Another "win" for liberals and terrorist everywhere.
Lets explain this very simply.
Our governments intelligence agencies were destroyed by years and years of rules, regulations and incompetence. We saw what bad shape the FBI and CIA were in. 9-11 happened and much of the information we gathered after that was still done the old way.
Now, we have been kept safe for years, Republican thought is finally being used in the CIA, we are actually finding out about plots before they happen...and the ACLU and liberals are mad about it.
So what are liberals going to say if we are attacked on our soil again after they were the ones that tied this countries hands together? You got it, its Bush's fault.
It's a different mindset. Liberals worry about the ACLU, criminal and terrorist rights and feelings. They worry about what scum bag lawyers think. They put up so much red tape and rules that nothing can get done. We saw the results of that.
Bush, on the other hand, has the CIA actually following terrorist actions, taking away their money (until liberals found out about it and got mad), and listening to their conversations.
I know, Ron and Jim would rather make sure we don't violate the rights of people who want to blow up bridges....I'd rather be allowed to live. Isn't that a right?
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Judge Rules Against Wiretaps
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
Lieberals and Islamokazis do share one idea; both groups would rather be dead than have conservative rule.
For comments from me concerning the topic of this thread, go here and look at my last comments there -- you put this up right when I was posting.
There is nothing in the court's ruling that prevents the NSA from wiretapping those it has cause to believe are terrorists, connected to terrorists, or agents of a foreign government, inside or outside the United States.
Let me repet that, for effect, since you (and steveegg) seem to believe something different: There is nothing in the court's ruling that prevents the NSA from wiretapping those it has cause to believe are terrorists, connected to terrorists, or agents of a foreign government, inside or outside the United States.
Got it?
Yeah, and?
At least it's not a power that can be abused right now --
Thank the gods that be.
Besides, if they were honestly trying to track down terrorist through this, then I would have been busted long ago -- I get pretty radical on my cell phone when I'm texting (not meaning to be a "terrorist" -- but I do get people going thinking I am). lol.
Dedanna...I read your other post and what makes you think they are listning in to innocents? Proof please. And even if they are...so what? They can listen to me all they want. There is no privacy any more...not since Carter signed the FISA (I think that't the acronym)Act. Get over it. Clinton used it (NSA wiretaps) big time, too...are you upset with him?
asian badger, I can't speak for dedanna, but the problem I (and others) have is not NSA wiretapping per se; the problem is Bush's insistence that he doesn't have to follow the law--FISA, as you correctly noted--or sumit to judicial oversight.
When Clinton used FISA (and Bush I, and Reagan, and Carter), they all followed the law. Bush II follows the law sometimes, such as when FISA warrants were obtained in the recent British terror bust.
And as I noted in my earlier comment, there is nothing in Judge Taylor's ruling that stops the NSA from using FISA wiretaps.
Thank you.
Nice going Jay! That's the big lie, that liberals and Democrats are against wire-tapping. Big, BIG lie.
Game and readers. Wire-tap until the cows come home!!!! Just do it according to the RULE OF LAW and the Constitution.
There is nothing that the Bush administration can do that they couldn't do totally within the Constitution and the law and under judicial and congressional review if they weren't determined to demonstrate that the president can do whatever he wants in time of "war".
Game, I was waiting for this one. This is THE number one issue in protecting the American way in my eyes. And it is protecting it from the Nazis..yes I said NAZIS!@!!! who want to ruin our country using fear as an incentive. This is a dead on Nazi tactic.
First you say americans have been kept safe for years...NO. thousands of Americans have died and been maimed and the world is a MORE DANGEROUS place than it was years ago.
This program was in place and being used BEFORE 9/11...betca didn't know that did ya. It is right there in the ruling if you would have taken time to read the document you profess to pontificate on.
You are right. There is a different mindset on this because we aren't even talking about the same thing. This has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. We all agree on and want to do that. This has to do with following the law and Constitution of The United States Of America. During the 90s the right were real sticklers on the rule of law and no one is exempt, not even the president..you guys have no core.
Jay has made many of the other points that need to be made..thank you Jay.
Jim, note the time on our posts...we were totally in sync..:-)
The debate is whether or not the actions of the president truly are incompatible with FISA or other laws. I heard a conversation on Prager's show with a Constitutional Law professor who disputes this decision big time. During the show, a caller spoke of being well versed in FISA law as a result of his gov/military job. (Keep in mind I was driving while I listened and can't be too detailed) He mentioned a section 13 of FISA which allows for Bush's actions and he couldn't understand the ruling. It is all been said, that her way to this decision is more suspect than the decision itself. It ignores precedent and even some lib pundits questioned her methods, though they still like the result. As such, appeals process is already underway and many think it will be overturned based on her reasoning.
It is helpful to remember that wartime changes things. It is not uncommon for certain civil rights to be suspended during times of war, only to be re-instated after. Martial law is an example of this. The real problem is the irrational perception that Bush has malevolent intentions for his actions and there's been no evidence to support this. I fully believe his intentions to be for the good of the nation and that he has exhaustively consulted his advisors before acting. Big Brother fears are unfounded and fear-mongering by the left.
marshall is the new kid in town...and he took it hard to the Left today...welcome aboard
Jay and Jim (I'm leaving dedanna out of this since he/she is a terrorist as are all human resources people ;))
I have no problem with the Bush wiretaps since I would rather have them listen to my mundane phone calls in the course of catching someone planning the next 9/11 act than get hit again. The problem is, FISA was signed BEFORE today's insta-communication age.
As is usually the case, the law is behind the technology. My other problem is, the complete disregard for prior precedent by the judge. this appears to many, including The Washington Post as a bad decision.
If we agree to disagee, (shrug}.
Marshall, I think all of us would agree that historically certain rights have been abridged during times when the US was in a state of war.
The United States is NOT IN A STATE OF WAR. Only Congress can declare war. Congress passed the AUMF. The AUMF stated:
"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 September 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."
This was the "justification" for overthrowing Saddam. Of course we know now, as most of us knew then, that Saddam had no connection whatsoever to 9/11.
So Saddam was overthrown 3 1/2 years ago. When does this war that is not a WAR end?
I've said this before, but I'll say it again for your benefit, Marsall:
The Bush administration wants us to cede (as you already have) certain civil rights and wants to bypass the Constitution and our nation's laws during a "war":
Against no state
Against no nation
Against no defined enemy
With no defined goal
With no definition of victory
With no end
Against a tactic
In other words, during a "war" that will never end, you would give up your rights and your Constitution permanently.
That's the whole fucking idea, Marshal!
Thank you jim..this is the never ending "war". Marshall it would take me lots of typing which I have already done on my own site to explain why I laughed out loud when I read your comment:
Marshall(the guy who wishes those opposed to the presidents war on terror methods would have their heads chopped off.)
:The real problem is the irrational perception that Bush has malevolent intentions for his actions and there's been no evidence to support this. I fully believe his intentions to be for the good of the nation and that he has exhaustively consulted his advisors before acting. Big Brother fears are unfounded and fear-mongering by the left.
The fear mongering is coming from the RIGHT, just in case you haven't watched the news. Irrational fear????? With all the hate evil liberals, treason, seditionist,hate america, chop of their heads talk that is being dished out why wouldn't those opposed to the presidents actions think there was malevolent intent? I will be glad when we once again elect a Democratic president and you are forced to give them the same benefit of the doubt. Hopefully you won't so we can get together make sure there is still an American style democracy with 3 branches of government and oversight in this country.
Game, you are easily impressed aren't you?
Sorry Ron..but you are a naif. When someone is trying to come through my front door...they get a .12 guage in the chest. Not "the benefit of the doubt" as you advocate.
We have been, and are under attack by people who think The Crusades are recent history.
If it's them or us, I want it to be them. No questions asked.
I'm sorry AB but you totally ignore what I am saying so you can make your point and sound like a tough guy.
I would do the same as you. At what point have I said that people that are trying to kill us should be given the benefit of the doubt? If you "think" someone will break into your house you have no right to kill them. If someone breaks into your house you have no right to kill them and then go kill their mother too. If you disagree then I fear for the world in general. What if we all decide to take that attitude. What happens then? Methinks you lack an understanding of the big picture just like many that comment here. Your thoughts go as far as your own head and no farther.
By the way Naif? Thanks for the new word. I had to look it up.
The problem is, FISA was signed BEFORE today's insta-communication age. As is usually the case, the law is behind the technology.
Which is why FISA was amended as part of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act in 2001--an amendment that still required warrants!
With FISA as written, this scenario is fully acceptable:
-> we capture a guy with a phone in Kabul or Baghdad or London or Bali or wherever
-> some of the numbers on that phone are US numbers
-> our agents make a call and that phone gets tapped within moments
The catch is that the NSA then has 72 hours to find one FISA judge and make the case for probable cause based on the evidence (this guy had a phone with all the US numbers in it), and get a post-facto warrant.
That's how it worked in cracking the British case ten days ago; why do you think it doesn't work the rest of the time?
I think it is okay to argue how far our freedoms should be intruded on..but I heard Jim say we are not at war...not in the legal sense (there goes that lawyer mantality that gets in the way of keeping us safe). We clearly have an enemy thats goal is the destruction of the West, period.
the talk here from some here is getting really radical. One example is Marshall made well thought out, well put points that atleast deserve some thought...and they are completely dismissed as crap from the liberals...they don't want to hear it
Game said:
"...but I heard Jim say we are not at war...not in the legal sense (there goes that lawyer mantality that gets in the way of keeping us safe). We clearly have an enemy thats goal is the destruction of the West, period."
WE KNOW THAT!!! The point is, I am NOT WILLING to give up the Constitution "temporarily" for a PERMANENT WAR. (Forgive me apparent emotionalism. It doesn't discount my point.)
The "war" as defined (not defined, actually) by this administration has no end. I know that, Ron knows that, they know that, you apprently don't.
Constitutional balance of power, oversight, and protections given up in time of never-ending war are given away forever.
True patriots will not stand for that.
Game said:
"... the talk here from some here is getting really radical. One example is Marshall made well thought out, well put points that atleast deserve some thought...and they are completely dismissed as crap from the liberals...they don't want to hear it"
Game, you apparently don't read what anybody but "your side" says. Ron and I both gave Marshall his due. I even agreed with him on one point. So to claim that we dismissed it as crap is foolish and dishonest.
We know when we are reading crap and we dismiss it accordingly.
The "well thought out" point that Marshall made that keeps ringing in my head and even caused me nightmares(literally) is that he wished us to have our head chopped off. It is pretty hard to get past, especially when that is the way he starts.
Jim,
Your points are well taken, but not accounting for certain realities. One, is that 9/11 is considered by many to be an act of war. It's intent was to instill fear and disrupt our economy. Conspiring to assassinate our president is also considered by many to be an act of war. Add to these Kobar towers, USS Cole, embassy attacks, shooting at plane patrolling the no fly zone, as well as other incidents is evidence that though Congress might not have officially declared war, war has certainly been declared on us. In fact, I believe bin Laden has said as much.
Though it is true that there appears to be no specifics attached to the evil we fight (state, country, etc), this only heightens the seriousness of the situation in dealing with this evil. It should not be used to interfere with defeating the evil. It's unfortunate that this particular enemy doesn't adhere to specific traditional & predictable methods of warfare. Forcing our leaders to adhere to methods that are insufficient to deal with the evil is asking for defeat. Fortunately, by your quote of the AUMF, is just ambiguous enough to grant Bush the latitude he needs "...to prevent any future acts of international terrorism..."
There is evidence to support the notion that Hussein supported Al Queda members. Even more fortunately, though he correctly ties the fight in Iraq to the WOT, our reasons for going in had nothing to do with 9/11. There were plenty of other good reasons for that. BTW, how have your rights been infringed upon, or can you offer any cases where innocent Americans have suffered under Bush's national security policies?
ron,
Can you kindly show where I said that those who oppose Bush's policies should be decapitated? I've quickly scanned my comments and can't seem to find it. Perhaps it's a typo, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, perhaps you're full of crap. Supply the thread, show the quote, and I'll clarify my position. While you're at it, you still haven't posted any evidence of Bush's alleged evil. What the rightwing in general says about the idea-free Democratic Party doesn't do it.
game,
Thanks. Great to BE aboard. Be it known, I'm willing to be civil, but an occasional snipe is fun. I can take it.
Marshall said:
"...our reasons for going in had nothing to do with 9/11." Then that makes the Iraq invasion an illegal act. Read it here.
Marshall said:
"Forcing our leaders to adhere to methods that are insufficient to deal with the evil is asking for defeat."
Another Big Lie. There is nothing the administration has done that couldn't have been done legally.
Marshall said:
"how have your rights been infringed upon, or can you offer any cases where innocent Americans have suffered under Bush's national security policies?"
How would I know? How would anybody know? If there was Congressional oversight as required by LAW and judicial oversight as required by LAW at least the Congress and the judiciary would know who is being tapped, how and why, and I would feel secure that the RULE OF LAW is being followed.
Jim,
As I indicated, or at least tried to, we have evidence of Hussein harboring people connected to the events of 9/11, people part of the organization. Captain's Quarters has been going over docs taken after Hussein was pulled from his hole. These describe his connections. But there were reasons unique to Hussein for going that didn't relate directly to 9/11. Hussein was a supporter of terrorism by paying 25K to families of suicide bombers. So the linked info covers the move without being the only or main reason for the move.
It's a matter of whether or not the legal path inhibits or eases the actions necessary for success. If it inhibits, it puts us at greater risk. But, the legal question is still a debatable one and not resolved as far as I can tell. Some on the left will call it settled based on the decision of one Carter appointed liberal judge who doesn't even have the power to rule beyond her district. Putting such burdens on those fighting the war gives advantage to the enemy.
Fine. You have no idea if your rights have been infringed upon. Why do assume that it is happening? What evidence is there that Bush WOULD abuse his authority? As I said, such legalities have not been totally settled to everyone's satisfaction and we're still left with the argument that goes something like this:
"Bush broke the law!"
"No, he didn't!"
"Yes, he did!"
"No, he didn't!"
"One judge said he did!"
"Another said he didn't!"
"The Supremes said he did!"
"Four of them disagreed!"
And on and on. In the meantime, scumbags are workin'. And too many lefties are assuming for reasons never explained or proven, that Bush is up to no good. There's some bullshit for ya. In five years we haven't been attacked and you feel insecure?
I didn't say "should"(words are important, your challengers are listening closely) I said "Wished"
Marshall Art said...
Hi folks!
The only thing being forced by our actions thus far, is our disdain for the practices of oppressive scumbags who hack off the heads of bound and helpless captives, sorry that they can't cut yours off, too.
Marshall, your total lack of being able to put yourself in another persons shoes is astonishingly wide and broad.
If the situation was reversed and your kind was being called evil at a time when the "axis of evil" is a phrase used by the president to describe enemies, hate america, treasonous, seditionist, attempting to jail journalists if they reveal anything negative about the administration. Then on top of that unchecked or overseen wiretapping, Halliburton enlarging detention facilities(possibly for illegal immigrants which I would support by the way). Militaristic: starting a war on intelligence that had no basis in reality. More than slightly questionable elections. You wonder why people that don't agree with the President would feel threat????????????? Pardon me but you lack a basic human skills set. Now I will not provide you links. This is not my show. I have debated here and provided links that are ignored. It is a waste of time on you guys. Why go to the work. Be curious, Do your own damned work if you want to get smarter. It's called google.
If you absolutely insist on links you are welcome to come to my blog where I save my linking, research and facts for reference. Does that make it easier for you?
In five years we haven't been attacked and you feel insecure?
Marshall, as I posted on the other thread in response to your dissing of Clinton:
There were two terror attacks on US soil during Clinton's terms in office, the first WTC bombing, and the OKC bombing. In both instances, the perpetrators were identified, caught, tried, punished. None of them will be committing further acts of terror against us.
There were two terror attacks on US soil (so far) during GW Bush's terms in office, the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax bioterror plot. In both instances, the perpetrators are still out there, free to plot and commit additional acts of terrorism as they see fit.
So you can see why I might not feel secure. It could also have something to do with the Republicans' refusal to address port security, or their insistence that while I can't take my Aquafina on the plane there should be no screening of flight cargo. Perhaps it has something to do with the administration's cutting a few months back the TSA budget for explosive-detecting screeing equipment.
I'll tell you what I don't feel, that apparently many on the right do feel--hysterical. I'm not ready to drum Arab-looking men off a plane. I'm not ready to hand over the Constitution, for any reason, to anyone. The president is not above the law. Period.
How many vetoes has Bush issued? One, and it was the one law he didn't like that applied to other people. The laws he doesn't like that apply to him--the McCain anti-torture amendment, for example--he just issues a "signing statement" saying he doesn't have to follow it instead of a veto. Bush is averaging more of these "signing statements" every year than Clinton had in eight full years--and Bush has a Congress of the same party!
That is why I don't trust him. He thinks he's above the law, beyond reproach from either of the other (Constitutionally) co-equal branches of government.
Here's my question for you (and anyone else): If warrantless eavesdropping without judicial oversight is allowed to stand, do you trust President Hillary not to abuse it?
that is a legit problem...
but even all the "illegal" wiretapping and data collection didn't harm any american...except the ones who had their FBI files sitting in the whitehouse....did they get any blood on them after Vince Foster was murdered...or do you think they killed him later?
Vince Foster? I suppose you think explosives brought down the WTC as well, eh? Way to substantively address my points.
always fun to think of new ways to express the utter joke the Clinton White House was..
jay bullock said...
There were two terror attacks on US soil during Clinton's terms in office, the first WTC bombing, and the OKC bombing. In both instances, the perpetrators were identified, caught, tried, punished. None of them will be committing further acts of terror against us.
There were two terror attacks on US soil (so far) during GW Bush's terms in office, the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax bioterror plot. In both instances, the perpetrators are still out there, free to plot and commit additional acts of terrorism as they see fit.
No worries, jay, they're too racist & stupid & deliberately blind to know the difference.
dedanna--
As Hannah Arendt once noted, transforming questions of fact into questions of intent has been the great achievement of the totalitarians of the 1900s.
A person can be a pederast and still put forth a proposition well supported by logic and evidence. A person can strap bombs to their children to kill infidels and still hold true beliefs. A person may have an IQ of 85, but may accurately believe something a person with an IQ of 125 does not.
Trying to discredit what people are saying by ascribing some personal quality to them, which a person may or may not have, is a *logical fallacy* known as an ad hominem. If you're as enlightened as you think you are, you'll stop making them.
"If warrantless eavesdropping without judicial oversight is allowed to stand, do you trust President Hillary not to abuse it?"
That's a valid point. We'll see how the appeals process works out. If it fails, the Congress may need to create modern legislation that can enable us to do the things we need to do in an accountable way.
ron--
Again, we can put ourselves in the shoes of Muslim fanatics by listening to what they say, reading what they write, and observing their behavior.
There's a difference between understanding people and sympathizing with them, and I believe you've confused the two.
Marshall said:
"What evidence is there that Bush WOULD abuse his authority? "
You've got to be f**king kidding me.
Game said:
"Vince Foster was murdered...or do you think they killed him later?"
Vince Foster? You've got to be f**king kidding me.
way to contribute again...did your illegal immigrant contractors slip you some bad weed
I'm stillwaiting to see all this abuse...Jim will have a link to a far left wing site with made up crap I'm sure
No jason I havent confused the two. I am talking about how liberals are treated as the enemy and what kind of holy batshit crazy the right would be if they were subjected to the same treason talk.
As for the terrorists It is not about sympathy. It is about not lowering the bar to their level if we desire others respect.
Jason uses common sense:
...Congress may need to create modern legislation that can enable us to do the things we need to do in an accountable way.
ron--
The Islamofascists don't want to kill us because we sometimes fail to uphold our ideals of women's rights, freedom to drink, freedom to do drugs, freedom to surf porn, separation of Church and State, gay rights and so forth.
They're killing us because they *oppose* these things.
Again, the Alec Baldwin method of dealing with dangerous people with talk and reason only invites slaughter. 911 should have been a big wake up call.
God this gets tiring....ya ya ya..you are a true patriot blah blah blah
Why do you want to fight even when I complement you? Telling?
Listen ......carefully.....the cut and run ,talking, therapy yada yada yada are all red herrings dude....we all want to get the people that would kill us or do America harm. We should be talking about what is effective and the best possible use of our money(my conservative side coming out), and how many ways we can protect ourselves not how few.
We were talking about those things, Ron, but you guys insist it's all illegal.
And no jimmy-boy, I was NOT fucking kidding. The main reasoning of the left regarding the spying strategies are based on the assumption that rights are being infringed upon and that Bush is some evil power hungry creep, yet there's NOTHING that supports either. If your guys were sincere about fighting and winning, they'd spend less time whining about George breaking rules and more changing or adjusting the rules to allow for the type of strategies necessary to win. Your claims it's happening would be more credible without all the lefty calls for censure and impeachment. Paint it any color you guys want, but it's Bush Derangement Syndrome that motivates every lib move, not true concern for rights and US sovereignty.
Post a Comment