• 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.

US Tactics On Terrorism: Have We Gone Too Far?

From an interview in the Jim Lehrer New Hour.

The full reports on the NSA the following quote is from the first link of Dec 29th, 2005.

Link to the index of reports.



JAMES BAMFORD: Well, actually, you know, if you read the FISA Act it actually takes that into consideration. It says in a time of war, you can have an extra 15 days to present the information to the FISA court for a warrant. But it's very clear the whole idea of the FISA Act was to keep presidential power from getting out of control and using an agency like NSA to spy on American citizens.

One of the things that was said when they created the law was that this bill specifically states that the protections in the bill are the exclusive means by which the government can get permission to eavesdrop. And it said that the --it recognizes no inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance. That's what the law says and the law provides the penalty of five years in jail if you go around the law, which was done.

Now if they have a problem with that law, the place to solve that problem is by creating new laws or fixing this law in Congress. And I saw no effort by the administration to try to do that.

JOHN McLAUGHLIN: Gwen, I just want to add there that Jim and I aren't going to be able to settle these complex legal issues here today. People are making arguments on both sides of it. I think in the end the president's action will be shown to be legal. But I say that as a non-lawyer.

I just saw two men in some very hot seats during this discussion, it was funny and sad at the same time.

I do not disagree with the laws and oaths you stated, it is the knowlegdable and blatant disreguard of them that makes me go hummmmmmmmmm.

KMS
 
Last edited:
CaliNORML said:
From an interview in the Jim Lehrer New Hour.

The full reports on the NSA the following quote is from the first link of Dec 29th, 2005.

Link to the index of reports.



JAMES BAMFORD: Well, actually, you know, if you read the FISA Act it actually takes that into consideration. It says in a time of war, you can have an extra 15 days to present the information to the FISA court for a warrant. But it's very clear the whole idea of the FISA Act was to keep presidential power from getting out of control and using an agency like NSA to spy on American citizens.

One of the things that was said when they created the law was that this bill specifically states that the protections in the bill are the exclusive means by which the government can get permission to eavesdrop. And it said that the --it recognizes no inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance. That's what the law says and the law provides the penalty of five years in jail if you go around the law, which was done.

Now if they have a problem with that law, the place to solve that problem is by creating new laws or fixing this law in Congress. And I saw no effort by the administration to try to do that.

JOHN McLAUGHLIN: Gwen, I just want to add there that Jim and I aren't going to be able to settle these complex legal issues here today. People are making arguments on both sides of it. I think in the end the president's action will be shown to be legal. But I say that as a non-lawyer.

I just saw two men in some very hot seats during this discussion, it was funny and sad at the same time.

KMS

Guess what they did fix that it's called the Joint Resolution of congress authorizing the president to use any force to bring down AlQaeda:

(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.

Besides that FISA doesn't apply to overseas phone calls.
 
As this interview was given in December 2005, when was this law "fixed"?

It was still in place in the NSA, and those laws were never addressed as they should have been, if the President wanted this type of power.

It addressed those issues in the interviews as well.

KMS
 
CaliNORML said:
From an interview in the Jim Lehrer New Hour.

The full reports on the NSA the following quote is from the first link of Dec 29th, 2005.

Link to the index of reports.



JAMES BAMFORD: Well, actually, you know, if you read the FISA Act it actually takes that into consideration. It says in a time of war, you can have an extra 15 days to present the information to the FISA court for a warrant. But it's very clear the whole idea of the FISA Act was to keep presidential power from getting out of control and using an agency like NSA to spy on American citizens.

One of the things that was said when they created the law was that this bill specifically states that the protections in the bill are the exclusive means by which the government can get permission to eavesdrop. And it said that the --it recognizes no inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance. That's what the law says and the law provides the penalty of five years in jail if you go around the law, which was done.

Now if they have a problem with that law, the place to solve that problem is by creating new laws or fixing this law in Congress. And I saw no effort by the administration to try to do that.

JOHN McLAUGHLIN: Gwen, I just want to add there that Jim and I aren't going to be able to settle these complex legal issues here today. People are making arguments on both sides of it. I think in the end the president's action will be shown to be legal. But I say that as a non-lawyer.

I just saw two men in some very hot seats during this discussion, it was funny and sad at the same time.

KMS
I like that sentence you made red...

It's nice when we don't need an indictment...we don't need a grand jury...we don't need a procsecution...we don't need a trial...we don't need a conviction...

Why go through all of that legal crap when we just ask someone named James Bamford...a visiting professor and book writer at Berkeley?...:roll:
 
cnredd said:
I like that sentence you made red...

It's nice when we don't need an indictment...we don't need a grand jury...we don't need a procsecution...we don't need a trial...we don't need a conviction...

Why go through all of that legal crap when we just ask someone named James Bamford...a visiting professor and book writer at Berkeley?...:roll:

But he's from Berkeley so he must be a rational objective observer in the case of a Republican president what he says goes simply because he said it such is the mantra of the liberal elitests. :roll:
 
CaliNORML said:
As this interview was given in December 2005, when was this law "fixed"?

It was still in place in the NSA, and those laws were never addressed as they should have been, if the President wanted this type of power.

It addressed those issues in the interviews as well.

KMS

The war powers given to the President by a joint resolution of congress trump an outdated law written two decades ago and like I said the FISA act does not apply overseas.
 
As I have said there are more interviews and the legal opinions of a brave few, as this story broke less than a week ago, I am waiting to see how far it shall go.

However it turns out, is a matter of view that proper channels were not followed is obvious.

The CIA a Presidential organization has shown the same type of operations, leaving 22 wanted criminals in the EU from among the ranks of the Presidents men.

Home or abroad no difference seems to be made about the use of their tactic.
Do as we please we will "fix" it later.

KMS
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Fifth Column - Fifth column refers to any clandestine group of people which works covertly inside a nation to undermine its strength (psychological warfare) while the nation is simultaneously suffering an overt attack by a foreign power or another faction in a civil war.

synonyms may include Democrats and Liberals.

LOL..
The more you spout out junk from Michael Savage the less credibility you have.

Secondly....
Wouldn't we have to be under attack right now according to your little Michael Savage definition? It says SIMULTANEOUSLY, meaning, at the same time, I see nobody attacking us right now.
4 years ago is hardly simultaneous.
 
CaliNORML said:
As I have said there are more interviews and the legal opinions of a brave few, as this story broke less than a week ago, I am waiting to see how far it shall go.

However it turns out, is a matter of view that proper channels were not followed is obvious.

The CIA a Presidential organization has shown the same type of operations, leaving 22 wanted criminals in the EU from among the ranks of the Presidents men.

Home or abroad no difference seems to be made about the use of their tactic.
Do as we please we will "fix" it later.

KMS

The President was granted the War Powers to use any means to bring down AlQaeda in a joint resolution of congress on September 14, 2001, that trumps an outdated law designed to keep the president from spying on political opponents more than two decades ago.
 
CaliNORML said:
Do as we please we will "fix" it later.

KMS
Handcuff the government til people die, then you can blame the Republican President for it...
 
cnredd said:
Handcuff the government til people die, then you can blame the Republican President for it...

Let the government do whatever it wants in the name of "Security"
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
But terrorism is only a myth. :roll:

Really??? Wow, thats news to me!
 
Caine said:
LOL..
The more you spout out junk from Michael Savage the less credibility you have.

Secondly....
Wouldn't we have to be under attack right now according to your little Michael Savage definition? It says SIMULTANEOUSLY, meaning, at the same time, I see nobody attacking us right now.
4 years ago is hardly simultaneous.

They tryed to hit us again, they've been trying to hit us again, and they will continue to try to hit us again, the only thing that's stopping them is the superior tactics being implemented by the NSA through executive order and the Patriot Act and yet some Democratic Senators and writers at the NYT's think it's better to put partisan politics ahead of national security by leaking and publishing classified information about our strategy for defeating these murdering bastards.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
They tryed to hit us again, they've been trying to hit us again, and they will continue to try to hit us again, the only thing that's stopping them is the superior tactics being implemented by the NSA through executive order and the Patriot Act and yet some Democratic Senators and writers at the NYT's think it's better to put partisan politics ahead of national security by leaking and publishing classified information about are strategy for defeating these murdering bastards.

So.... now you know who leaked the story?

You better go tell Bush, he will love you forever.
 
Caine said:
So.... now you know who leaked the story?

You better go tell Bush, he will love you forever.

The only people who knew about it were key senators on the intelligence committee, the NSA, the head of the Justice Department, and the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State, now who stood to gain politically hmmm let me think could it be the Democratic senators on the intelligence committee???

It's called motive and opportunity it's circumstantial evidence but cases are won on circumstantial evidence all the time.
 
Caine said:
Let the government do whatever it wants in the name of "Security"
The government does not "do what it wants"...

I'm pretty sure no one WANTS to have to do anything to prevent attacks, but it's still something that must be done...

When the laws were made , there weren't any such things as "throwaway phones" or $10 phone cards...

By the time a 72 hour warrant would be in place, the person they'd like to listen in on could've used three or four different phones by then...Making the wiretap, with or without a warrant, be useless...

So the President makes a decision...National Security or a law that doesn't work...

How you could believe that answer isn't obvious is beyond me...

Here's what I want you to do...

Go through a lawbook in some podunk town in Middle America...see if you can find a law that is still on the books saying how a certain road can only be used for a Horse and Buggy...

Then go on every news show you can find and tell the world how everyone in that town is breaking the law with their "engine cars" and "horseless SUVs" and that the Mayor, and indeed, every Mayor before him, is in direct violation of the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest terms...

See how stupid that sounds?...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're the one who keeps classifying terrorism and terrorists as quote: "overhyped," and quote: "boogeymen."
Typical Conservative Tactic:
Turn one comment into something else to fit your own agenda.

I never said it was a myth.
I never said it was a myth.
I never said it was a myth.

Yes, it IS overhyped, its the excuse for everything.
Yes, I did start a poll asking if you were afraid of the middle eastern boogey man. No, I didn't say Al Qaeda IS the middle eastern boogey man, in a sense that it is a mythical creature.
You ASSumed so, and you did this so that it could fit your own agenda.

Tell you what, When you stop turning people's comments into something its not so that it can fit your own agenda, then maybe you will receive the respect of an honest debate from me, until then, Im going to be a sarcastic dickhead because you can't seem to debate without being dishonsest.
 
cnredd said:
The government does not "do what it wants"...

I'm pretty sure no one WANTS to have to do anything to prevent attacks, but it's still something that must be done...

When the laws were made , there weren't any such things as "throwaway phones" or $10 phone cards...

By the time a 72 hour warrant would be in place, the person they'd like to listen in on could've used three or four different phones by then...Making the wiretap, with or without a warrant, be useless...

So the President makes a decision...National Security or a law that doesn't work...

How you could believe that answer isn't obvious is beyond me...
Actually, the warrants can be obtained 72 hours AFTER the wiretap has been started, you can't tell me they have any other excuse except being lazy, if in fact they were doing the right thing and only targeting terrorist groups.

Here's what I want you to do...

Go through a lawbook in some podunk town in Middle America...see if you can find a law that is still on the books saying how a certain road can only be used for a Horse and Buggy...

Then go on every news show you can find and tell the world how everyone in that town is breaking the law with their "engine cars" and "horseless SUVs" and that the Mayor, and indeed, every Mayor before him, is in direct violation of the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest terms...

See how stupid that sounds?...
Actually........
There is still a law on the books in NC where a man can take his wife out on the courthouse steps on a sunday morning and beat her, legally.

This law came into effect when a man was arrested for beating his wife on the courthouse steps. He was let go because of this law, this happened in my hometown a few years ago.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The only people who knew about it were key senators on the intelligence committee, the NSA, the head of the Justice Department, and the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State, now who stood to gain politically hmmm let me think could it be the Democratic senators on the intelligence committee???

It's called motive and opportunity it's circumstantial evidence but cases are won on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Hrmmmmm.......
Doesn't sound like enough evidence to me.

Insert Coin and Try again.
 
Caine said:
Typical Conservative Tactic:
Turn one comment into something else to fit your own agenda.

I never said it was a myth.
I never said it was a myth.
I never said it was a myth.

Yes, it IS overhyped, its the excuse for everything.
Yes, I did start a poll asking if you were afraid of the middle eastern boogey man. No, I didn't say Al Qaeda IS the middle eastern boogey man, in a sense that it is a mythical creature.
You ASSumed so, and you did this so that it could fit your own agenda.

Tell you what, When you stop turning people's comments into something its not so that it can fit your own agenda, then maybe you will receive the respect of an honest debate from me, until then, Im going to be a sarcastic dickhead because you can't seem to debate without being dishonsest.

Typical liberal tactic:

When you don't have a leg to stand on revert to linguistic reinterpretation, and semantics to muddy the debate and draw attention away from the issue.

"Kerry didn't say that our troops are terrorists he said they're terrorizing which is completely different."

"I didn't say that terrorism was a myth I said: 'middleastern boogeyman,' and 'overhyped,'. . ."

"I don't support pol-pot I just said his crimes were overexagerated."

You realize that anyone with a shred of intelligence can see right through this crap right?
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Typical liberal tactic:

When you don't have a leg to stand on revert to linguistic reinterpretation, and semantics to muddy the debate and draw attention away from the issue.

"Kerry didn't say that our troops are terrorists he said they're terrorizing which is completely different."

"I didn't say that terrorism was a myth I said: 'middleastern boogeyman,' and 'overhyped,'. . ."

"I don't support pol-pot I just said his crimes were overexagerated."

Ummm... none of this makes any sense....

1. Yes Kerry DIDN'T say our troops were terrorists, Its a typical conservative spin on his ACTUAL comment. Try to twist all you want, the free thinking world knows better.

2. That is true. I don't get where you pull terrorism is a myth out of that, your lack of intelligence insults me, your supposed to be college educated.

3. I don't know anything about pol-pot, and don't give a ****, as it has nothing to do with the current situation. From what I have read in other posts, you are refering to this Chomsky guy or whatever, sorry, I never watched/read/listened/etc to him.

So.... You just proved that the typical Liberal response is to be honest about what someone said, instead of spinning it into something else for your own political gain. Hrm. This tells me alot about conservatives. For one, they are extremely dishonest.
 
Caine said:
Actually, the warrants can be obtained 72 hours AFTER the wiretap has been started, you can't tell me they have any other excuse except being lazy, if in fact they were doing the right thing and only targeting terrorist groups.
Wouldn't work...

First, it UP TO 72 hours...By the time the warrent is issued, it's meaningless due to throwaway phones and $10 phone cards I've mentioned earlier...You're only accusation then is not that the President is eavesdropping, it;'s that he's not doing the proper paperwork...

Yeah..THAT'S a cause for alarm...:roll:

Second, it's already been made public that this info was given on 12 different occasions in meetings with the Senate Intelligence Committee...which includes?...(C'mon...take a guess)....D_m_cr_ts...Wanna buy a vowel?...:2wave:

If they were targeting groups other than terrorists, you can ask them...


Caine said:
Actually........
There is still a law on the books in NC where a man can take his wife out on the courthouse steps on a sunday morning and beat her, legally.

This law came into effect when a man was arrested for beating his wife on the courthouse steps. He was let go because of this law, this happened in my hometown a few years ago.
Proves the absurdity of dealing with outdated laws...

And I'm sure your the first to defend him on that stance, correct?...

Hey!...It says it right here in the rules, so they MUST be right...:roll:

Ever drove above the speed limit?...Ever jaywalk?...

Turn yourself in, Mr. Righteous...
 
cnredd said:
Wouldn't work...

First, it UP TO 72 hours...By the time the warrent is issued, it's meaningless due to throwaway phones and $10 phone cards I've mentioned earlier...You're only accusation then is not that the President is eavesdropping, it;'s that he's not doing the proper paperwork...

Yeah..THAT'S a cause for alarm...:roll:

Second, it's already been made public that this info was given on 12 different occasions in meetings with the Senate Intelligence Committee...which includes?...(C'mon...take a guess)....D_m_cr_ts...Wanna buy a vowel?...:2wave:
Yes, it IS a cause for alarm. I'm sorry, the President is supposed to enforce the law, AND FOLLOW IT!
Just because he is the president, that doesn't give him permission to be above the law. Just look at Clinton. He didn't follow the law and got busted, and he only got his dick sucked and lied about it.


Proves the absurdity of dealing with outdated laws...

And I'm sure your the first to defend him on that stance, correct?...

Hey!...It says it right here in the rules, so they MUST be right...:roll:

Ever drove above the speed limit?...Ever jaywalk?...

Turn yourself in, Mr. Righteous...
Nope I would NOT defend him on that stance, why are you ASSuming? Keep your assumptions to yourself.

The rest of your post is retarded, as I have already confessed all law breaking occurences to the Investigators who conducted my Interview for the Police Department.

Nice try, but you actually have to know something about someone before you throw out retarded accusations.
 
Back
Top Bottom