Bush Criminalizes Dissent!

[rhinefire]

Meh, I'm well armed.

So was everyone that S.W.A.T. killed but I was not referring to arms rather,
"information" thay have on every citizen so stick to the subject. So all namby pamby's out there screaming violations of their privacy, YOU HAVE NO PRIVACY ANYMORE !!!!!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightinNYU
It's got nothing to do with Bush. If someone makes a claim, they should have evidence to back it up. Barring that evidence, I consider that claim to be false.

So wire-tapping and the NSA have nothing to do with Bush? Let me guess, you want proof Bush physically made a request for the phone records? Why? So he could "personnally" read them all himself? Is that the proof you want? Are you unable to take a more cognitive view of this and see the red flags that indicate things are happening directly opposite from what he is saying publically? Does he have to "personally" wiretap each phone for you to acknowledge it has something to do with him?

So what your saying his that he is not responsible for the actions of government done on his watch? That it's not his policy being implemented?

Originally posted by RightinNYU
Not sure what this has to do with anything. To the best of my knowledge, the fact is that neither Bush nor anyone else "requested the phone records of 200,000,000 Americans." That might not be the fact you want, but that's the fact that exists.

So he has to "personnally" request them?

Do you know how dumb that sounds?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Why trust a thing that comes out of President Clinton's mouth because he lied to Congress?

Why trust anything that comes out of Bush Sr.'s mouth because he lied about "no new taxes?"

Why trust anything that came out of Reagan's mouth because he lied about the Iran-Contra affair?

Do I need to keep going back to Carter, Nixon, and Kennedy?

Give it a rest Billo. Being lied to by our politicians for this matter or for that matter is as American as personal liberty and apple pie. You are told things of no consequence just to make you feel like you are involved and informed. Those matters that do carry with it a measure of sensibility that needs to stay with America is not for your ears and you will be "lied" to. This is what has built and maintained your comfy, free, luxurious life style.

And which of today's Presidential candidates do you think won't "lie" to you?

Do you really think this is NEWS?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So he has to "personnally" request them?

Do you know how dumb that sounds?

Phone records are private domain and not protected by the 4th amendment.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Phone records are private domain and not protected by the 4th amendment.

I don't care if they are or aren't.

That wasn't my point!

 

[Monk-Eye]

Mind Business

"Mind Business"

Phone records are private domain and not protected by the 4th amendment.

The supreme court has ruled otherwise.
Phone records are protected under the fourth amendment.

As situations diversify, the new areas are often without protection.
An example is public street cameras.
If a crime is committed and video records exist that provide information about a vehicle or persons, then access to the records should be requested by court order.
If video records are made available to public authority for investigation without probable cause, that should be unlawful.

It is usually unlawful to record third party conversations in which one is not involved.

 

[RightinNYC]

So wire-tapping and the NSA have nothing to do with Bush? Let me guess, you want proof Bush physically made a request for the phone records? Why? So he could "personnally" read them all himself? Is that the proof you want? Are you unable to take a more cognitive view of this and see the red flags that indicate things are happening directly opposite from what he is saying publically? Does he have to "personally" wiretap each phone for you to acknowledge it has something to do with him?

So what your saying his that he is not responsible for the actions of government done on his watch? That it's not his policy being implemented?

So he has to "personnally" request them?

Do you know how dumb that sounds?

Jesus Christ billo, listen to what I'm saying.

For the third time, my point is that there's no evidence that ANYONE, (Bush, NSA, or otherwise) "requested the phone records of 200,000,000 Americans." All your article said was that three phone companies, who in total have 200,000,000 subscribers, have in the past complied with fed requests for info.

That doesn't mean that the government requested info on all 200,000,000. In fact, that would be an incredibly shitty conclusion to draw based on the information presented.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Mind Business

"Mind Business"
The supreme court has ruled otherwise.
Phone records are protected under the fourth amendment.

No sir the SCOTUS has ruled just the opposite see the SCOTUS case of Smith V. Maryland, there is no "reasonable expectation to privacy." The contents of the phone calls maybe protected under the 4th but not the records themselves; furthermore, no one is tapping the phone calls of U.S. citizens they are tapping the phones of known terrorist operatives overseas, that alone should fall under the probable cause exception to the 4th if someone in this country is talking to those people.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Jesus Christ billo, listen to what I'm saying.

For the third time, my point is that there's no evidence that ANYONE, (Bush, NSA, or otherwise) "requested the phone records of 200,000,000 Americans." All your article said was that three phone companies, who in total have 200,000,000 subscribers, have in the past complied with fed requests for info.

That doesn't mean that the government requested info on all 200,000,000. In fact, that would be an incredibly shitty conclusion to draw based on the information presented.

Rightin, who cares? These records are not protected anyways see Smith V. Maryland.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by RightinNYC
Jesus Christ billo, listen to what I'm saying.

For the third time, my point is that there's no evidence that ANYONE, (Bush, NSA, or otherwise) "requested the phone records of 200,000,000 Americans." All your article said was that three phone companies, who in total have 200,000,000 subscribers, have in the past complied with fed requests for info.

That doesn't mean that the government requested info on all 200,000,000. In fact, that would be an incredibly shitty conclusion to draw based on the information presented.

Contradict your own accusation!

First you state there were "no requests" by the "NSA", then in the very next sentance, you admit these companies complied with "requests"!

Make up your god-damn mind! You can't have it both ways. Pick one and defend that. And stop talking to me as if I was some kind of foole.

BTW, here's what the article said for reference...

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

They "say" this isn't part of the wire-tapping. I "say", f.u.c.k.i.n' prove it! I'm not going to take the Administrations word for anything at this point. They have a track record of lying to this nation and I personally think it is disgusting that people in this country defend that.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Contradict your own accusation!

First you state there were "no requests" by the "NSA", then in the very next sentance, you admit these companies complied with "requests"!

Make up your god-damn mind! You can't have it both ways. Pick one and defend that. And stop talking to me as if I was some kind of foole.

BTW, here's what the article said for reference...They "say" this isn't part of the wire-tapping. I "say", f.u.c.k.i.n' prove it! I'm not going to take the Administrations word for anything at this point. They have a track record of lying to this nation and I personally think it is disgusting that people in this country defend that.

Sorry partner, these phone records are not protected under the 4th, Smith V. Maryland, eat that sh!t.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Sorry partner, these phone records are not protected under the 4th, Smith V. Maryland, eat that sh!t.

Stop trying to hijack this thread and change the topic!

This is my thread, not yours.

Ban yourself!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Stop trying to hijack this thread and change the topic!

This is my thread, not yours.

Ban yourself!

Smith V. Maryland, end of story.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Smith V. Maryland, end of story.

Maybe the end of your story, but not the end of mine...

Telecom Firms Helped With Government's Warrantless Wiretaps
By Ellen Nakashima The Washington Post Friday 24 August2007

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time that telecommunications companies assisted the government's warrantless surveillance program and were being sued as a result, an admission some legal experts say could complicate the government's bid to halt numerous lawsuits challenging the program's legality.

"nder the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said in an interview with the El Paso Times published Wednesday.

His statement could help plaintiffs in dozens of lawsuits against the telecom companies, which allege that the companies participated in a wiretapping program that violated Americans' privacy rights, former Justice Department officials said. Warrantless surveillance began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was placed under supervision of a special court in January.

An appeals court in San Francisco is weighing the government's argument that these cases should be thrown out on the grounds that the subject matter is a "state secret" and that its disclosure would jeopardize national security.

The government has repeatedly asserted that any relationship between the telecommunications firms and the National Security Agency's spy program is classified. The firms' alleged cooperation and other details of the program, government lawyers have argued, are so sensitive that they cannot be disclosed. The government has argued the lawsuits against the telecom firms must be dismissed.

"[D]isclosure of the information covered by this [state secrets] privilege assertion reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States," McConnell said in a sworn affidavit filed in a federal court in San Francisco in May.

David Kris, a former Justice Department official in Republican and Democratic administrations, said McConnell's admission makes it difficult to argue that the phone companies' cooperation with the government is a state secret. "It's going to be tough to continue to call it 'alleged' when he's just admitted it," Kris said.

Apparently, the government is making the same mistake RightinNYU made by admitting something they say didn't happen, to prove it didn't happen!

 

[RightinNYC]

Contradict your own accusation!

First you state there were "no requests" by the "NSA", then in the very next sentance, you admit these companies complied with "requests"!

Make up your god-damn mind! You can't have it both ways. Pick one and defend that. And stop talking to me as if I was some kind of foole.

Where did I say there were no requests made? I said that there was nothing to back up your claim that 200,000,000 million Americans had their phone records requested. Nothing disputes that in the slightest.

BTW, here's what the article said for reference...They "say" this isn't part of the wire-tapping. I "say", f.u.c.k.i.n' prove it! I'm not going to take the Administrations word for anything at this point. They have a track record of lying to this nation and I personally think it is disgusting that people in this country defend that.

Again, your general disdain for the administration doesn't mean that any negative actions you attribute toward them are valid.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Maybe the end of your story, but not the end of mine...

Apparently, the government is making the same mistake RightinNYU made by admitting something they say didn't happen, to prove it didn't happen!

Tell me when exactly did we need a warrant to tap the phones of non-citizens overseas? Nobody is tapping the phones of people in the U.S. they are tapping the phones of people overseas who call into the U.S. and if someone is talking to a terrorist overseas then they should not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the tap should meet the standards of probable cause. Regardless we were talking about phone records not phone calls, and phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment end of story.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by RightinNYU:
Where did I say there were no requests made? I said that there was nothing to back up your claim that 200,000,000 million Americans had their phone records requested. Nothing disputes that in the slightest.


Again, your general disdain for the administration doesn't mean that any negative actions you attribute toward them are valid.

My "disdain" for the White House is not without probable cause. You think what you want to think, I'm saying he told us one thing and did another. If you can't see that, or refuse to admit that, fine! That's your problem. Your world and your welcome to it. But the fact is, what they were doing, was opposite of what he was saying.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

My "disdain" for the White House is not without probable cause. You think what you want to think, I'm saying he told us one thing and did another. If you can't see that, or refuse to admit that, fine! That's your problem. Your world and your welcome to it. But the fact is, what they were doing, was opposite of what he was saying.

Yada yada yada, phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment and we are not tapping citizens phones we are tapping the phones of overseas terrorists and yes if they happen to call into the U.S. that call will be monitored as well it should be, if you're speaking to a terrorist that is probable cause in the first place.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Yada yada yada, phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment and we are not tapping citizens phones we are tapping the phones of overseas terrorists and yes if they happen to call into the U.S. that call will be monitored as well it should be, if you're speaking to a terrorist that is probable cause in the first place.

Prove it!......

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Prove it!......

You made the accusation that they were, the burden of proof is on you, it is not my job to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you sir.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
You made the accusation that they were, the burden of proof is on you, it is not my job to prove a negative, the burden of proof is on you sir.

I already proved my point. And you just did what you usually do when it's time to man-up and show some responsibility, you run away!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I already proved my point. And you just did what you usually do when it's time to man-up and show some responsibility, you run away!

You've proven nothing, it has been made pefectly clear what the terrorist surveillance program entails and then you go about running your yap about tapping phones of U.S. citizens which has nothing to do with the program.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
You've proven nothing, it has been made pefectly clear what the terrorist surveillance program entails and then you go about running your yap about tapping phones of U.S. citizens which has nothing to do with the program.

You're the only "Yapper" in these parts!

Show where I said that?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Yada yada yada, phone records are not protected by the 4th amendment and we are not tapping citizens phones...

If this wasn't illegal, why would Bush be seeking immunity?

Bush Seeks Legal Immunity for Telecoms
The Associated Press Friday 31 August 2007

Washington - The Bush administration wants the power to grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that are slapped with privacy suits for cooperating with the White House's controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.

The authority would effectively shut down dozens of lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies accused of helping set up the program.

Your position is such a joke!

 

[Renae]

He's seeking immunity because idiots can file lawsuits, those lawsuits, even ones that get tossed in court cost these companies money, enough of them hve to waste money on stopping paranoid fools and it becomes a real drain and they may not assist in future anti terrorism efforts.

I know, that's really deep, and difficult, and doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, but there you go, that's why he's doing it.