foreign wars, that many of their freinds have even lost limbs to protect your ability to stab them in the back. Since President Bush is the Commander in Chief, technically he is also taking part in the war on terror. Being President of the United States is not a job that consists of 8 hour shifts, its a 24/7/365/4 or sometimes 8 years. He doesnt have time to sit down and tell the NSA to wiretap your phone. The NSA search's for these type of things themselves, not the President. Even if the President did had this ability he wouldnt have the time, nor the fact should you be afraid he looks into what your doing because your not supposed to be doing anything wrong anyways.The fact of the matter is, if your a Terrorist you should be worried, and if you arent, you shouldnt, simply put. And also regarding the statement of Tyranny by the post in which im replying: Tyranny doesnt develope by its self, it takes the people to conform----willingly. Which takes time on its own and I dont think President Bush could take over the United States in 8 years. Look at past-Nazi Germany, the people ELECTED Adolf Hitler because he was telling them what they wanted to hear, and didnt cry about it till we found the Concentration camps. The people of Germany were at fault, because they allowed the Nazi Vermon to fester in the stomach of Europe.

Freedom is the Natural state of man, and the "cost of freedom" is simply combatting those, whoever they may be, whatever their intention claimed, who would seek to suppress and oppress man's natural state.

If all Mankind stopped Oppressing others, the "cost of freedom" however, would simply be zero. The problem is, we have people on earth too uncivilized for such behavior, they occupy seats of power and government.

You don't put people in handcuffs as a means to put other people in leg irons. You don't protect or promote freedom, by infringing it. You don't HAVE your cake, after it's been eaten.

Base physical safety or "security" may result from sacrificing freedom, but freeedom does not come about by sacrificing freedom. Freedom comes by USING freedom to annahilate opressors.

 

[libertarian_knight]

In essence yes, Because you stupid Liberals dont understand that Freedom is never Free, and you have to lose some to gain more. Its a give and take situation.

OK, so how much "some"? And if we loose all freedom, would we then be truly free?

Terrorists can't defeat the USA, only the USA and the corruption within in, can destroy this great country.

Corruption and corruption alone is what will Kill the US, and it is what is killing the US.

 

[Achilles2012]

OK, so how much "some"? And if we loose all freedom, would we then be truly free?

Terrorists can't defeat the USA, only the USA and the corruption within in, can destroy this great country.

Corruption and corruption alone is what will Kill the US, and it is what is killing the US.

You do you have lose some to gain some more thats how its always been. You dont defeat terrorism by letting it fester. Im not Saying that terrorism can defeat this countery per say. But it can turn this country into something we definately do not want.If you honestly think that your losing your freedoms at this point obviously you wouldnt be able to handle an actual suppressor.

 

[BWG]

libertarian_knight...You beat me to it.

I was going to ask, How much of your freedom are you willing to give up?

You know, those freedoms that so many men and women have fought and died for. You know, those troops that you support. Those troops include, and certainly not limited to, my friends, family and me, so forgive me if I take those freedoms seriously and personally.

As you give up your freedoms, no matter how minute, to be safe, you are less free. What is the point of being safe if you can't live free?

Ahh, but you say you don't want to give up ALL of your freedoms. Well, where does that slippery slope stop and who decides where and when. Someone or some group will always have a reason why they need to erode your freedoms and most likely their reason will be to better protect you, again using the guise of fear.

 

[Stace]

libertarian_knight...You beat me to it.

I was going to ask, How much of your freedom are you willing to give up?

You know, those freedoms that so many men and women have fought and died for. You know, those troops that you support. Those troops include, and certainly not limited to, my friends, family and me, so forgive me if I take those freedoms seriously and personally.

As you give up your freedoms, no matter how minute, to be safe, you are less free. What is the point of being safe if you can't live free?

Ahh, but you say you don't want to give up ALL of your freedoms. Well, where does that slippery slope stop and who decides where and when. Someone or some group will always have a reason why they need to erode your freedoms and most likely their reason will be to better protect you, again using the guise of fear.

:clap: Very well said!

 

[Gill]

Ahh, but you say you don't want to give up ALL of your freedoms. Well, where does that slippery slope stop and who decides where and when.

Tell me.. were you worried about the "slippery slope" when the Clinton administration was listening in on baby monitors without warrants?? It's obvious that many are only worried about loss of freedoms when a Republican is President.

 

[Caine]

You do you have lose some to gain some more thats how its always been. You dont defeat terrorism by letting it fester. Im not Saying that terrorism can defeat this countery per say. But it can turn this country into something we definately do not want.If you honestly think that your losing your freedoms at this point obviously you wouldnt be able to handle an actual suppressor.

Dude, our own government is also capable of turning this country into something we do not want.

But besides that, you can't defeat terrorism.

 

[Caine]

Tell me.. were you worried about the "slippery slope" when the Clinton administration was listening in on baby monitors without warrants?? It's obvious that many are only worried about loss of freedoms when a Republican is
President.

Got some way to prove he was doing this?
This is the first ive heard of it.

 

[Gill]

Got some way to prove he was doing this?
This is the first ive heard of it.

Yep, as a matter of fact I do..

60 MINUTES
Television Broadcast February 27, 2000

ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES

STEVE KROFT, co-host:

If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.

KROFT: (Voiceover) Mike Frost spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, and he is the only high-ranking former intelligence agent to speak publicly about the Echelon program. Frost even showed us one of the installations where he says operators can listen in to just about anything.

Mr. FROST: Everything from--from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs...

KROFT: Baby monitors?

Mr. FROST: Oh, yeah. Baby monitors give you a lot of intelligence.

 

[libertarian_knight]

You do you have lose some to gain some more thats how its always been. You dont defeat terrorism by letting it fester. Im not Saying that terrorism can defeat this countery per say. But it can turn this country into something we definately do not want.If you honestly think that your losing your freedoms at this point obviously you wouldnt be able to handle an actual suppressor.

nothing like answering a question born of a statement, by repeating the statement without further clarity. How much is "some"? How much liberty must be sacrificed to engoy liberty. ("freedom" is a vague and oft misused word, someone may say the absurd "you must give up your freedom to kill another person..." better to use liberty or rights, since no person has the liberty or right to do anything. Either way, Freedom is freedom FROM, not freedom to.)

So what freedom from oppression (i.e. oppression imposed) must be sacrificed to be free from oppression?

Terrorism is a transient bothersome phase. Corruption is the only thing on this planet that can take down the US. Terrorism, like Drugs, "crime," communisms, Mexico, Indians, rebel states etc, are merely the transient phases that allow the state mopre power with which to become corrupt.

 

[BWG]

Tell me.. were you worried about the "slippery slope" when the Clinton administration was listening in on baby monitors without warrants??

Wow, you really stretched that one out there to get Clinton listening in on baby monitors without warrants....LMAO

It's obvious that many are only worried about loss of freedoms when a Republican is President.

I could give a rats ass less who is President, I have always felt this way and I will continue to feel this way.

 

[aps]

Originally Posted by Gill
Where exactly did I say that the Constitution allows the President to wiretap??

Your statement was that when Bush made the statement about wiretaps and getting a court order was that he was solely talking about the Patriot Act. So you think that the Patriot Act somehow limits the president in ways that the Constitution does not?

Gill, so are you intentionally ignoring my question? :waiting:

 

[Gill]

Wow, you really stretched that one out there to get Clinton listening in on baby monitors without warrants....LMAO

I didn't make the comment about baby monitors, Frost, an insider from the Echelon program did. You obviously haven't bothered to research Echelon as much as you should. Like I said, you have selective outrage.

Your statement was that when Bush made the statement about wiretaps and getting a court order was that he was solely talking about the Patriot Act. So you think that the Patriot Act somehow limits the president in ways that the Constitution does not?

Gill, so are you intentionally ignoring my question?

I haven't answered because your question is nonsensical.

 

[aps]

I haven't answered because your question is nonsensical.

LOL How so?

Seriously, if Bush can wiretap without a court order based upon Article II of the Constitution, why would the Patriot Act require him to obtain a court order before wiretapping?

Oh, now I see what you mean about it being nonsensical--you're talking about your answer to my question. Ahhh, I have figured it out. And you're right--it is nonsensical. :lol:

 

[Gill]

Seriously, if Bush can wiretap without a court order based upon Article II of the Constitution, why would the Patriot Act require him to obtain a court order before wiretapping?

Thanks for finally asking an actual question. It's very simple. The roving wire taps Bush spoke of in 2004 were NOT the electronic surveillance that everybody has their panties is a wad about now. They are two very different things. You are comparing apples and oranges.

In a recent poll, 64% of Americans agreed with the President's decision to track electronic communications between known terrorists and accomplices in America. I expect the Dems to tone it down now that they know the people they represent aren't nearly as bothered by it as they are.

 

[aps]

Thanks for finally asking an actual question. It's very simple. The roving wire taps Bush spoke of in 2004 were NOT the electronic surveillance that everybody has their panties is a wad about now. They are two very different things. You are comparing apples and oranges.

So what kid of wiretaps was Bush talking about in 2004? Article II of the Constitution allows electronic surveillance but not other kind of wiretaps? That's news to me.

In a recent poll, 64% of Americans agreed with the President's decision to track electronic communications between known terrorists and accomplices in America. I expect the Dems to tone it down now that they know the people they represent aren't nearly as bothered by it as they are.

Would you provide the link to the poll you are talking about? Somehow I doubt that the dems, or the repubs, will tone it down on this issue. Gill, the judges who sit on the NISA court (and are all over the United States) are coming to D.C. to meet to discuss this issue. I think that they may know a little bit more about the law than the average American. *sarcasm* Also, are you aware that Specter is planning to hold hearings on this in the near future?

 

[Gill]

So what kid of wiretaps was Bush talking about in 2004? Article II of the Constitution allows electronic surveillance but not other kind of wiretaps?

One more time.... Bush was talking about roving wire taps. Since you obviously won't take the time to research the matter, I'll give you a brief description.

Roving wire taps were authorized by Congress in 1998, during Clinton's administration. Previous to the enactment of this law, wiretaps could only be placed on the person of interest's own phones. After this law, wiretaps could be placed on ANY phone that the person might be expected to use. As Bush said, these wiretaps required a court order.

The current NSA program scans ALL telephone, fax and e-mails throughout the world. This is done by a supercomputer that "looks" for key phrases, certain names and calls placed to or from certain telephone numbers. When a communication contains one of the above, it is kicked out for review by an intelligence specialist.

The NSA in cooperation with security agencies of other countries has facilities all over the world to monitor communication. They've had many known successes including the capture of the Jackal, confirmation that Libya was involved in an airplane bombing and the discovery of a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Who knows how many other successful intercepts have saved lives.

Here's the link to the Rasmussen poll on the NSA:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

 

[aquapub]

Well, we indited somebody for not wanting to reveal their sex life. So why is this not indictable? Or is there a party affiliation involved in whether something is indictable?

:spin:


PALEEEZZZE!


Slick Willy was a career felon and the most corrupt president we've had since Warren Harding. Clinton was being asked about Monica Lewinsky because it had the potential to be used as evidence in the Gennifer Flowers investigation (you know, one of the 15 or so women Bill Clinton was accused of sexually harassing, raping, and/or paying off?).

While the media helped Bill Clinton portray himself as a helpless victim of theocratic persecution, Bill Clinton was having his IRS "investigate" Gennifer Flowers. Gennifer Flowers was nowhere near the income level the IRS ever bothers with.



The bottom line is: Bill Clinton was able to get away with all the outrageous corruption and with letting Al Queda walk all over us for a decade because the American people were sold on the idea that Clinton 1) was a victim, and 2) had something to do with the booming economy.

(Of course, Clinton supported NAFTA, had us knee deep into the economically suicidal Kyoto treaty, gave us record high tax hikes and a whole slew of other things that HURT the economy while doing NOT ONE SINGLE THING his defenders can point to that HELPED the economy. The tech boom is what made the economy soar. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of Clinton's "greatness," right? :roll: )


The bottom line for Bush is that nothing will happen to him because the VAST majority of Americans don't hold such efforts to protect us against him, especially right after 9/11. The paranoia-generating way things are portrayed in the "mainstream" media make the surveillance seem creepy, but most Americans just care more about their right not to be murdered than their fictional right to privacy. And they care even less about the ultra-fictional privacy rights of foreign terror suspects calling cells in the U.S.

 

[aps]

One more time.... Bush was talking about roving wire taps. Since you obviously won't take the time to research the matter, I'll give you a brief description.

Roving wire taps were authorized by Congress in 1998, during Clinton's administration. Previous to the enactment of this law, wiretaps could only be placed on the person of interest's own phones. After this law, wiretaps could be placed on ANY phone that the person might be expected to use. As Bush said, these wiretaps required a court order.

The current NSA program scans ALL telephone, fax and e-mails throughout the world. This is done by a supercomputer that "looks" for key phrases, certain names and calls placed to or from certain telephone numbers. When a communication contains one of the above, it is kicked out for review by an intelligence specialist.

The NSA in cooperation with security agencies of other countries has facilities all over the world to monitor communication. They've had many known successes including the capture of the Jackal, confirmation that Libya was involved in an airplane bombing and the discovery of a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. Who knows how many other successful intercepts have saved lives.

I appreciate the information, although it doesn't change my opinion.

Here's the link to the Rasmussen poll on the NSA:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

Oh, well I agree that most Americans support allowing the NSA to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. I support it as well. However, I don't see where it says that these people support the right to do this WITHOUT a warrant. I'm guessing that the % who support allowing this without a court order would decrease substantially.

 

[steen]

Slick Willy was a career felon

Nope.

and the most corrupt president we've had since Warren Harding.

No, that would be Nixon, Reagan, and now Shrubbie Jr. All repugnicans, by the way.