 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmm.... Contrary to what some who post here think, what the President ok'd was illegal, even in times of "war". the constitution doesn't give the president any "xtra " legal prerogatives. He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. He should rot in prison with that other pinhead "dick" (what an appropriate name) Cheney. For those of you that disagree with this, show where it is ok, and I will stand corrected.Peace
--
BlooMe | |
|  | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: hmmm.... I wish he had been a size 15 and wearing boots | |
| | | bcoleman71
join:2007-09-18
Dallas, TX
| said by doc69  :I agree.  On another note I just wish the guy had one more shoe, DAMMIT. I can't wait to see what the political satirists will do with that! And also, what do you think the odds are that eventually there will be a video game called 'Shoe the President' lol | |
| | | | | | 
Seadone1
@bellsouth.net | ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SIR!!!!
I second your motion!!! | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by woody7 :He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. So let's say that President Obama receives actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. He acts on this intelligence and neutralizes a threat. Being a good president, he goes to the FISA court to get a blessing for this but oops! The court tells him that he did not cross all the i's and dot all the t's on his order, so what he did was illegal. We might even have to send the people who carried out this order to prison because they did something "illegal."
What happens the next time there's a threat? Should Obama let it happen? Would US military or other services stick their necks out to prevent a potential attack knowing that they themselves risk prosecution?
The main problem with putting any court in the way of the President engaging in actions against foreign terrorists is just that type of scenario. We did not have FISA courts until the late 1970s, how did presidents prior to then handle such matters? They certainly did not wait for some outside authority to bless their actions, they just took care of business.
The only real "outrage" over Bush bypassing FISA comes from the looney left that simply seeks to attack him at every possible opportunity. I am sure that when Obama has to deal with a crisis and decides to sidestep FISA, most of Obama's supporters aren't going to care.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Re: hmmm.... 1-Tamm grew frustrated when the story did not immediately appear. He was hoping, he says, that Lichtblau and his partner Risen (with whom he also met) would figure out on their own what the program was really all about and break it before the 2004 election. He was, by this time, "pissed off" at the Bush administration, he says. He contributed $300 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004, according to campaign finance records.
2- Paul Kemp, one of Tamm's lawyers, says he was recently told by the Justice Department prosecutor in charge of Tamm's case that there will be no decision about whether to prosecute until next year—after the Obama administration takes office. The case could present a dilemma for the new leadership at Justice. During the presidential campaign, Obama condemned the warrantless-wiretapping program. So did Eric Holder, Obama's choice to become attorney general. In a tough speech last June, Holder said that Bush had acted "in direct defiance of federal law" by authorizing the NSA program.
Let see what President Obama decides to do with this case. | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: hmmm.... Interesting points. So this looks more like the "he's a hero because he supports the Democrats" template.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty | |
| | | | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | Re: hmmm.... No. It's the "He's a hero who supports the constitution, the rule of law and the oath he took at the DoJ" template. Different thing altogether.
That might filter past your partisanship someday. | |
| | | scantor
join:2004-08-11
Columbus, OH
| How about you give up your civil rights, and I'll sign a waiver letting the president go ahead and let me get blown up, since I still value mine.
The law is the law. Your hypothetical straw man aside, you don't get a free pass because you had a good reason. You risk the fallout and then argue to the judge why you did it. If the reason was justified, chances are you'll get away with it. That's how the system works. That's why torture is illegal; the risk of doing it should be such that it won't be done unless the bomb is ticking, not just because your boss is a sadist.
It used to be that it was considered a tenet of the right that executive power had limits. Liberty and all that. That's where the word libertarian comes from. It's sad and pathetic what people have come to, but I'll happily stand with the loony left, regardless of who the president is. And I'm more than proud to stand on the opposite side from you. | |
| | | | mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Lawrence, KS | Re: hmmm.... I'll second that. | |
| | | | 
mech1164
I'Ll Be Back
join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ
| said by scantor :How about you give up your civil rights, and I'll sign a waiver letting the president go ahead and let me get blown up, since I still value mine. The law is the law. Your hypothetical straw man aside, you don't get a free pass because you had a good reason. You risk the fallout and then argue to the judge why you did it. If the reason was justified, chances are you'll get away with it. That's how the system works. That's why torture is illegal; the risk of doing it should be such that it won't be done unless the bomb is ticking, not just because your boss is a sadist. It used to be that it was considered a tenet of the right that executive power had limits. Liberty and all that. That's where the word libertarian comes from. It's sad and pathetic what people have come to, but I'll happily stand with the loony left, regardless of who the president is. And I'm more than proud to stand on the opposite side from you. Good lord
You actually believe the Cr@p you spew out. Fisa was set up for one thing and one thing only. A political power grab by the Legislative to hamstring the Executive office. Everyone cries the law is the law. BS on that. Don't believe me fine look at WWII. Thousands upon thousands of loyal Japanese American citizens rounded up and placed in relocation centers around the country. Oh, who was that that did this none other then Roosevelt. During times of conflict like war the President gets special powers to act in the defense of the country. Don't like it, TOUGH. Amend the constitution. Or better yet we could have had the right of Habeas corpus suspended. Happened during the civil war.
People here don't even know what's in their own Constitution. Yet they proclaim that whatever it is must be against the law.
It scares me to think that you could be that stupid or naive about this.
Then again from your own statement sadly its soo true. | |
| | | | | Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
| Re: hmmm.... said by mech1164 :People here don't even know what's in their own Constitution. Yet they proclaim that whatever it is must be against the law. Do please explain to me what is involved in the application of amendment 4 to the U.S. Government. A warrant is required to violate the privacy of a citizen. The warrant was not obtained, making the action illegal. | |
| | | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | said by pnh102 :So let's say that President Obama receives actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. He acts on this intelligence and neutralizes a threat. Being a good president, he goes to the FISA court to get a blessing for this but oops! The court tells him that he did not cross all the i's and dot all the t's on his order, so what he did was illegal. We might even have to send the people who carried out this order to prison because they did something "illegal." This argument is pure B.S. because there has never been even one single documented occurrence of FISA saying no to any request.  | |
| | | MTU
Premium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| As one who's written many criminal search warrants under 'urgent' circumstances, I can attest to the fact that it's EASY to do.
FISA makes it's even EASIER by virtue of the fact that the grounds, or cause, for the 'search' can be supplied to the FISA court AFTER the 'search' is conducted.
Without oversight, you get lazy, questionable, or deliberately false information being used to justify fishing expeditions.
I seen a few of those 'errors' cause innocent folks to have their front door kicked in at 3 am. | |
| | |
Shoreleave
@comcast.net | Don't you think that the president would have capable lawyers at his disposal to make sure the "i"s get dotted and the "t's crossed.
You response is as ignorant as Bush's actionable conduct... | |
| | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| *sigh*.. You don't get it do you. The PROBLEM was NOT with 'foreign' operatives. The problem was that AMERICAN CITIZENS were being illegally wiretapped. Do you have any idea what the constitution is? Have you ever read it (the real one, not the 'bush doctrine version'. Guess what, EVERY AMERICAN has the right to be secure in their home. Guess what, you CANNOT wiretap an AMERICAN WITHOUT A WARRANT! What part of the rights of the people don't you understand..
The problem is this. They find a cell phone overseas, with an American phone number. The problem is they chose not to get a warrant (AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION), and spied on an AMERICAN in AMERICA. I don't CARE if an Al-queada operative called my phone in the US. Without a WARRANT, they have NO RIGHT to monitor me. The OTHER problem is that they are doing MUCH MORE than the warrant allows, when they ever bother to get a warrant. If you've ever been server a warrant, I suguest you read it. It says WHAT and WHERE they are allowed to look. The cops CANNOT look in your trunk WITHOUT A WARRANT. PERIOD. The Bush regime would have ever cop searching every car, every home, every cell phone, and every credit card transaction of every american in the lame hope that the catch the evil 'terrist'.
Bush should go to jail. Cheney should go to jail. Everyone invovled should go to jail. Period.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: hmmm.... Only problem with your thesis is, foreign nationals use our system to communicate with each other in the planning of attacks or other items that are "against the law". I know of several unpublicized potential incidents that were thwarted by some of the monitoring that you do not like. If you can prevent non-US citizens and US Citizens of Convenience (yes, some folks become citizens of the US to support their organization/country), then I might agree with you.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | dustman81
join:2002-05-28
Tallmadge, OH
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: hmmm.... The burden of proof is on the government to prove an illegal action was taken. The burden of proof is not on me to prove I'm innocent. You know, that whole "Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
I, as an US citizen, have a reasonable expectation to be secure in my persons and effects. The only time that can be violated legally is when presented with a valid search warrant signed by a judge and that search warrant only covers what is listed on the warrant and nothing else. This right is guaranteed by the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Will certain nefarious individuals use the system against us? Yes, there will always be those who subvert the system by using it to their advantage. But that has been happening since this country was founded and will never stop. But the system is place to protect citizens from their government.
I would rather die free than live in tyranny. | |
| | | |
B2BOMBer
@aol.com
| I agree with what you said because I think a close friend of mine is a victim. But when you think about it there is not a lot we can do about it. I was brutally attacked by a state agency and lost everything because I told them not to tell me what to do in my own home.But the main factor was that I had the nerve to say I was a Christian and under their rules and regulations that was a huge no-no.I wish I could have found a good lawyer at that time but for some reason no one wanted to go against the state.Imagine that. | |
| | | | |
American citizen
@covad.net
| Re: hmmm.... Another point of reference in my belief that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says is illegal or constitutional or any other lofty ideals that we mistakenly think that the various powers "have" to abide by. If those holding the power want to infringe upon your rights, they will and can because of the mere fact they can. The only recourse you have regrettably, is a might vs. right stance-think American Revolution situation.Local, State and Federal authorities can seize your bank accounts wiretap your phone harass and arrest you you and hold you without due process etc etc etc. You can only hope that you are not on their "list" and either you go along with the game or you fight it. Don't think the courts are on your side either especially when it involves Federal stuff. Bush and his administration have routinely violated US Constitutional Law ,International Law and common decency and not one penalty has been assessed and this regime will walk away free and clear of any charges. | |
| | | 
HFB1217
The Wizard
Premium,ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-26
Camelot
clubs: 
1 edit | said by pnh102 :said by woody7 :He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. So let's say that President Obama receives actionable intelligence that something bad is going to happen. He acts on this intelligence and neutralizes a threat. Being a good president, he goes to the FISA court to get a blessing for this but oops! The court tells him that he did not cross all the i's and dot all the t's on his order, so what he did was illegal. We might even have to send the people who carried out this order to prison because they did something "illegal." What happens the next time there's a threat? Should Obama let it happen? Would US military or other services stick their necks out to prevent a potential attack knowing that they themselves risk prosecution? The main problem with putting any court in the way of the President engaging in actions against foreign terrorists is just that type of scenario. We did not have FISA courts until the late 1970s, how did presidents prior to then handle such matters? They certainly did not wait for some outside authority to bless their actions, they just took care of business. The only real "outrage" over Bush bypassing FISA comes from the looney left that simply seeks to attack him at every possible opportunity. I am sure that when Obama has to deal with a crisis and decides to sidestep FISA, most of Obama's supporters aren't going to care. .
The law gives him 24 hours from the time of the actionable threat to get approval for the actions needed. That allows for the emanate threat to be dealt with and remain legal. Also what was done was not about foriegn acess it was done here on our shores to American citizens and totally unconsitutional.
--
****aka The WIZARD *** A Founding member of Seti BBR Team Starfire*** | |
| | | | | | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: hmmm.... Why? | |
| | | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Let's see where the boundries are. Are you OK with the police imprisoning your daughter/son because that child may be implicated in a conspiracy to commit murder investigation? Of course you wouldn't be informed why your kid was in prison.
The police would also open all of your mail and read it, between the postman and your mailbox; every day.
Likewise there would be the daily warrantless search of your home, vehicle, parents house, employer, anywhere else you might happen to spend time.
What would be helpful, is if you would offer which of these things is objectionable to you. I'm not really looking for some sort of microcosmic comparison between the above and aspects of the patriot act. I just want to know where you would draw the line.
I support the patriot act, at least I would if we had a declaration of war so a sunset could be attached to it. The reason for escaping warrants is to ease the development of wholesale monitoring of everyone's communications.
Everyone's communications, except for people of power; of course.
So I'll repeat the oft exampled statement. Whichever aspects of the patriot act you support, you can evidence that support by openly providing your corresponding personal information here.
That way, you can walk the walk, as well.
NV
--
I support Little League RollerBall. | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: hmmm.... said by GOLFnSUN :said by pnh102 :The only real "outrage" over Bush bypassing FISA comes from the looney left that simply seeks to attack him at every possible opportunity. I am sure that when Obama has to deal with a crisis and decides to sidestep FISA, most of Obama's supporters aren't going to care. Good post. The whistleblower in this case should go to prison. Really? How do you feel about someone outing a covert CIA operative? Should they be shot, or given life in prison? What do you think? | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: hmmm.... said by ross :Really? How do you feel about someone outing a covert CIA operative? Should they be shot, or given life in prison? What do you think? Of course Richard Armitage should be prosecuted. Why he was allowed to get away with this we'll never know.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty | |
| | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: hmmm.... said by pnh102 :said by ross :Really? How do you feel about someone outing a covert CIA operative? Should they be shot, or given life in prison? What do you think? Of course Richard Armitage should be prosecuted. Why he was allowed to get away with this we'll never know. You mean this Bush minion:
"Armitage has been questioned several times, but is not expected to be indicted by the federal grand jury investigating who outed CIA spy Valerie Plame to journalists in 2003, sources said." However, Armitage's "testimony could hurt" I. Lewis Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's "indicted former chief aide," or Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's "political guru," Bazinet and Meek wrote. "Two sources familiar with the case said Armitage, Rove and Libby all had contacts with the press about Plame. Unlike Rove and Libby, Armitage appears to have tried to dissuade reporters from writing about her." (Source: »www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti···Armitage )
I'm for trying the Boss who gave the orders for this, rather than the dupe who did the deed at his behest. | |
| | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: hmmm.... Yawn.
Richard Armitage admitted that he "leaked" Mrs. Plame's identity. Patrick Fitzgerald knew this. The fact that Fitzgerald did not prosecute Armitage shows that Fitzgerald did not believe that a crime was committed in that regard.
As for Scooter Libby, he was only convicted of charges related to not being able to tell the same story to a grand jury. Had he done the correct thing and simply said he couldn't recall anything, he'd not have been in any legal trouble. He was never prosecuted for and never convicted of leaking Mrs. Plame's identity.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty | |
| | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Re: hmmm.... said by pnh102 :Yawn. Richard Armitage admitted that he "leaked" Mrs. Plame's identity. Patrick Fitzgerald knew this. The fact that Fitzgerald did not prosecute Armitage shows that Fitzgerald did not believe that a crime was committed in that regard. As for Scooter Libby, he was only convicted of charges related to not being able to tell the same story to a grand jury. Had he done the correct thing and simply said he couldn't recall anything, he'd not have been in any legal trouble. He was never prosecuted for and never convicted of leaking Mrs. Plame's identity. "Yawn", indeed.
Just like all the other criminals in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, each has been pardoned, had their sentence commuted, or has never been brought to justice at all.
Doesn't make any of them any less culpable for their criminal acts. Unless they are tried and, hopefully, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned, there will eventually be no rule of law at all, for anyone. It's hard to maintain respect for law and order amongst the governed when the privileged elect brazenly flaunt their contempt for it. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
vzw emp
@qwest.net
| FISA is for surveillance. It does not prevent the president from taking action if there is an immediate threat to national security.
Besides, FISA is pretty much a rubber stamp anyway. During the 1990's no application for a warrant was denied and there were never more than 900 applications in a given year. That number almost doubled in 2003 with 1727 applications being submitted (only 4 were rejected). For 2005 there were 2072 apps, no rejections and for 2007 there were 2371 apps and only 4 rejections. If he has enough information to warrant taking military (or other) action he should have more than enough proof to convince a FISA judge that he needs a warrant. (Besides, how long does it take to get a warrant?). | |
| | | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: hmmm.... said by vzw emp :
FISA is for surveillance. It does not prevent the president from taking action if there is an immediate threat to national security.
That's the rub. How does the President learn of immediate threats without an ability to conduct immediate surveillance?
Even Congress, when adding oversight (and fretting about going too far as it regards the Executive branch's inherent powers) added exclusions, such as a 15-day grace period. And, as mentioned before, 18 USC 2511 (2 a ii b), which was the basis for so-called "immunity" and continues to exist, presumably to be used in the same way the current Administration did.
Mark | |
| | 
Count Zero
MD2Be
Premium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | I am with you 100% on that! | |
| |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| I have stated in earlier post that what is done outside of the country is right by me, I hope that it is on the up and up, but....... the constitution is clear about that I believe, it is the spying of people in THIS COUNTRY that is illegal, you can do what ifs, slice it and dice it, it is still ILLEGAL....There is even a case to be made that "FISA" is Bull$hit, but I will give them a benefit of the doubt. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Over the years it seems to have survived quite well except under the latest administration. How many people have died, and then have to see it pissed on by the latest nimrod? I'm tired of hearing in this day and age it needs exceptions. Well boys and girls, change the $%^#ing thing, don't shit on it, and no I'm not a lefty liberal, even though I find nothing wrong with that. Peace
--
BlooMe | |
| | |
See 19 replies to this post | |
| jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM
| Regardless of whatever political party is in power, we need these whistleblowers in this country. This is what democracy is all about---TRANSPARENCY OF THOSE IN POWER!!!
It's funny but sometimes the media shows its hypocrisy arbitrarily. Especially noting the adulteries of JFK and Clinton.
The voters of this country have EVERY RIGHT to know what their government is doing behind closed doors. We pay their salaries and should be held accountable.
Anybody who makes this a partisan issue is a tool and very ignorant! | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by woody7 :Contrary to what some who post here think, what the President ok'd was illegal, even in times of "war". the constitution doesn't give the president any "xtra " legal prerogatives. He could have gone to the "FISA" court and had a chance to make this legal. He chose to not do so. He should rot in prison with that other pinhead "dick" (what an appropriate name) Cheney. For those of you that disagree with this, show where it is ok, and I will stand corrected.Peace You have no idea what's legal or not. These are matters of great technicality and analysis that lawyers will argue about for a long time.
The interesting thing to me is that people get so sure of themselves when they actually have no information. They make stuff up and it seems it's because of their hatred of the Bush administration. This is of course fostered by the media and pundits with the same agenda. | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: hmmm.... said by MyDogHsFleas :You have no idea what's legal or not. These are matters of great technicality and analysis that lawyers will argue about for a long time. The interesting thing to me is that people get so sure of themselves when they actually have no information. They make stuff up and it seems it's because of their hatred of the Bush administration. This is of course fostered by the media and pundits with the same agenda. And yet you are so confident that this person is wrong...
pot kettle | |
| | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: hmmm.... said by wentlanc :said by MyDogHsFleas :You have no idea what's legal or not. These are matters of great technicality and analysis that lawyers will argue about for a long time. The interesting thing to me is that people get so sure of themselves when they actually have no information. They make stuff up and it seems it's because of their hatred of the Bush administration. This is of course fostered by the media and pundits with the same agenda. And yet you are so confident that this person is wrong... pot kettle Did you actually read what I said? Or are you maybe just assuming you know what I am saying and don't bother reading it?
I said "you have no idea", not "you are wrong".
It is manifestly true that no one posting here can assert whether these acts were illegal or not... because they don't have the information.. because IT'S CLASSIFIED. duh! Neither you nor I have any idea.
And yet people pontificate here as if these facts are well known and beyond debate. I can only assume that this is the embodiment of "blind partisanship", emphasizing the "blind" part. | |
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| I feel terrible for Thomas Tamm. He is a REAL AMERICAN hero, along with Mark. However, he had to expect the FBI to make his life a living hell for dispelling this information. Still, if he is lucky, groups like the EFF, ACLU, etc will come to his rescue and provide financial assistance. One would also hope Newsweek would aid him, since he sourced their story. Good job Mr. Tamm and Mark. We need more people like you who see a wrong, and SPEAK OUT! | |
| |
early wed_muser
@verizon.com
| The attacks occured on 9/11/01. Qwest refused to cooperate in the warrentless wiretapping program in February 2001. So that shows that the Bush Administration wanted to wiretap American citizens seven months before the attack.
The Bush Administration ignored warnings of the outgoing Clinton Administration about bin Laden. And the Bush Administration ignored warnings about terrorists using airplanes as weapons.
So why did they want to wiretap without any court oversite?
Hmmm... | |
| expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY | Oh geez...here we go... If yer not with us, den yer with the terrorists......  | |
| | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| Re: Oh geez...here we go... Only a few more weeks until the Democrats get to start branding the right as "terrorists" for not supporting their golden boy. The main difference is that President Bush at least didn't support the idea of a national police security jack booted thug force. I wonder if he'll issue them brown shirts and red armbands too?
--
Save us, oh Great Obamasiah. Peggy Joseph and I both pray that You come to pay our mortgage and fill our cars with gas. (Premium please!) | |
| | | 
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Oh geez...here we go... I believe that only the fear-mongering right employ those tactics. Not only do Americans have to worry about the terrorism boogy-man, but being labeled a terrorist because they question, disagree with or scrutinize their governments' actions. Something that any self-respecting U.S. citizen should do. This only serves to intimidate the masses and label dissenters as un-patriotic, deflect vital discussions of how to proceed with complex and difficult decisions and basically eliminate your options. Simply counter-productive.
The fact is, terrorism happens; whether by a domestic groups like the Arian Nation or white supremacy groups as a whole or Jihadists abroad. The solution to stop these groups from attacks or lessen their impact is to share the information with all levels of Law Enforcement, from the Federal level all the way down to the local level. It has been stated clearly that the failure to communicate relevant information within the different strata of the law enforcement community was one of the contributing factors of the inability to properly respond to 9/11.
In a way, I am torn between the need for warrant-less wiretapping (at a reasonable level) and our rights. I feel it is acceptable to not require a warrant when the originating or destination of a call is in a foreign country, particularly terrorist states, which is the way it is supposed to be currently applied. As soon as you start monitoring all American's phone calls/data, that's when it becomes a problem.
--
My time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on a splinter. --Beck | |
| | | | 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Re: Oh geez...here we go... Ditto! | |
| | 
mmickk
join:2003-12-30
Pearland, TX
| said by expert007 :If yer not with us, den yer with the terrorists...... A total disrespect of the constitution and placing yourselves above the law....Maybe YOU are the terrorists!! | |
| | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
lcnoble
join:2006-11-11
Nancy, KY
| Information I may be right or I may be wrong but tend to lean more towards the side of protecting our citizens and coming out of wars alive. At face value, this wire tap thing seems silly. Why? Because in time of war the military can do what they please, and I assume their communication intelligence gathering ability is far greater than the bungling agencies. If my above assumption is correct, then you can question the motives of the present presidential administration. If my assumptions are not correct, then we are not at war and something very strange is occurring. I remember the F.B.I. getting the spies and detainees, I wonder where they got their information. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
bcoleman71
join:2007-09-18
Dallas, TX
| FISA ensures the integrity of our political system To respond to some of the comments earlier in this thread...
The president usually does not directly receive any actionable intelligence. That intelligence is gathered by the FBI, NSA, CIA and possible even the secret service. In order for those federal agencies that operate within the borders of the United States to even have the opportunity to eavesdrop on someone, they must first get a warrant. That is what FISA is there for. FISA ensures that the agency requesting the permission to investigate an invididual or some group of individuals is doing so with reasonable cause. FISA is there to ensure the integrity of our nation and more importantly, the integrity of our political system. Without it, you run the risk of people being spied on for someone's or a some group's personal or political gain. Think back to the Nixon administration and the political scandals that surrounded his administration. I know it isn't perfect, but I support the system as it is with the requirement that the authorities must first get a warrant before eavesdropping on private communications of citizens of this country. Its just a part of the checks and balances that helps to maintain the integrity of our political system.
As for the attacks on 9/11, there were people who had intelligence that could have lead to the prevention of the attacks that occurred on 9/11 but that information never found its way up to those who could put the pieces together. Some regional managers or directors or whatever you want to call them didn't see the importance of people learning to fly commercial airliners but not caring to learn how to land the planes! That's why we now have the Department of Homeland Security. It's intended purpose is to be an intelligence clearinghouse where all of the obtained intelligence from all available sources can be examined for commonality to find patterns or things that need to be investigated and in those cases, the FISA court can then be petitioned for a warrant for further investigations.
What the government and ultimately the President's administration requested of those companies was totally illegal. What they ended up doing is opening up the possibility for every single citizen of this country to be spied upon. I can hear some of you know..."If you didn't do anything wrong, what are you afraid of?" That is not the point. You don't have to do anything wrong and what "they" find out about you can be used for more than putting you behind bars. For those who think like that should consider not thinking so one-dimensionally and start opening your minds to other possibilities of abuse of power because there are a world of opportunities out there for people to find out things about you and use that information against you...and guess what? Because you have decided to give up your rights, you would have no recourse for justice if it does happen!
And another thing, it pisses me off when I see people saying the Democrats are weak and are ready to turn the country over to the terrists or the Republicans are scaremongers ready to pass laws to remove all of our rights...This is NOT a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue of DEMOCRACY and if you can't see that this is a real threat to democracy, then maybe you don't deserve it! | |
| casey10s
join:2004-02-01
Monroeville, PA
| Have we forgotten??? I am not in favor of the government doing illegal or immoral activities. Over the last 60 years, they just seem to backfire miserably. As for Tamm, just remember, a little civil disobedience can be good. That is what started this country. Standing up against for what is wrong has made this country strong. I hate to see the country fall apart because our leaders forget this. | |
| | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Have we forgotten??? Thanks for posting the link. Excellent evaluation of situation. | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| What a bunch of 2 bit idiots So a person who helps out Islamic terrorists by alerting them to national security secrets is a hero. Along with the New York Times, a newspaper not even fit to use in a bird cage, is just peachy. Yet had there been a terrorist attack on the United States killing God knows how many men, women, and babies you clowns would be the first to blame President Bush for not doing enough. What are you going to when you don't have Bush to blame anymore. I can guarantee you The Most Holy, The Obama is going to do the same thing except because he is the anointed one the MSM is not going to report it and whistle blowers will be vilified for giving away secrets, that is if you hear about them at all.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| |
See 20 replies to this post | |
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| A "Whistle Blower" ?? I think not When you get a security clearance, you sign documents stating that you voluntarily agree to "play by the rules" subject to civil liability and/or criminal prosecution. If you don't want to receive classified information under the stated rules, you are given every opportunity to back out, with no retribution. Obviously, he signed the document and took the oath.
Then, he decided that it was up to HIM to disclose a program because HE decided it was "troubling". He obviously didn't try any of the internal channels that were available to him for escalation, in any official way. He talked to one person who told him "don't even go there". He was not even read into the program he was disclosing. He had no idea what it really was or how it was being governed or what the legal basis of it was.
This is obviously (to me anyway) a straightforward criminal conviction of this guy.
But -- I bet you dollars to doughnuts it doesn't happen, because of the new Democratic administration and their narrative that Bush was "criminal". You can see that narrative reflected in the spin of this story, positing that he could be a "hero". | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | why aren't these folks dead? Why didn't Mark and Thomas wind up in ADX Florence under an incommunicado order from a sealed verdict of a sealed trial? | |
| | | 
SHABAZZ
join:2008-07-13
Seattle, WA | Re: FBI Watch Making cruelty visible If they committed crimes prosecute them. It’s up to Obama if pardons should be granted. | |
|
Patrick Henry
@verizon.net
| FISA was unconstitutional What the Newsweek story missed(Purposely I believe) and I haven't seen here is that while the Supreme Court in 67 and 72 addressed that domestic surveillance must satisfy the 4th amendment, it specifically did not address international intercepts. In fact, in 1972, Justice Powell specifically pointed out that the courts decision did not address the issue that "May be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".
In fact, there are other lower court cases since the 72 supreme court decision that upheld the warrant less wiretaps.
There are serious constitutional lawyers who agree that the Bush administration did nothing wrong. It is possible that well meaning people can disagree on the subject, but don't lose sight on what the purpose was. It was to get intelligence on foreign nationals who wish to do harm to the United States. It wasn't a Nixonion power play to get information on his political enemies. It wasn't Hoover compiling files on innocent Americans (It's curious that Newsweek liked to bring up Hoover and Tamm's connections but didn't bring up Hoover's excesses). It was a reasonable decision made in a critical time that was intended to help secure the US. | |
| |
kwiebe
| Re: FISA was unconstitutional Really good points that I'm sure will not penetrate those with BDS. I'm sure someday modern medical science will have a cure tho...poor souls | |
| 
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| fear, paranoia, and disrespect for the law From the article:
Congress created the FISA court in 1978 because of well-publicized abuses by the intelligence community. It was designed to protect the civil liberties of Americans who might come under suspicion. The court's role was to review domestic national-security wiretaps to make sure there was "probable cause" that the targets were "agents of a foreign power"—either spies or operatives of a foreign terrorist organization. The law creating the court, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, made it a federal crime—punishable by up to five years in prison—for any official to engage in such surveillance without following strict rules, including court approval.
But after arriving at OIPR, Tamm learned about an unusual arrangement by which some wiretap requests were handled under special procedures. These requests, which could be signed only by the attorney general, went directly to the chief judge and none other. It was unclear to Tamm what was being hidden from the other 10 judges on the court (as well as the deputy attorney general, who could sign all other FISA warrants). All that Tamm knew was that the "A.G.-only" wiretap requests involved intelligence gleaned from something that was obliquely referred to within OIPR as "the program." Wiretaps are abused. Congress creates a special, secret court to handle wiretap requests. The court approves, over time, nearly every wiretap request by the government. The administration decides that even that secret, expedited, government-friendly procedure is not to be bothered with, ignoring penalties of law for doing so.
The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11.....
Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review.....
Other parts of the program were far more sweeping. The NSA, with the secret cooperation of U.S. telecommunications companies, had begun collecting vast amounts of information about the phone and e-mail records of American citizens. Separately, the NSA was also able to access, for the first time, massive volumes of personal financial records—such as credit-card transactions, wire transfers and bank withdrawals—that were being reported to the Treasury Department by financial institutions. These included millions of "suspicious-activity reports," or SARS, according to two former Treasury officials who declined to be identified talking about sensitive programs. (It was one such report that tipped FBI agents to former New York governor Eliot Spitzer's use of prostitutes.) These records were fed into NSA supercomputers for the purpose of "data mining"—looking for links or patterns that might (or might not) suggest terrorist activity. In other words, based on "secret orders", the government decided it could do whatever the hell it wanted, could cover it up, could go after anyone disclosing it, and was answerable to no one but itself. A complete distrust of American citizens and law. | |
|
American Citizen
@covad.net
| W.A.S.S. -We are so screwed I've read these posts on this thread regarding what the Constitution spells out or what a particular Supreme Court ruling is/was on a subject but those in power will do what they want to whomever they please and if some objects well its just too bad. To believe otherwise is naive-I can complain and file legal papers till the cows come home, spend every dime I "think" I have to assert my rights and if those in power want to make things happen it will happen. The American Citizen has no rights that are enforceable despite all the talk of the Constitution. You can go along with the game in the hopes that you are not the targeted one or you can literally fight it and you will lose believe me-big time. Sad to think that what we have been taught and led to believe about the United States being sacred, honorable and even righteous is nothing but pure droppings. The thin veneer of civilization is worn thin-If there is a God- we need all the help we can get!! | |
|
Wake Up
@comcast.net
| Terror attacks So, tell me again just HOW many terrorist attacks there have been in the US since 911? O yea none.
History will show that Bush acted with swiftly and saved countless American lives with these "War time" powers. If you are not doing anything wrong WTF do you have to fear? | |
| | 
CtrlAltDel
WORSE. THAN. CARTER.
Arbitrary Text
join:2001-12-30
Backyard
 ·1and1
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Terror attacks said by Wake Up :
So, tell me again just HOW many terrorist attacks there have been in the US since 911? O yea none.
History will show that Bush acted with swiftly and saved countless American lives with these "War time" powers. If you are not doing anything wrong WTF do you have to fear?
The lefties feel that their Constitutional rights have been violated by the use of FISA in the US. Of course they are wrong.
These are the same people who DO NOT want anyone looking into the Constitutionality of obama's citizenship and they blindly accept some photoshopped short form Certificate Of Live Birth as a true and correct copy of a Birth Certificate. They are not the same but the lefties don't want to hear that.
Sign the petition:
»www.rallycongress.com/constituti···bama-con
More info at:
»74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:m2H···irefox-a
quote:
Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications Of Controversy
By John P. Connolly, The Bulletin
12/01/2008
email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendly
Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.
According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.
Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."
Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.
"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on xecutive duty and done various things," said Mr. Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."
Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama's platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.
"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."
Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama's continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.
--
Don't blame me...I voted for McCain
The Truth | |
| | | |
|
|
Tales Of A Wiretap Whistle Blower
·
