In defense of Bush

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The War Powers Act gives the president the power to authorize spying on the American people.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The post 9-11 resolution that Congress voted on also recognizes the President having the power to do what is necessary to fight the terrorist. This is exactly what W was doing. It wasn't unchecked, and it wasn't an abuse of power. He wasn't tapping phone-sex lines and calling it fighting terror. ( John Ashcroft might have wanted to try that )

[LegalEagle 22]

He will be impeached and will resign over it.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The post 9-11 resolution that Congress voted on also recognizes the President having the power to do what is necessary to fight the terrorist.  This is exactly what W was doing.  It wasn't unchecked, and it wasn't an abuse of power. He wasn't tapping phone-sex lines and calling it fighting terror. ( John Ashcroft might have wanted to try that    )

206380[/snapback]

He did not have the authority to do this without seeking a warrant under FISA, which was practically a rubber stamp, but at least provided some assurance that it was not abused. In fact, under FISA, you can do it and then get a warrant 72 hours later. It was easy enough as it was. What he did, however, was totally unchecked and a gross abuse of power. You have no idea who/what he has been doing because it is totally unchecked.

[LegalEagle 22]

TT

A Repub. appointed fed judge quit today/yesterday in protest of Bush's actions.

Last night on the news, they said of (I think) 11,000+ applications for surveillance only 4 had been rejected by the special judges. If it turns out that Bush authorized those 4 after the judges turned them down, there will be hell to pay. I hope we are able to obtain that specific information.

[rexbo 104]

Wait, I thought you liberals wanted to impeach him for NOT tapping Atta's phone lines and thereby preventing 9/11?

[AURaptor 1,126]

The post 9-11 resolution that Congress voted on also recognizes the President having the power to do what is necessary to fight the terrorist.  This is exactly what W was doing.  It wasn't unchecked, and it wasn't an abuse of power. He wasn't tapping phone-sex lines and calling it fighting terror. ( John Ashcroft might have wanted to try that    )

206380[/snapback]

He did not have the authority to do this without seeking a warrant under FISA, which was practically a rubber stamp, but at least provided some assurance that it was not abused. In fact, under FISA, you can do it and then get a warrant 72 hours later. It was easy enough as it was. What he did, however, was totally unchecked and a gross abuse of power. You have no idea who/what he has been doing because it is totally unchecked.

206397[/snapback]

Actually, the President did/does have that power. It wasn't unchecked as both party leaders AND FISA courts were advised. That I don't know what he did doesn't mean his actions went unchecked. Those sitting on the joint councils knew though. Legislative and Judicial branches were in the loop. That every Joe 6 Pack wasn't included doesn't mean it was a bad thing, in fact, it's damned necessary that not EVERYTHING our country does is known by EVERY citizen.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The post 9-11 resolution that Congress voted on also recognizes the President having the power to do what is necessary to fight the terrorist.  This is exactly what W was doing.  It wasn't unchecked, and it wasn't an abuse of power. He wasn't tapping phone-sex lines and calling it fighting terror. ( John Ashcroft might have wanted to try that     )

206380[/snapback]

He did not have the authority to do this without seeking a warrant under FISA, which was practically a rubber stamp, but at least provided some assurance that it was not abused. In fact, under FISA, you can do it and then get a warrant 72 hours later. It was easy enough as it was. What he did, however, was totally unchecked and a gross abuse of power. You have no idea who/what he has been doing because it is totally unchecked.

206397[/snapback]

Actually, the President did/does have that power. It wasn't unchecked as both party leaders AND FISA courts were advised. That I don't know what he did doesn't mean his actions went unchecked. Those sitting on the joint councils knew though. Legislative and Judicial branches were in the loop. That every Joe 6 Pack wasn't included doesn't mean it was a bad thing, in fact, it's damned necessary that not EVERYTHING our country does is known by EVERY citizen.

206481[/snapback]

What is the source of the President's power to conduct a warrantless search of American citizens?

I know it is not the Constitution.

And there is no meaningful check. Informing a couple of senators of your intention to conduct a process and swearing them to secrecy doesn't even amount to input, much less a check. The "check" on someone's power is given effect by their power not being absolute. In the case of the warrant, the entity wanting the warrant makes their case for a particular set of facts and court/judge decides if it is justified. The entity wanting to do it doesn't get to grant themselves authority-- at least not in a system of actual checks on power.

[LegalEagle 22]

Geez Raptor, you must have cable TV, huh? What is the source of your information about who was in the loop and who wasn't. Do you know the details of each "wire(less) tap"? I'd like to know if you have it. Why did the Fed judge quit in protest? Maybe he was the only one who they didn't tell, huh?

You might want to check out Amendment No. 4. It says nothing about King George gets to ignore it. In fact it was written in clear English so it could not be circumvented for any reason.

I'll just sit and wait for your facts.

[AURaptor 1,126]

He will be impeached and will resign over it.

What an assinine thing to post. Mike Price has a better chance at being reinstated as 's head coach than Bush being impeached/ resigning. It absolutely will not happen

Geez Raptor, you must have cable TV, huh?  What is the source of your information about who was in the loop and who wasn't.  Do you know the details of each "wire(less) tap"?  I'd like to know if you have it.  Why did the Fed judge quit in protest?  Maybe he was the only one who they didn't tell, huh?

You might want to check out Amendment No. 4.  It says nothing about King George gets to ignore it.  In fact it was written in clear English so it could not be circumvented for any reason.

I'll just sit and wait for your facts.

206536[/snapback]

Yeah, I do have cable t.v. I watched Hercules on the Disney Channel, than a couple of episodes of ANGEL, on DVD. As for my source of info, I generally get that from the radio and the internet. Here's some of what you're waiting for....

WIRETAPPING NOTHING NEW

Whether you agree with the reasons George W. Bush gave for ordering secret wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant or not, you may be surprised to learn something: it's nothing new. That's right...let's see if the mainstream media covers this one fairly. Yeah ... I can see you folks holding your breath out there. Past presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have engaged in the same exact warrantless wiretapping that Bush admits to doing.

Let's look at a few examples, shall we? DRUDGE posted some examples....complete with direct evidence showing the Executive Orders. First up, Bill Clinton...the left's favorite president. Here's a quote from February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order." Oh my! Searching your home...without a court order. Which is worse...listening to your phone calls, or kicking in your door and going through your personal belongings? I wonder of Congressman John Lewis contemplated calling for Clinton's impeachment over that one? Somehow, I doubt it

The answer, of course, is simple. The mainstream media gave Clinton a pass...one they're not giving to Bush. If there is a Democrat in the Oval Office...all is well and he can do no wrong. But since it's a Republican...well, that's different. They have to nail him to the wall.  - Neal Bootz 

Now, for some more good bits...

- Senators followed with a 98-0 vote on the second measure that authorized the president to use ``necessary and appropriate force'' in retaliating against the terrorist strikes.

There's more out there, but I'm tired and you can find this stuff as easily as I.

Oh, and as for this...

to conduct a warrantless search of American citizens?

Bush wasn't doing any of that, so it's a moot point. There was surveying of electric messages, not home invasions.omh

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Geez Raptor, you must have cable TV, huh?  What is the source of your information about who was in the loop and who wasn't.  Do you know the details of each "wire(less) tap"?  I'd like to know if you have it.  Why did the Fed judge quit in protest?  Maybe he was the only one who they didn't tell, huh?

You might want to check out Amendment No. 4.  It says nothing about King George gets to ignore it.  In fact it was written in clear English so it could not be circumvented for any reason.

I'll just sit and wait for your facts.

206536[/snapback]

Yeah, I do have cable t.v. I watched Hercules on the Disney Channel, than a couple of episodes of ANGEL, on DVD. As for my source of info, I generally get that from the radio and the internet. Here's some of what you're waiting for....

WIRETAPPING NOTHING NEW

Whether you agree with the reasons George W. Bush gave for ordering secret wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant or not, you may be surprised to learn something: it's nothing new. That's right...let's see if the mainstream media covers this one fairly. Yeah ... I can see you folks holding your breath out there. Past presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have engaged in the same exact warrantless wiretapping that Bush admits to doing.

Let's look at a few examples, shall we? DRUDGE posted some examples....complete with direct evidence showing the Executive Orders. First up, Bill Clinton...the left's favorite president. Here's a quote from February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order." Oh my! Searching your home...without a court order. Which is worse...listening to your phone calls, or kicking in your door and going through your personal belongings? I wonder of Congressman John Lewis contemplated calling for Clinton's impeachment over that one? Somehow, I doubt it

The answer, of course, is simple. The mainstream media gave Clinton a pass...one they're not giving to Bush. If there is a Democrat in the Oval Office...all is well and he can do no wrong. But since it's a Republican...well, that's different. They have to nail him to the wall.   - Neal Bootz 

Now, for some more good bits...

- Senators followed with a 98-0 vote on the second measure that authorized the president to use ``necessary and appropriate force'' in retaliating against the terrorist strikes.

There's more out there, but I'm tired and you can find this stuff as easily as I.

Oh, and as for this...

to conduct a warrantless search of American citizens?

Bush wasn't do any of that, so it's a moot point. There was surveying of electric messages, not home invasions.

206546[/snapback]

A few quick points. Regarding "searches" under the fourth amendment:

Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347 (1967)

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/198/

Subjects:

Criminal Procedure: Search and Seizure

Facts of the Case

Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.

Question Presented

Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

Conclusion

Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.

You bolden the word "force" for emphasis, yet don't seem to understand what it means. "Force" is, well, force. "Retaliating" means, retaliating.

Finally, Drudge and Boortz are entertaining, I suppose, but not the most definitive sources. Research their claims a bit. Go a little deeper if you're concerned with the truth. You can start here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/8157/6595

Here's a bit of it:

Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1).  What does section 1822(a) require?

*  the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."

Translation: You can't search American citizens.

* and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."

Translation: You can't search American citizens.

Start paying attention, because this is not going away, so unless the MSM gets bamboozled by the RNC spin machine, most people will eventually understand that what we are dealing with here is far from business as usual.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, once again you write a lot and say very little. Searches and Seizures are part of the game. The Dems first criticized Bush for not doing in Atta with wiretaps etc. Now they criticize Bush for using them. The truth is Carter and Clinton both used them and you wont see a scintilla of criticism for their actions from the Dems. What you quoted above is very open to interpretation out in the field by field agents. Here are the Drudge quotes.

Illegal Clinton Wiretaps

Illegal Carter wiretaps

Carter's Presidential Order fopr Illegal Wiretaps

Move along, the Dems dont have a leg to stand on here. That wont keep them from a ton of self righteous ponificating but their guys were just as guilty. I say all three were wrong. I mean what was Carter doing? If he had had clear info on a terrorist plot he still would have been to stupid to take any action. I mean it was a criminal waste of resources.... Clinton would never have used any info either. He knew about bin Laden for years and did nothing at all. Barely even mentioned the guy in the transfer of power papers. Certainly had little if any real intel on the guy. Remember that less than 8 months after Bush took power, 9-11 happened. You think 9-11 was in retaliation of Bush policies? No, it was in retaliation of Clinton policies. We now know that the planning of 9-11 went back to 1996 when Clinton was in office. They just didnt get the plan executed till after he had left office.

[LegalEagle 22]

Ignorance remains rampant on the radical right, who uses the misnomer, "conservative."

Thank you TT, for pointing out the facts in regard to Clinton, but it was not really necessary.

In the 5th grade, Mrs. Rankin came in from lunch to catch Benny Day in the act of throwing erasers at the chalk board. When Mrs. Rankin confronted him. Benny said, "[W]ell, others were doing it too."

Mrs. Rankin replied, "Well Benny, if you saw other kids jumping off the tallest building downtown, would you do it too?" Benny quipped, "Sure Mrs. Rankin, if it looked like they were having fun." Mrs. Rankin grabbed him by the wrist and hustled him into the nurses station and paddled hell out of him.

That true story is to show that you can't be cleared of a criminal act just because others did the same thing and got away with it. "Hey man, O. J. got turned loose, you can't get me." It's a rediculous argument. BUT, it does show the attempt to avoid the true issue and divert attention to others.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Ignorance remains rampant on the radical right, who uses the misnomer, "conservative."

Thank you TT, for pointing out the facts in regard to Clinton, but it was not really necessary.

In the 5th grade, Mrs. Rankin came in from lunch to catch Benny Day in the act of throwing erasers at the chalk board.  When Mrs. Rankin confronted him.  Benny said, "[W]ell, others were doing it too."

Mrs. Rankin replied, "Well Benny, if you saw other kids jumping off the tallest building downtown, would you do it too?"  Benny quipped, "Sure Mrs. Rankin, if it looked like they were having fun."  Mrs. Rankin grabbed him by the wrist and hustled him into the nurses station and paddled hell out of him.

That true story is to show that you can't be cleared of a criminal act just because others did the same thing and got away with it.  "Hey man, O. J. got turned loose, you can't get me."  It's a rediculous argument. BUT, it does show the attempt to avoid the true issue and divert attention to others.

206574[/snapback]

My entire point here, stated in a jocular vein, was that if it is illegal, then GET THEM ALL! Dont pick and chose WHO to prosecute. My stance is that they all do it, PROSECUTE THEM ALL! My stance is actually what you claim yours is to be. I however am calling for them all to be called out for it.

In Texas the Sodomy law was overturned by the Supreme Court because it was only applied to the Homosexual Community. If it had been applied evenly and consistently to the Heterosexual Community it would have been upheld. The law was wasted because it was unevenly and unfairly applied. I think it was stupid law. But even stupid laws are laws if they are evenly applied. There is no Constitutuional ban on stupidity.

You want it applied only to BUSH. I want it applied to everyone, evenly, everyday, not applied only to those I disagree with.

If you look back a good while ago, I stated very plainly that I thought that Clinton should have been removed for FileGate. It was an eggregious violation of civil rights to privacy. I stand 100% behind that statement even today. I am a virulent protector of the right to privacy especially when it comes to the state or federal govt. I am not that happy with the Patriot Act either. I am not happy at all with the wiretaps. I have used wiretaps in some legal affairs myself btw. I have first hand knowledge of the federal law. But I say unequivocally that ALL should be held responsible for their actions on this not just the guys I disagree with politically.

Have a good day.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Tex, once again you write a lot and say very little. Searches and Seizures are part of the game. The Dems first criticized Bush for not doing in Atta with wiretaps etc. Now they criticize Bush for using them. The truth is Carter and Clinton both used them and you wont see a scintilla of criticism for their actions from the Dems. What you quoted above is very open to interpretation out in the field by field agents. Here are the Drudge quotes.

Illegal Clinton Wiretaps

Illegal Carter wiretaps

Carter's Presidential Order fopr Illegal Wiretaps

Move along, the Dems dont have a leg to stand on here. That wont keep them from a ton of self righteous ponificating but their guys were just as guilty. I say all three were wrong. I mean what was Carter doing? If he had had clear info on a terrorist plot he still would have been to stupid to take any action. I mean it was a criminal waste of resources.... Clinton would never have used any info either. He knew about bin Laden for years and did nothing at all. Barely even mentioned the guy in the transfer of power papers. Certainly had little if any real intel on the guy. Remember that less than 8 months after Bush took power, 9-11 happened. You think 9-11 was in retaliation of Bush policies? No, it was in retaliation of Clinton policies. We now know that the planning of 9-11 went back to 1996 when Clinton was in office. They just didnt get the plan executed till after he had left office.

206571[/snapback]

If you decide you want to truly take the time to understand the particulars of the actions taken by the three presidents you attempt to equate without facts or analysis, the information is out there and you can do so. That will take time, thought and effort, though.

Here's a few easier points to consider that should give you something to think about. Bush operated in secret. It wasn't because, as he claimed Sunday night, to confirm that we were eavesdropping on folks would let them know something they didn't already know. We already had the authority to do that through FISA. But that Bush was operating outside of FISA was news to most folks, even most FISA judges.

Clinton issued an executive order. Told the world what he was doing. Subjected the order to scrutiny by all who would criticize it and guess what? No one did. Because it wasn't illegal. It didn't purport to trump FISA or any other law. Here it is:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Got a link to Bush's order? I can't find it.

There are CONSERVATIVE intellectuals who strongly criticize what Bush did. Some even say it is an impeachable offense. Many of these were certified Clinton haters who would have loved to have had stronger grounds to impeach Clinton than lying about a blow job. And yet, you didn't even know Clinton had issued this executive order until now. Why is that? All these folks dying to get Clinton for anything. Travelgate, Filegate, BJgate, etc. Had they thought what he did was anywhere close to equivalent, don't you think it would have been beaten to death?

There is nothing comparable about the two. The few remaining intellectual Conservatives know that. The Right Wing propagandists, on the other hand, rely on their army of useful idiots to repeat the talking points on cue. Step into the light, my friend.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Carnivore existed and was used illegally by Clinton

Echelon used all the way back to 1989 and prior

Carnivore alarms privacy activists and Congress, 7-11-00

Carnivore attacked in the EU 8-00

Critics bash Carnivore Electronic Eavesdropping 7-00

Echelon Protested in 1990s

Remember here guys, anything that uses telegraph, or telephone wires is by definition Wiretapping.

The world was up in arms over Carnivore and Echelon. The EU was particularly upset at the US only monitoring of EU citizens.

EPIC Alert on Carnivore 7-00, 6 months before Bush took office

This one shows how upeset the EU was about this outright invasion of privacy from across the pond.

Witnesses on a second panel were also highly critical of the Bureau.

Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU said the use of Carnivore is like "a

wiretap capable of accessing the contents of ALL of the phone

company's customers."  This, he stated, was a direct violation of the

Fourth Amendment's requirement of narrow and targeted searches,

designed to protect both the privacy of individuals and the ability of

the government to conduct searches.  Like many members of the

Committee, Steinhardt was skeptical of the FBI's "trust us" approach.

Tex and LegalEagle, please show me the authorization for invading the privacy of ALL Americans and EU Citizens? Show me where the authorization under FISA was for the "wiretap capable of accessing the contents of ALL of the phone

company's customers" was issued and where it is authorized in the Constitution.

A Google of EU Protest on Carnivore got 22,800 hits.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, once again you write a lot and say very little. Searches and Seizures are part of the game. The Dems first criticized Bush for not doing in Atta with wiretaps etc. Now they criticize Bush for using them. The truth is Carter and Clinton both used them and you wont see a scintilla of criticism for their actions from the Dems. What you quoted above is very open to interpretation out in the field by field agents. Here are the Drudge quotes.

Illegal Clinton Wiretaps

Illegal Carter wiretaps

Carter's Presidential Order fopr Illegal Wiretaps

Move along, the Dems dont have a leg to stand on here. That wont keep them from a ton of self righteous ponificating but their guys were just as guilty. I say all three were wrong. I mean what was Carter doing? If he had had clear info on a terrorist plot he still would have been to stupid to take any action. I mean it was a criminal waste of resources.... Clinton would never have used any info either. He knew about bin Laden for years and did nothing at all. Barely even mentioned the guy in the transfer of power papers. Certainly had little if any real intel on the guy. Remember that less than 8 months after Bush took power, 9-11 happened. You think 9-11 was in retaliation of Bush policies? No, it was in retaliation of Clinton policies. We now know that the planning of 9-11 went back to 1996 when Clinton was in office. They just didnt get the plan executed till after he had left office.

206571[/snapback]

If you decide you want to truly take the time to understand the particulars of the actions taken by the three presidents you attempt to equate without facts or analysis, the information is out there and you can do so. That will take time, thought and effort, though.

Here's a few easier points to consider that should give you something to think about. Bush operated in secret. It wasn't because, as he claimed Sunday night, to confirm that we were eavesdropping on folks would let them know something they didn't already know. We already had the authority to do that through FISA. But that Bush was operating outside of FISA was news to most folks, even most FISA judges.

Clinton issued an executive order. Told the world what he was doing. Subjected the order to scrutiny by all who would criticize it and guess what? No one did. Because it wasn't illegal. It didn't purport to trump FISA or any other law. Here it is:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Got a link to Bush's order? I can't find it.

There are CONSERVATIVE intellectuals who strongly criticize what Bush did. Some even say it is an impeachable offense. Many of these were certified Clinton haters who would have loved to have had stronger grounds to impeach Clinton than lying about a blow job. And yet, you didn't even know Clinton had issued this executive order until now. Why is that? All these folks dying to get Clinton for anything. Travelgate, Filegate, BJgate, etc. Had they thought what he did was anywhere close to equivalent, don't you think it would have been beaten to death?

There is nothing comparable about the two. The few remaining intellectual Conservatives know that. The Right Wing propagandists, on the other hand, rely on their army of useful idiots to repeat the talking points on cue. Step into the light, my friend.

206683[/snapback]

[

B]There are CONSERVATIVE intellectuals who strongly criticize what Bush did.[/b]

Count me among them. I find it really odd that you cannot criticize a Dem for any action, no matter how egregious.

Some even say it is an impeachable offense.

I say Carter, Clinton, and Bush did the same and ALL should be impeached for trampling on the Constitution, not just the one I want to cherry pick. Again Tex. I can criticize both sides of the aisle. You cannot ever criticize a Dem, not anyone of them, not on any issue.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Carnivore existed and was used illegally by Clinton

Echelon used all the way back to 1989 and prior

Carnivore alarms privacy activists and Congress, 7-11-00

Carnivore attacked in the EU 8-00

Critics bash Carnivore Electronic Eavesdropping 7-00

Echelon Protested in 1990s

Remember here guys, anything that uses telegraph, or telephone wires is by definition Wiretapping.

The world was up in arms over Carnivore and Echelon. The EU was particularly upset at the US only monitoring of EU citizens.

EPIC Alert on Carnivore 7-00, 6 months before Bush took office

This one shows how upeset the EU was about this outright invasion of privacy from across the pond.

Witnesses on a second panel were also highly critical of the Bureau.

Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU said the use of Carnivore is like "a

wiretap capable of accessing the contents of ALL of the phone

company's customers."  This, he stated, was a direct violation of the

Fourth Amendment's requirement of narrow and targeted searches,

designed to protect both the privacy of individuals and the ability of

the government to conduct searches.  Like many members of the

Committee, Steinhardt was skeptical of the FBI's "trust us" approach.

Tex and LegalEagle, please show me the authorization for invading the privacy of ALL Americans and EU Citizens? Show me where the authorization under FISA was for the "wiretap capable of accessing the contents of ALL of the phone

company's customers" was issued and where it is authorized in the Constitution.

A Google of EU Protest on Carnivore got 22,800 hits.

206696[/snapback]

Funny that after you accuse me of writing alot and saying very little you then post a number of largely irrelevant links and totally ignore my arguments.

One of your more amusing habits is providing large fonts that say NOTHING.

The EU was pissed? And that implicates the 4th Amendment how exactly?

From one of your sources, which you obviously did not bother to read:

In addition, Ricci said the proposal actually should ease concerns about the possible misuse of the Carnivore system. Under the proposal, she noted, usage of the surveillance technology would be limited to cases involving a list of serious crimes and would have to be approved by high-level officials at the Department of Justice and then by a judge who could weigh whether there was enough evidence to justify the proposed interception of messages.

And the information gathered with Carnivore could be suppressed in court if the rules weren't followed properly, Ricci added.

A House subcommittee will hold a hearing next week on the Carnivore system, and Attorney General Janet Reno has said she'll review whether Carnivore complies with constitutional privacy guarantees. The legislative proposals will be sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has a variety of Internet surveillance and privacy bills under review.

The White House initiative was intended to create a standard for unifying inconsistent laws governing the surveillance of telephone, cable and Internet communications. The legislation would apply telephone-wiretapping standards, which require law-enforcement agents to show that they have probable cause of a crime, to obtain a court order for scanning the content of a suspect's e-mail.

In the past, so-called "pen registers" or "trap and trace" wiretaps produced lists of telephone numbers of people who had called suspects. But they now can be applied to the collection of e-mail or IP addresses that are available to investigators armed with just a subpoena.

"It's time to update and harmonize our existing laws to give all forms of technology the same legislative protections as our telephone conversations," said John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff, in a speech at the National Press Club Tuesday. "Our proposed legislation would harmonize the legal standards that apply to law enforcement's access to e-mails, telephone calls and cable services."

As said before, the Executive Order you cite from Drudge was out in the open and subject to debate and scrutiny. If the Republican Congress disagreed with it, they could draft legislation to change it.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Here let me type this really slowly this time. maybe you will understand better...

1) Where is the Executive Order or Court Order allowing wiretaps for any transmission by any person on two continents?

2) The Dems just want to criticize Bush, Heck it is all you guys have done for 5 years now.

3) I point out with numerous references that the US has been engaged in wholesale violation of the civil rights of millions, even the packets that transmit this to the server, for years. The Left answers with an attack on Bush for some precious few wiretaps when we have had our privacy rights violated by our own govt Tex, and you say nothing about YOUR OWN PRIVACY BEING VIOLATED. You are still more motivated by the wiretaps of a relative few known terrorists or those suspected of being terrorists that may be planning to kill thousands of Americans. Yet you wont stand up for your own privacy rights.

Tex, the terrorists have already defeated the Left. When they are more concerned with hw much they hate Bush than they are of protecting their own civil rights, the Terrorists will win in t5hat scenario. I am not defending Bush at all here. But you are ONLY attacking Bush tho. You are pointing out the speck in my eye and ignoring the beam in your own.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Start paying attention, because this is not going away, so unless the MSM gets bamboozled by the RNC spin machine, most people will eventually understand that what we are dealing with here is far from business as usual.

I don't necessarily WANT it to go away. The more the Dems are distracted by this charade of outrage and hypocrisy, the more the American people will understand that the Left has no message, no plan, no vision, other than to attack the President. Americans won't be endeared to a party that is anti defending this country, as it's clear the Democrats have shown. Those who put party politics above national defense will end up kicked to the curb.

[LegalEagle 22]

To DKW and others,

I apologize, but I don't have the time to post on topics that require more than a quip or two. This topic requires more, and I should never have joined in. However, I will take a few minutes to speak my mind.

1. DKW, I agree. I don't care who it is, if they violate the Constitution and citizen's rights, they should be dethroned. When one gets away with it, the others follow suit. That said, I lack personal knowledge of the allegations you raise, and therefore will not respond.

2. I used to be a die-hard radical right winger. I cussed the Dems and the ACLU. Later as I learned more, I realized that the ACLU, although taking up some quirky and unpopular (even with me) causes, is one of the greatest protectors of civil rights that we have. I've never sent them a dime, but I probably should have.

3. People who ascend to places of political power feed on that power and see themselves as better than the "little people." And sadly, they often feel that they are above the law. When they speak of those loyal to them, the true translation is that those "loyal" people are willing to lie under oath to protect the leader, and will even enter a false confession to take the blame and punishment.

4. From the founders of this nation, we see that the federal government was to be kept as small as possible. The states and local governments were to have more power, with the citizens holding the ultimate power. Now, all levels of government are bloated beyond belief. In theory, as a practical matter, we can only limit governmental power by limiting taxes paid into the government. However, unless each government has a balanced budget amendment, this will not even work. The current administration cut taxes and now spends like drunken LSU fans. Hell, our citizens are so lazy, they won't even vote!

5. WE ARE NOT AT WAR. I'm sorry to disappoint those of you who try to invoke the "War Powers Act." Sadly, we have let the government get by without following the Constitution. It is Congress who declares War. Congress has not declared war. Instead, we are acting as the "World Police" and meddling in another State's affairs. If we followed the Constitution and only "made war" when a declaration of Congress authorizes it, we would be in much better shape today.

6. We are losing our right to privacy through technology. Even our Supreme Court has ruled that when you take your household trash to the curb as required by the local government for pick-up, the government can pick it up and rummage through it without violating any citizen's rights. If you talk on a cell phone or other wireless phone, you lose your right to privacy, and the government may listen in. More and more cameras show up everywhere. It is my understanding that all that is typed on the internet is recorded in government data bases to be available for review. What happens when they listen but don't tell you? If only a few "practical agents" are willing to do what they are told without regard to the law, your privacy rights will be violated and only those few will know. If you are a political enemy of those who are listening in. Who would guess the source of information if you were photographed departing the townhouse of your lover at 2 A.M. one fine Washington morning? Human nature is what it is, and any limitation will be stepped over to some extent. We have to draw the line as "conservatively" as possible.

7. Bush is a scoundrel, perhaps most of his predesessors were. Unless we kick their asses out when we are fortunate enough to catch them in their abuses, we are headed to days similar to the latter days of the Roman Empire. When you catch a rat, you don't turn him loose because there are others who ate more cheese but got away, do you? Please don't coddle the rat because he has red hair rather than blue hair. If we give up the very individual rights which make this the greatest country on Earth, then it will no longer be the greatest country on Earth. You, as citizens, have the DUTY to rid this country of governmental Rats. He'll get a lawyer, thanks to the ACLU. Don't defend him just because of his party affiliation or because others have done similar dirty deeds.

Once again, I apologize for not being able to respons as I would like. What I put here, I don't have time to review. Please excuse any typos or rambling. Regardless of your position, it is GREAT that you folks on this board take the time to express your views. Your participation makes all of us better citizens.

LE

[DKW 86 7,440]

WE ARE NOT AT WAR. I'm sorry to disappoint those of you who try to invoke the "War Powers Act." Sadly, we have let the government get by without following the Constitution. It is Congress who declares War.

Touche'

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Here let me type this really slowly this time. maybe you will understand better...

1) Where is the Executive Order or Court Order allowing wiretaps for any transmission by any person on two continents?

2) The Dems just want to criticize Bush, Heck it is all you guys have done for 5 years now.

3) I point out with numerous references that the US has been engaged in wholesale violation of the civil rights of millions, even the packets that transmit this to the server, for years. The Left answers with an attack on Bush for some precious few wiretaps when we have had our privacy rights violated by our own govt Tex, and you say nothing about YOUR OWN PRIVACY BEING VIOLATED. You are still more motivated by the wiretaps of a relative few known terrorists or those suspected of being terrorists that may be planning to kill thousands of Americans. Yet you wont stand up for your own privacy rights.

Tex, the terrorists have already defeated the Left. When they are more concerned with hw much they hate Bush than they are of protecting their own civil rights, the Terrorists will win in t5hat scenario. I am not defending Bush at all here. But you are ONLY attacking Bush tho. You are pointing out the speck in my eye and ignoring the beam in your own.

206718[/snapback]

David:

That still doesn't respond to my arguments. You've just repackaged much of the same stuff you've always said. And upthread you spend far more time bashing Clinton than I do Bush. If someone wants to make solid, well analyzed criticisms of Clinton that call his decisions and policies into question, fine. If history looks back negatively at Clinton's decisions on this and other matters and the facts support that view, fine. But Clinton is history and history discussions are one thing and current events another. This is a political forum, not an history forum.

You say you are not defending Bush, but you are and you are doing so with a "they all did it argmument." You are the one who equated their actions. I simply pointed out key distinctions in their actions, because I am trying to address the issue before us HERE AND NOW. You claim you want to impeach them all, but it is too late to impeach Clinton and Carter. Write a book criticizing them all you want. Hope it sells and you become rich, my friend.

I point out with numerous references that the US has been engaged in wholesale violation of the civil rights of millions, even the packets that transmit this to the server, for years. The Left answers with an attack on Bush for some precious few wiretaps when we have had our privacy rights violated by our own govt Tex, and you say nothing about YOUR OWN PRIVACY BEING VIOLATED.

If you are so sincerely bothered by this, and criticize me because you think I am not, has Bush reversed any of this? Did he overturn these practices you find so offensive, or did he merely retain them, refine them and add to them? Because if he didn't do away with all these bad things Clinton engaged in, why not? He is the president NOW. He is in power NOW. We are talking about what our government can do and is doing NOW. We can change NOW. We can't change THEN. You are upset with what Clinton did in the 90s but diminish what he current president does because he is not the first?

If you truly believe that Bush should be impeached as you have said, then this is a big deal, right? Do you really believe that? You did say it rather forcefully. Did you mean it?