• 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.

Did Bush lie, or did he lie?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
For someone who puts partisan politics over national security what does that say about you?

So you would make the same warentless accusations against Specter and McCain too right? They both have questioned Bush's authority to spy on Americans.

It's also not just that he lied. Bush went OUT OF HIS WAY to lie on this issue - He added the whole "we get warrants" thing on the stump numerous times as an aside to a question that he wasn't even asked. While he was lying, Bush knew full well that the NYT was sitting on the story, AND HE DID IT ANYWAY!

Unbelievable.
 
steen said:
Ah, but per the very first post here, I documented that the president stated that warrants were legally needed.

No, you didn't. The only thing you did with your very first post was prove your partisanship and your sophomoric willingness to take a quote and use it out of context.

Once again, read the entire comment, not just the part that you want to pick out for a partisan rant...

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies."

Only someone wishing to seek partisan political advantage would allege a lie in this statement.
 
hipsterdufus said:
So you would make the same warentless accusations against Specter and McCain too right? They both have questioned Bush's authority to spy on Americans.

It's also not just that he lied. Bush went OUT OF HIS WAY to lie on this issue - He added the whole "we get warrants" thing on the stump numerous times as an aside to a question that he wasn't even asked. While he was lying, Bush knew full well that the NYT was sitting on the story, AND HE DID IT ANYWAY!

Unbelievable.

First off Specter and McCain are Republicans in name only.

Second off Bush did not lie about the wire taps (which are totally legal by the way) he protected a classified operation that was protecting the citizenry of this country from further terrorist attacks in the name of national security, to reveal it would have been the crime one which. whoever leaked said information and the ones who we know published said information, are guilty of:

Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information
>
> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
> transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
> or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
> interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
> government to the detriment of the United States any classified
> information -
> (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
> cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
> foreign government; or
> (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
> repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or
> prepared or
> planned for use by the United States or any foreign
> government
> for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
> (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
> United States or any foreign government; or
> (4) obtained by the process of communication intelligence
> from
> the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
> same to
> have been obtained by such processes -
> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
>years, or both.

Unbelievable!!!
 
Last edited:
The only powers the President has, are the powers that the Constitution and Congress allow him to have. He's not a king, he's not a dictator, he is the executive branch of this government. He doesn't make his own powers. He doesn't break the law to ensure national security. He obeys the law, as well as the powers that he is Constitutionally given. Wiretaps (without a court order) were not part of those powers.
 
Billo_Really said:
The only powers the President has, are the powers that the Constitution and Congress allow him to have. He's not a king, he's not a dictator, he is the executive branch of this government. He doesn't make his own powers. He doesn't break the law to ensure national security. He obeys the law, as well as the powers that he is Constitutionally given. Wiretaps (without a court order) were not part of those powers.


You sir are exactly right:
Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
You sir are exactly right:
Let me ask you this. Where is the line? When, in your opinion, would the President cross the line? Where do YOU draw that line?
 
Billo_Really said:
Let me ask you this. Where is the line? When, in your opinion, would the President cross the line? Where do YOU draw that line?

Oh there's a line he just hasn't crossed it yet if he started spying on political opponents that's a line, if he started spying on war protestors that's a line, if he started spying on say . . . you, that's a line, but when he's spying on AlQaeda suspects that's not the line, not even close.
 
Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus:
Oh there's a line he just hasn't crossed it yet if he started spying on political opponents that's a line, if he started spying on war protestors that's a line, if he started spying on say . . . you, that's a line, but when he's spying on AlQaeda suspects that's not the line, not even close.
There are reports he has spied on protestors. Now that he's crossed that line, what should we do about it?
 
Billo_Really said:
There are reports he has spied on protestors. Now that he's crossed that line, what should we do about it?

I've also seen reports that he's spied on gay rights student groups, PETA, and numerous others. IMHO, that's crossed the line.
 
Billo_Really said:
There are reports he has spied on protestors. Now that he's crossed that line, what should we do about it?

LMFAO give me credible and I do mean credible reports on who he's spyed on and if they are not terrorist agitators working on behalf of AlQaeda then you know damn well what I'll do.

Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex! (Death to tyrants and thus always for tyrants, liberty or death!)

Though you and I both know that such reports don't exist and you are spreading misinformation on behalf of the fifth column.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off Specter and McCain are Republicans in name only.

Second off Bush did not lie about the wire taps (which are totally legal by the way) he protected a classified operation that was protecting the citizenry of this country from further terrorist attacks in the name of national security, to reveal it would have been the crime one which. whoever leaked said information and the ones who we know published said information, are guilty of:



Unbelievable!!!

Then I'll hope it was McCain who leaked the info. He can spend the next 10 years in prison and the Dems can elect whoever they want in 08.

whoo - hooo! :mrgreen:
 
hipsterdufus said:
Then I'll hope it was McCain who leaked the info. He can spend the next 10 years in prison and the Dems can elect whoever they want in 08.

whoo - hooo! :mrgreen:

It wasn't McCain even he's not that liberal. You are right about one thing though when McCain wins the Primary you guys aint got a snow balls chance in hell in 08. :mrgreen:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It wasn't McCain even he's not that liberal. You are right about one thing though when McCain wins the Primary you guys aint got a snow balls chance in hell in 08. :mrgreen:

Uhh - the word liberal has nothing to do with that.

McCain would be tough to beat for sure. In my best case scenario I would like to have 2 candidates worthy of the office in 08. That's a win-win for the country.
 
I think many people here are under the misconception these wiretaps were occurring solely within local to local calls in the US.

The truth of the matter is that all of these calls monitored were of suspected terrorists and they were outside of the country making calls in or vice versa.

The government doesn't have time nor the resources to dabble in our trite and boring lives nor would they want to. Anyway who is worried about this is just an eternal pessimist.

It should also be noted that most of these laws were in place to do this sort of thing anyway, and some of the facets were put into place by the previous administration.

This is why I can't stand partisan politics. Many of you here are completely ignoring these simple facts, and as much as I can't stand both parties, playing partisan drone when something as important as National Security is on the line is damn-right disingenuous and pathetic.
 
To expand a bit on SixString's point...

There is no part of the FISA process that allows acting quickly, in real "real time", not just sort-of real time, if you will. If you read FISA, you'll find that even the "do it and then you have 72 hours to get the court order" provisions require fairly extensive AG and supervisory approvals, a process that can take a day or two in and of itself. The only way to act immediately, in true "real time" is to have a procedure in place that allows immediate exploitation of intelligence when the capture/obtaining of that intelligence meets certain criteria. Those criteria haven't been made publicly available, for obvious reasons, but it doesn't take much to imagine that they would include phone numbers or email addresses captured in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan (or any scene of terrorists activity). Those phone numbers or email addresses might or might not be 'owned' by a 'US person' as defined by FISA. In the operational context, that is important, yes, but it is also secondary to gaining as much information as possible as to the identity, location, and knowledge of recent communications that the terrorist activity or terrorist who was formerly in possession of that phone number or email address might have had with whomever is on the other end of that phone number/email. When thinking of this program, keep in mind that one 'end' of the communications 'chain' has to be outside the US. Certainly, these phone numbers/emails are time sensitive, their intelligence value can decay rapidly, sometimes within minutes and hours.

As to the slippery slope of constitutional rights and civil liberties, there are, IMO, many, many other activities more questionable in this regard than this particular NSA surveillance program. But, no doubt about it, there are zealots who will willingly sacrifice civil liberties on the altar of their particular, perhaps warped, sense of national security. Furthermore, there is no doubt that many of the high-tech surveillance techniques of which NSA is capable engenders an immediate Orwellian reaction in many of us. The secrecy, the high-tech, somewhat mysterious nature of it all certainly contributes to that reaction. But as long as we continue to have media that seeks to sell papers by exposing every nuance of each and every administration (both Repub and Dem) and as long as we have politicians who seek partisan advantage at every turn, nothing will remain secret for very long. I am a frequent critic of some of the stunts pulled by the MSM and blatant partisanship of some politicians, but this is a strong agrument in their favor. Moreover, as long as there are human beings involved, there is going to be someone, somewhere who will have a sense of right and wrong and will blow the whistle. And thats a good thing.

Just to be clear: from what I've read thus far, I have no problem with this NSA surveillance program authorized by the President. However, if subsequent congressional hearings reveal new or additional info that result in DoJ or even congressional action against the President or people in his administration, then so be it. If they did the crime, they do the time. But first, prove that a crime was committed.
 
Back
Top Bottom