NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional [Archive] - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug

08-17-2006, 10:39 AM

Great news!!!!!!!
Reel in these arrogant bastards who are shi**ing all over Americans.

------------------------------------------------------
Judge nixes warrantless surveillance
By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060817/capt.f9f8f7f8f2b54e1fb6049adaed80db12.domestic_spy ing_lawsuit_dt108.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=8qGVN6x8R6XkdvcDcsV.Lg--
Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government's wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

CONT (http://tinyurl.com/njark)

loborugger

08-17-2006, 10:44 AM

Interesting. This was bound to happen, as will the appeal. I would be kinda surprised if this didnt end up in the Supreme Court.

I wonder why this ended up in Detroit? I wonder if they judge shopped a circuit til they thought they had a chance to get a favorable judge. On the other hand, the ninth circuit is the one that enjoys putting the stick in Bush's eye.

Lets see what happens. My guess is this is just starting. And while the judiciary branch is responsible for deciding the law, the executive is responsible for enforcing it. I seem to remember from history a judge ordering a prez to do something and the prez basically ignoring because the judge had no enforcement ability.

Rohirrim

08-17-2006, 10:46 AM

I still don't get what the beef about all this is from Bush/Cheney. It just must be an ego thing with them. The FISA courts have turned down 5 warrants out of 4,000 requests. You can start the taps and you have days to get the warrant. So, Gonzalez says the law is invalid because it caused too much paperwork for the executive? WTF! And because of this, everybody on the Left is a coward and a traitor? Man, this neocon cabal has their heads in a warm, dark place. This isn't even worth the print it takes to report it, let alone the wasted time in the courtroom. Follow FISA, jerkoffs.

Antilles

08-17-2006, 10:50 AM

Follow FISA, jerkoffs.

Or amend it.

TailgateNut

08-17-2006, 10:54 AM

Or continue to ignore it until we show you the f-ing door!

defenseman

08-17-2006, 10:57 AM

Or amend it.

Yeah maybe that. Makes no difference, once appealed and onto the supreme court. The ruling will be overturned. Simple as that...dman

TailgateNut

08-17-2006, 11:05 AM

Yeah maybe that. Makes no difference, once appealed and onto the supreme court. The ruling will be overturned. Simple as that...dman

That's BS, it may go to the appeal, and may make it to the Supreme court, but I still believe MOST of our countrymen and women still believe in laws, including the Justices!

Bronco_Beerslug

08-17-2006, 11:06 AM

Yeah maybe that. Makes no difference, once appealed and onto the supreme court. The ruling will be overturned. Simple as that...dman
Overturned where, the SC? Why?

defenseman

08-17-2006, 11:22 AM

BroncoBuff

08-17-2006, 11:38 AM

Overturned where, the SC? Why?
Well, the Government will ask and receive an order enjoining enforcement of this ruiling pending appeal. That means the program "rolls on" indefinitely - at least for the foreseeable future.

And since this ruling was just the District Court - the "trial level" - an appeal could require TWO STAGES - the Federal Appellate level and THEN the Supreme Court. All tolled, that would be 4 to 8 years.

The Supreme Court CAN elect to grant certiori - reach over the Appelate level and grab the case - accelerating its final determination. But they can also decline to do so, which would have the effect of permitting the program to "roll on" while both appeals languish.

The decision to grant certiori (often called the quietest exercise of massive power anywhere in our nation) requires I think just FOUR justices' votes. Maybe SoCal knows. Or maybe the decision to JUMP the Appellate level requires a different number. We'll see.

But make no mistake - this is a BIG win for Democrats. ^5

Especially just 84 days from election day. Insteresting that the Judge found FOUR grounds to invalidate it. She cited "separation of powers" clase, and the Firth, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Lots of busy work for U.S. Attorneys.

BroncoBuff

08-17-2006, 11:41 AM

Long story short .... this means very little, other than helping Dems win election.

Bush will have cleared ACRES of brush as an ex-president before this one's finished.

Rohirrim

08-17-2006, 11:44 AM

We'll see guys. This ruling, as long as it does not hinder our abilities to gather information on suspected terrorists "when" we need to, will stand. IF , it impacts the previous, adjustments to the ruling in one way, shape or form will occur (OR FISA gets an adjustment, take your pick).....dman

*Don't get mad, I'm just sharing with ya what I believe will occur given today's posture with respect to terrorists and their collective danger to america.

That’s one of the things that gets me about all of this. IMO, terrorism isn’t a tenth of the threat that the Japanese or the Nazis, or certainly the Soviets were, and yet, our leaders have us running scared from them ten times more that we did from any of those former enemies. Every single time this administration wants to push through some agenda they start flailing around about how afraid we’re supposed to be. Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but fear itself?” Now, Bush seems to jump out of his skin every time he sees his shadow. Yeah, let’s flush the Constitution because we’re a bunch of chicken ****s led by a bunch of chicken hawks. Good plan. Ignore the Constitution. What this country needs is a little leadership.

Crushaholic

08-17-2006, 11:45 AM

damn...:pity:

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 11:52 AM

That’s one of the things that gets me about all of this. IMO, terrorism isn’t a tenth of the threat that the Japanese or the Nazis, or certainly the Soviets were, and yet, our leaders have us running scared from them ten times more that we did from any of those former enemies. Every single time this administration wants to push through some agenda they start flailing around about how afraid we’re supposed to be. Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but fear itself?” Now, Bush seems to jump out of his skin every time he sees his shadow. Yeah, let’s flush the Constitution because we’re a bunch of chicken ****s led by a bunch of chicken hawks. Good plan. Ignore the Constitution. What this country needs is a little leadership.

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?

How naive are you?

Rohirrim

08-17-2006, 12:17 PM

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?

How naive are you?

Hopefully, you’re kidding. You know how people like to say that 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor simply based on the numbers? It wasn’t even close. You know why? Because 9/11, and any terrorist attack no matter how bad, has no backup to it. On 9/11, 19 pieces of **** with box knives got lucky and caught us with our pants down. They got even luckier because the buildings fell, which is something they could not expect. But when the attack was over, we knew it was over. Until the next time. Finally, 9/11 didn’t affect any of our critical, military assets. Pearl Harbor took out half the Pacific fleet. Fortunately, Halsey had the carriers at sea or we’d have been in much deeper do do.

When the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, we had no such idea if the attack was over. The Japanese had a massive, well trained and well supplied navy and a veteran, battle hardened army that had taken over half of China, Manchuria and SE Asia and could just as easily have been on their way steaming toward California. Nazi Germany had one of the best armies and air forces on earth at the time. We were in the midst of a depression. There was no guarantee that we could defeat either of those foes. But FDR led us to ignore our fear, to sacrifice everything we had at home and abroad, and fight. And we won.

I’m not even going to stoop to argue that the Soviets weren’t a greater threat than Al Queda. That’s a complete joke. Like comparing fleas to tigers. The Soviets had the capacity to wipe the U.S. off the face of the map. We defeated them too.

What we need to ask ourselves is: Why did FDR urge us all, regardless of political affiliation, to go beyond our fear and fight for our country, and why does George Bush keep telling us to be very afraid while questioning the courage and patriotism of any who oppose him?

sisterhellfyre

08-17-2006, 12:40 PM

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?

How naive are you?

Let's compare a few things and see...

* Last week: a "terrorist plot" against somewhere between 10 and 20 civilian aircraft. Oddly enough, the UK and US authorities can't seem to get their facts straight about how many planes, how many "terrorists" are involved, how long the investigation has run, or much of anything else. Word of the plot, however, is enough for the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) to institute regulations leading to the confiscation of maple syrup from American high-school girls on vacation. Yeah, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

* In this corner: the Soviet Union. During its heyday, the USSR had over 1,000 ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads pointed at us day and night. Plus a large standing army, an array of catspaw subversives & revolutionaries, and a proven history of rolling tanks thru the capitol cities of countries who rebelled against imperial domination (see Czechoslovakia & Hungary).

* Nazi Germany: Architects of a death camp system that killed at least 10 million people who didn't match the Aryan ideal. Instigators of a land war in Europe that killed at least 2 million in combat (including casualties on all sides and all fronts, from France thru North Africa to Russia).

* Imperial Japan: From starting their version of World War II in China (1933), also caused millions of casualties across Asia and the Pacific as the Rising Sun rolled over the imperial domains of France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and the US. Just the end chapters of this war, in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, took the lives of roughy 120,000 Japanese civilians.

Yup, I know which one I'd be more worried about.

Regards,
m.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-17-2006, 12:43 PM

You can say that with a straight face after what happened last week?
How naive are you?
What year did your history books start, 1999?

TailgateNut

08-17-2006, 12:45 PM

Let's compare a few things and see...

* Last week: a "terrorist plot" against somewhere between 10 and 20 civilian aircraft. Oddly enough, the UK and US authorities can't seem to get their facts straight about how many planes, how many "terrorists" are involved, how long the investigation has run, or much of anything else. Word of the plot, however, is enough for the TSA (Thousands Standing Around) to institute regulations leading to the confiscation of maple syrup from American high-school girls on vacation. Yeah, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

* In this corner: the Soviet Union. During its heyday, the USSR had over 1,000 ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads pointed at us day and night. Plus a large standing army, an array of catspaw subversives & revolutionaries, and a proven history of rolling tanks thru the capitol cities of countries who rebelled against imperial domination (see Czechoslovakia & Hungary).

* Nazi Germany: Architects of a death camp system that killed at least 10 million people who didn't match the Aryan ideal. Instigators of a land war in Europe that killed at least 2 million in combat (including casualties on all sides and all fronts, from France thru North Africa to Russia).

* Imperial Japan: From starting their version of World War II in China (1933), also caused millions of casualties across Asia and the Pacific as the Rising Sun rolled over the imperial domains of France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and the US. Just the end chapters of this war, in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, took the lives of roughy 120,000 Japanese civilians.

Yup, I know which one I'd be more worried about.

Regards,
m.

It's the Maple syrup, isn't it?;D

TailgateNut

08-17-2006, 12:48 PM

What year did your history books start, 1999?

Just look at his age. He's ripe for military duty, but opts to follow the Dubya road. (be afraid, skirt your duty, and god has spoken to him)

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 12:51 PM

What year did your history books start, 1999?

My point is: We cant sit around and consider these terrorists to not be as great a threat as we think. Considering that they will stop at nothing to kill us, I think we need to deal with them, and regard them as a grea threat. I'm in no way saying that the threats we faced in WWII are any less than terrorism, but the fact is that we cant sit idly by, and not take this seriously.

Especially when we have terrorists being funded by the likes of Iran in the billions each year, and these countries who support terrorism are helping them obtain WMD's of any sort to make a wide scale attack.

Since there was going to be an attack, and it was spoiled, just goes to show you that there is still a threat out there to our safety. I think it would be foolish to not take them seriously, or not regard them as that great a threat.

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 12:54 PM

Just look at his age. He's ripe for military duty, but opts to follow the Dubya road. (be afraid, skirt your duty, and god has spoken to him)

Whats the dubya road? Sort of like Clintons? Wait no, he was in school. So it's cool.

My brother is joining the military after hs, no need for me to. If it isnt my calling in life, then why should I do it? I'm making a difference in other ways.

TailgateNut

08-17-2006, 12:55 PM

My point is: We cant sit around and consider these terrorists to not be as great a threat as we think. Considering that they will stop at nothing to kill us, I think we need to deal with them, and regard them as a grea threat. I'm in no way saying that the threats we faced in WWII are any less than terrorism, but the fact is that we cant sit idly by, and not take this seriously.

Especially when we have terrorists being funded by the likes of Iran in the billions each year, and these countries who support terrorism are helping them obtain WMD's of any sort to make a wide scale attack.

Since there was going to be an attack, and it was spoiled, just goes to show you that there is still a threat out there to our safety. I think it would be foolish to not take them seriously, or not regard them as that great a threat.

Dubya hasn't even hooked up the horses, but you are already sitting on the Iran Bandwagon. Now THAT'S WHAT I CALL DEDICATION!

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 12:57 PM

Dubya hasn't even hooked up the horses, but you are already sitting on the Iran Bandwagon. Now THAT'S WHAT I CALL DEDICATION!

Huh? I didnt say attack them.

TailgateNut

08-17-2006, 01:03 PM

Huh? I didnt say attack them.

Well, if you substituted Iraq for Iran.......get the picture?

At least we already have a song!

...and it's one, two, three..
...what are we fightin' for..
...don't ask me, I don't give a damn
...the next stop is EEran...

Rohirrim

08-17-2006, 01:18 PM

My point is: We cant sit around and consider these terrorists to not be as great a threat as we think. Considering that they will stop at nothing to kill us, I think we need to deal with them, and regard them as a grea threat. I'm in no way saying that the threats we faced in WWII are any less than terrorism, but the fact is that we cant sit idly by, and not take this seriously.

Especially when we have terrorists being funded by the likes of Iran in the billions each year, and these countries who support terrorism are helping them obtain WMD's of any sort to make a wide scale attack.

Since there was going to be an attack, and it was spoiled, just goes to show you that there is still a threat out there to our safety. I think it would be foolish to not take them seriously, or not regard them as that great a threat.

I can't imagine there's anybody in America who thinks we shouldn't fight terrorism. We just have to decide if invading Iraq, Iran and Syria are the best tactical approach.

sisterhellfyre

08-17-2006, 01:30 PM

It's the Maple syrup, isn't it?;D

Ohyeah. Terrible, evil, nasty stuff, maple syrup. Can you just imagine the harm that could be done by two teenage girls loose with a bottle of maple syrup?

And we're not talking the fake cheap sugar-water stuff from the grocery store, either: this was the REAL THING, fresh out of the trees.

It could have been the end of the world as we know it. Armageddon, nuclear winter, the whole nine yards. We're all so lucky that the Bush Administration was there to save us from it.

Regards,
m.

Rohirrim

08-17-2006, 01:31 PM

Can you just imagine the harm that could be done by two teenage girls loose with a bottle of maple syrup?

Pictures? :~ohyah!:

defenseman

08-17-2006, 01:31 PM

I can't imagine there's anybody in America who thinks we shouldn't fight terrorism. We just have to decide if invading Iraq, Iran and Syria are the best tactical approach.

AGREED, 100%....dman

sisterhellfyre

08-17-2006, 01:35 PM

Pictures? :~ohyah!:

Dammit! That's what I forgot... [sigh] Sorry, Ro.

Regards,
m.

bendog

08-17-2006, 01:36 PM

Blueflame

08-17-2006, 01:37 PM

Especially when we have terrorists being funded by the likes of Bush's bestest buddies, Saudi Arabia in the billions each year, and these countries who support terrorism are helping them obtain WMD's of any sort to make a wide scale attack.

Fixed it for you.....

defenseman

08-17-2006, 01:40 PM

Remember the senate offered to pass a law allowing warrantless taps for 45 days, but requiring courts to both look at ALL taps and requiring warrants for those over 45 days, or something. Maybe 90, I forget. But ...nnnnnoooo. For some reason that wasn't good enough for dubya. Something stinks with the program.

I was a bit confused on why they didn't bite on this also. But, I won't assume something stinks. However, I agree there certianly is an underlying reason for not accepting the offer from the senate. I too would like to know what it is..dman

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 01:43 PM

Fixed it for you.....

Thanks LABF..err, I mean.... ::)

Blueflame

08-17-2006, 01:52 PM

Thanks LABF..err, I mean.... ::)

For Bush apologists, the fact that a lot of terrorist money comes from his friends Saudi Arabia is an inconvenient fact... as is another fact... that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. There would be a lot more justification for attacking Saudi Arabia than for attacking Iraq... or Iran.

Rohirrim

08-17-2006, 01:53 PM

Isn't it interesting that the same administration that argues against the "penumbra" interpretation, argues that the president has "inherent" powers not enumerated in the Constitution?

bendog

08-17-2006, 02:05 PM

The two logical conclusions from bushii not taking up the senate offer are: they're tapping people with no probable cause under even the watered down version the senate seemed ok to go with and/or they will accept absolutely no judicial oversight. The only other possiblity I logically can see is along Rohirim's thinking: accepting any limit on presidential powers that eminate unspecified from the Const would be bad policy.

Any of those make me very wary.

Spider

08-17-2006, 02:19 PM

good ruling ....... it is like this , say there was a terrorist talking to OBL on the phone , From Yermo California , the call isnt covered under our laws cause it is going over seas, no need to get a warrent the call should be taped no question , but if guy Next door in Yermo calls dominoes for a large Pizzia , that shouldnt be tapped , but if the call is suspious and you have ot move fast , then make your move then get the warrent ...........
realy isnt much to it , the issue usnt warrents , it is about getting the presidency more power .......

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 03:16 PM

Spider

08-17-2006, 03:39 PM

What if OBL is working at Dominos? And instead of delivering a Pizza, he delivers a dirty bomb to his buddy Ahmed for him to use.
Kids.. gotta love thier make believe world . well if he delievers a bomb , dont tip him ......

sisterhellfyre

08-17-2006, 04:09 PM

What if OBL is working at Dominos? And instead of delivering a Pizza, he delivers a dirty bomb to his buddy Ahmed for him to use.

There's something inherently cheesy about that hypothetical.

Regards,
m.

DBruleU

08-17-2006, 05:01 PM

There's something inherently cheesy about that hypothetical.

Regards,
m.

:D

errand

08-17-2006, 05:04 PM

. . . and ordered to cease immediately.

Coming to a Circuit Court of Appeals near you.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html

the Judge is a Carter appointee, FWIW

Imagine that......a liberal judge says that a valuable tool in the war against terrorists is unconstitutional. I for one, am not suprised.

errand

08-17-2006, 05:14 PM

But make no mistake - this is a BIG win for Democrats. ^5

....until there is another attack on American soil.

So what would the Dems argument be if after the NSA stops the wiretaps, we all of a sudden have another 9/11? The republicans could always point out how after 9/11 they implemented the wiretaps...

They could also argue that because of them there haven't been any more attacks on American soil, and whatever arrets have been made and whatever plots have been foiled could be held up as proof.

I'd hate to be you libs if the next attack could have been prevented with a wiretap.

Play2win

08-17-2006, 05:20 PM

Isn't it interesting that the same administration that argues against the "penumbra" interpretation, argues that the president has "inherent" powers not enumerated in the Constitution?
Privacy rights from Griswold v. Connecticut... Correct?

Drawing from the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th Amendments, I believe...

errand

08-17-2006, 05:21 PM

Because 9/11, and any terrorist attack no matter how bad, has no backup to it. On 9/11, 19 pieces of **** with box knives got lucky and caught us with our pants down. They got even luckier because the buildings fell, which is something they could not expect. But when the attack was over, we knew it was over. Until the next time. ?

So you're OK with there being a "next time"? Just go on with your life and don't worry about it until the "next time", huh?

I guess it's never occurred to you that each terrorist attack has basically gotten worse and/or the targets had gotten bigger every time there was a "next time".

errand

08-17-2006, 05:28 PM

I can't imagine there's anybody in America who thinks we shouldn't fight terrorism. We just have to decide if invading Iraq, Iran and Syria are the best tactical approach.

...as opposed to just sitting back and waiting for the "next time"?

I, for the life of me cannot understand how people who claim to love this great nation would say that people who have been raised to kill us....to eliminate us from the face of the earth and who are seeking a nuclear weapon for the specific purpose of accomplishing their goal of killing us are not a threat.

These clowns murdered approximately 3000 Americans with two planes...imagine what they'll do when Iran gets a nuke or two.

errand

08-17-2006, 05:36 PM

Thanks LABF..err, I mean.... ::)

...is there really a difference?

errand

08-17-2006, 05:45 PM

What if OBL is working at Dominos? And instead of delivering a Pizza, he delivers a dirty bomb to his buddy Ahmed for him to use.

I have to ask all you libs this question.

After they arrived in America, how do suppose those 19 bastards that carried out 9/11 communicated with each other?

Did they write letters?

Or did they use cell phones?

This dumb bitch in Detroit just told them they can go back to using their cell phones to plot your murder for the "next time"

Rigs11

08-17-2006, 05:57 PM

Kids.. gotta love thier make believe world . well if he delievers a bomb , dont tip him ......
LOL LOL ROFL! LOL

Spider

08-17-2006, 06:54 PM

yeah lets all live in fear , throw our freedom away , disvow who we are as a people ....... Yet claim we won the war on terror ......... Does anyone on the right have any sence of what it means to be an American ?

Spider

08-17-2006, 07:04 PM

I can see it now , someone sneaks up behind a certian poster here , and says Boo I am the boogie man , the said poster throws his arms up in the air , screams like a high school girl ,then start running and shouting we are all going to die ...........

Blueflame

08-17-2006, 07:27 PM

I have to ask all you libs this question.

After they arrived in America, how do suppose those 19 bastards that carried out 9/11 communicated with each other?

Did they write letters?

Or did they use cell phones?

This dumb b**** in Detroit just told them they can go back to using their cell phones to plot your murder for the "next time"

No that judge just said that Bush cannot unilaterally flush the Constitution down the toilet. All today's ruling says is that this president is not above the law.

Benjamin Franklin, a man who presumably knew a little bit about freedom would appear to concur with today's decision, judging by this quote attributed to him: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

SteveTensi13

08-17-2006, 10:12 PM

Holy cow, you mean a liberal democrat activist judge is trying to dis-arm America in the middle of WWIII? Who would've thunk it?

Blueflame

08-17-2006, 11:25 PM

Holy cow, you mean a liberal democrat activist judge is trying to dis-arm America in the middle of WWIII? Who would've thunk it?

Who said anything about "trying to dis-arm America in the middle of WWIII"? ???

The judge's ruling merely says that Bush needs to obtain warrants via the FISA court (which will most likely grant any warrants he wants) before doing the wiretapping. Upholding the first, fourth, and fifth amendments also serves to uphold the second. ::)

SteveTensi13

08-17-2006, 11:36 PM

Who said anything about "trying to dis-arm America in the middle of WWIII"? ???

The judge's ruling merely says that Bush needs to obtain warrants via the FISA court (which will most likely grant any warrants he wants) before doing the wiretapping. Upholding the first, fourth, and fifth amendments also serves to uphold the second. ::)

This is not a law enforcement matter, this is WAR! What is it about that you libs don't seem or can't seem to understand? The commander in chief needs everything in his power to defend us. What was it you libs said about Bush after 9-11? That he didn't connect the dots prior to the attack? Well, don't you think he needs to first collect the dots?

I for one hope to God the NSA is listening in on my phone calls, I have nothing to hide, do you?

SteveTensi13

08-17-2006, 11:45 PM

This is exactly why dumbacrats are never trusted with national security!

Blueflame

08-17-2006, 11:48 PM

This is not a law enforcement matter, this is WAR! What is it about that you libs don't seem or can't seem to understand? The commander in chief needs everything in his power to defend us. What was it you libs said about Bush after 9-11? That he didn't connect the dots prior to the attack? Well, don't you think he needs to first collect the dots?

I for one hope to God the NSA is listening in on my phone calls, I have nothing to hide, do you?

Aren't the Republicans always telling us "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? And aren't we supposedly fighting for freedom? If we lose our Constitution one amendment at a time, then what freedoms are left to protect? So... we're told we're "bringing democracy to Iraq"... but at the same time we're allowing authoritarians to erode our hard-won freedoms and essentially turn our own country into a de facto dictatorship.

It's not a question of having anything to hide... it's a question of unilaterally declaring the Constitution (or any part thereof) to be null and void. If they get away with doing this with the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, what makes you think they won't do the same with the second?

Blueflame

08-17-2006, 11:49 PM

This is exactly why dumbacrats are never trusted with national security!

It wasn't a "dumbacrat" who dropped the ball on 9/11.

SteveTensi13

08-17-2006, 11:59 PM

Aren't the Republicans always telling us "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? And aren't we supposedly fighting for freedom? If we lose our Constitution one amendment at a time, then what freedoms are left to protect? So... we're told we're "bringing democracy to Iraq"... but at the same time we're allowing authoritarians to erode our hard-won freedoms and essentially turn our own country into a de facto dictatorship.

It's not a question of having anything to hide... it's a question of unilaterally declaring the Constitution (or any part thereof) to be null and void. If they get away with doing this with the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, what makes you think they won't do the same with the second?

Give me one name of one American who has lost their constitutional rights in 6 years under Bush, just one!

SteveTensi13

08-18-2006, 12:02 AM

It wasn't a "dumbacrat" who dropped the ball on 9/11.

Sure it was, after gutting the intelligence agencies and failing to react to terrorists attacks after 8 years under clinton the terrorists became emboldened and figured Bush was just like clinton. Boy were they ever wrong!

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 12:08 AM

Give me one name of one American who has lost their constitutional rights in 6 years under Bush, just one!

Any American who has been illegally monitored by the NSA lost their 4th Amendment rights.

SteveTensi13

08-18-2006, 12:12 AM

Any American who has been illegally monitored by the NSA lost their 4th Amendment rights.

I knew you couldn't!! Come back later when you have a stronger argument.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 12:13 AM

Sure it was, after gutting the intelligence agencies and failing to react to terrorists attacks after 8 years under clinton the terrorists became emboldened and figured Bush was just like clinton. Boy were they ever wrong!

Clinton wasn't president... nor was he remaining on vacation despite the repeated warnings that OBL was planning an attack on American soil in 2001. That was Bush and Cheney who decided that the threat wasn't serious enough to warrant shortening their vacations.

Yeah, they were soooo wrong. Those who attacked the WTC during Clinton's tenure were arrested, convicted, and jailed. OBL remains free as a bird and still sends mocking, threatening tapes from time to time.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 12:15 AM

I knew you couldn't!! Come back later when you have a stronger argument.

Today's judicial decision is all the proof I need... the judge obviously agreed that American citizens' rights had been violated. Thanks for playing.

errand

08-18-2006, 04:17 AM

Give me one name of one American who has lost their constitutional rights in 6 years under Bush, just one!

they can't name one, dude. Just like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton couldn't name one black person that was denied their privilege to vote in Florida '00...couldn't name one out of the millions they said were disenfranchised.

They cannot cite one instance where an American citizen's civil liberties were infringed upon by the Patriot Act either. In fact their meager attempts at posting an instance was when they claimed the FBI arrested some drug dealers thru it. Imagine that we're also nabbing drug dealers and terrorists with it....and it's bad in their eyes.

Their argument will be that they have a "right to privacy"...when those very words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution or bills of rights.

errand

08-18-2006, 04:37 AM

Any American who has been illegally monitored by the NSA lost their 4th Amendment rights.

OK, then name them. Who? Like StevTensi13 challenged you to do...name one

FYI...in '79 the SC ruled in Smith vs. Maryland that the numbers you dial are not protected by the 4th Amendment.

Also just as cars are not considered residences and are not protected by the 4th Amendment, neither is any space outside of the immediate dwelling. In other words the air and land outside the boundaries of your personal property is not protected.

And it protects us from unreasonable searches...now explain to all of us how monitoring the airwaves for terrorist chatter is unreasonable after 9/11?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-18-2006, 05:48 AM

Today's judicial decision is all the proof I need... the judge obviously agreed that American citizens' rights had been violated. Thanks for playing. Why you would engage with Errant and Tensi in their nonsensical, elementary tripe is the question. Neither actually exist in the same dimension the rest of the planet does.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 06:09 AM

Give me one name of one American who has lost their constitutional rights in 6 years under Bush, just one!

I know of none. The Democrats are pre-posturing saying constitutional rights being violated in the name of security will lead to much worse in the near future wrt additional impositions on their constitutional rights. That said, the white house is saying that we need to continue to execute status quo based on the supposition that another attack will be attempted and it very well may be subverted if we are allowed to continue to execute the war on terror maintaining the status quo methods. In one scenario, the constitutional rights "violations" as far as "escalation" is debatable. In the other scenario, the inability to maintain current methods @ status quo may lead to another successful attack on the US of A. Well, some sort of resolution is absolutely required. The white house must find a way to continue to execute an effective method of intel gathering. Another successful attack, with limited abilities to gather intelligence, endorsed by the democrats? HUGE problem for the democrats, the republicans will successfully target the lack of ability to collect intel as a key part of the reason for the successful attack. And , from where I sit, the democrats had better get on board the "security" train in short order and work in earnest with the white house and the republicans to ENSURE a successful attack is not executed. If not, they will have to hang that albatross around their collective necks, I have no doubt..dman

*I will say as far as "stomping" on constitutional rights, ANYONE who in any way aides and abeds the success of ANY terrorists organization in the execution of terrorist acts against the US or it's citizens HAS NO RIGHTS. They deserve the right to recieve a 9mm slug to the brain, that is about it...

defenseman

08-18-2006, 06:16 AM

BroncoBuff

08-18-2006, 06:41 AM

Oddly enough, the UK and US authorities can't seem to get their facts straight about how many planes, how many "terrorists" are involved, how long the investigation has run, or much of anything else.
The reason they can't "get their facts straight" is because the U.S. is trying to exaggerate the plot/threat for political reasons ... something the British probably have no interest in doing.

BroncoBuff

08-18-2006, 06:49 AM

OK, then name them. Who? Like StevTensi13 challenged you to do...name one

FYI...in '79 the SC ruled in Smith vs. Maryland that the numbers you dial are not protected by the 4th Amendment.

Also just as cars are not considered residences and are not protected by the 4th Amendment, neither is any space outside of the immediate dwelling. In other words the air and land outside the boundaries of your personal property is not protected.
You're right about Smith v. Maryland, but you are so VERY wrong about the rest!

Free Fourth Amendment Lesson

You have LESS protection in your car than your house, but you DO have Fourth Amendment protections there, and in fact EVERYWHERE. You even have protection for the contents of a shopping bag you carry down a public sidewalk. Less protection than in your home, granted, but you DO have protection.

Every person has protection from unreasonable searches in ANY PLACE and under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that "society is prepared to recognize." These quotes survives as law today from the 1969 (appx) case Katz vs. United States (I think US - Katz is right).

I hope nobody hear swallowed what you said there ... no offense, but these issues aren't so simple as to be stated bluntly in a single sentence. Visit a law library sometime, and you'll realize this immediately upon walking in, when you see hundreds and hundreds of Supreme Court Reporter and Federal Appeallte Reporter volumes. The function of the Appellate Courts and Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution and laws to given sets of circumstances that arise. And know this: EVERY Supreme Court justice is/was an "activist" judge, in that they apply the law and Constitution to previously unforseeable sets of circumstances that vary wildly.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-18-2006, 06:55 AM

I hope nobody hear swallowed what you said there I'm pretty sure that the only people who "swallow" what Errant spews here is Tensi, dman and DBruleU and vice-versa.

I could be wrong though, how about it you righties, are these guys pretty much right where you are on the political meter?

BroncoBuff

08-18-2006, 06:58 AM

[quote=

BroncoBuff

08-18-2006, 07:02 AM

What if OBL is working at Dominos? And instead of delivering a Pizza, he delivers a dirty bomb to his buddy Ahmed for him to use.
I'm sorry to say this, because I don't want to offend you ... but the "terrorists-around-every-corner" fear, so implicit in your post, is EXACTLY the societal mindset that permits fascist and quasi-fascist authority-driven governments to take hold. I so wish you could understand that.

FEAR is a greater enemy than terrorists, much as Rohirrim has been saying in this thread.

Learn from him:

That’s one of the things that gets me about all of this. IMO, terrorism isn’t a tenth of the threat that the Japanese or the Nazis, or certainly the Soviets were, and yet, our leaders have us running scared from them ten times more that we did from any of those former enemies. Every single time this administration wants to push through some agenda they start flailing around about how afraid we’re supposed to be. Whatever happened to “We have nothing to fear but fear itself?”
Quoted for truth.

Quoted for briliiance.

Quoted for the obvious.

Learn, dammit. Learn!

Spider

08-18-2006, 07:23 AM

I hope nobody hear swallowed what you said there ...
the only ones that did are DBruleU , D man , Steve ........
about Errands idiotic take about cars and stuff ..... wow is all I can say , you can demand a search warrent , before they search your car / Truck / sleeping bags etc ...... What the Police can do is detain you , untill they get a search warrent ...........

BroncoBuff

08-18-2006, 07:27 AM

SteveTensi13

08-18-2006, 08:33 AM

Right ... but there are "exceptions" to the "warrant requirement," most notably the "Plain View" exception ... if they see something illegal (while standing where they're permitted to stand) they can walk right in/open the car door and sieze it.

Umm, sorry wrong! In New Mexico the VERY liberal state supreme court ruled that if I stop a car for speeding and walk up to it and see a dime bag of MJ on the center console I cannot seize it nor arrest the person for it.

Their "reasoning" is that the "plain view" concept does not apply because I would never had seen it in the first place if I had not compelled the vehicle to stop in the first place!

So, now I gotta get consent to search (Yea, like thats gonna happen) or a search warrant or seize the vehicle for no insurance or suspended license then do an inventory search!

If I were a criminal New Mexico is the place to be!!

defenseman

08-18-2006, 08:43 AM

bendog

08-18-2006, 09:24 AM

Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, the court is persuaded that Plaintiffs are able to establish
a prima facie case based solely on Defendants’ public admissions regarding the TSP. Plaintiffs’
declarations establish that their communications would be monitored under the TSP.7 Further,
Plaintiffs have shown that because of the existence of the TSP, they have suffered a real and
concrete harm. Plaintiffs’ declarations state undisputedly that they are stifled in their ability to
vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney
Plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients.8 In
addition, Plaintiffs have the additional injury of incurring substantial travel expenses as a result of
having to travel and meet with clients and others relevant to their cases. Therefore, the court finds
that Plaintiffs need no additional facts to establish a prima facie case for any of their claims
questioning the legality of the TSP.

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf

Bronco_Beerslug

08-18-2006, 09:26 AM

Umm, sorry wrong! In New Mexico the VERY liberal state supreme court ruled that if I stop a car for speeding and walk up to it and see a dime bag of MJ on the center console I cannot seize it nor arrest the person for it.

Can you link to this "ruling"?

------------------------------------------------------------

Warrantless Searches

The general rule is that warrants are required for searches. But search warrants are not required for the following:

* Searches incident to arrest: Police officers are permitted to search your body and/or clothing for weapons or other contraband when making a valid arrest.
* Automobile searches: If you're arrested in a vehicle, the police may search the inside of the vehicle. To perform a complete search of the vehicle (such as in locked glove compartments, for example), probable cause is necessary.
* Exigent circumstances: Searches may be conducted if there are "exigent circumstances" which demand immediate action, such as to avoid the destruction of evidence.
* Plain view: Police do not need a search warrant when they see an object that is in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view.
* Consent: If you consent to a search of your body, your vehicle, or your home, police are not required to have a warrant. You aren't required to consent to any police searches.

http://research.lawyers.com/New-Mexico/Criminal-Process-in-New-Mexico.html

bendog

08-18-2006, 09:31 AM

Isn't it fairly clear that what the govt is doing is simply randomly tapping calls? Either that or they're targeting people for whom the figure they'll not really find out anything, or whom they have no real reason to tap, aside from the fact that they're calling overseas? Does anyone doubt that's the policy?

defenseman

08-18-2006, 09:33 AM

alkemical

08-18-2006, 09:57 AM

Can you link to this "ruling"?

------------------------------------------------------------

Warrantless Searches

The general rule is that warrants are required for searches. But search warrants are not required for the following:

* Searches incident to arrest: Police officers are permitted to search your body and/or clothing for weapons or other contraband when making a valid arrest.
* Automobile searches: If you're arrested in a vehicle, the police may search the inside of the vehicle. To perform a complete search of the vehicle (such as in locked glove compartments, for example), probable cause is necessary.
* Exigent circumstances: Searches may be conducted if there are "exigent circumstances" which demand immediate action, such as to avoid the destruction of evidence.
* Plain view: Police do not need a search warrant when they see an object that is in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view.
* Consent: If you consent to a search of your body, your vehicle, or your home, police are not required to have a warrant. You aren't required to consent to any police searches.

http://research.lawyers.com/New-Mexico/Criminal-Process-in-New-Mexico.html

someone a time ago was trying to explain the terry stop thing to me - it gets murkey - i don't quite get it.

bendog

08-18-2006, 09:58 AM

Keep it simple, and in english will suffice..dman
hey, you asked someone to show they were harmed, but apparantly coulnd't be bothered to go read the opinion. The plaintiffs were/are reporters and academics who people stopped talking to because of the NSA, which then either meant they couldn't do their jobs, or they had to fly over and talk in person. They were harmed.

Moreover, yeah I could be harmed by a terrorist. But, I'm also harmed when some poor sob in Iraq won't talk to a reproter cause bushii "might" be tapping his phone.

What teh govt's doing is just listening to calls to see if just maybe some terrorist is on the line. That's not permissible under the const, and people are harmed. Maybe an appellate court will rule otherwise, but it doesn't seem a close call to me. The congress has repeatedly attempted to have bushii's admin tell them what they rationally need, so they can have a law allowing them to get it.

And there are options. Just like drug dealers, terrorists aren't dumb enough to use land lines or cells like us. They use disposable cells. The govt could complile a list of overseas and domestic land and cell numbers they are reasonably certain are not terror threats, and not tap those. And they could require that one or both the calls be tied to a disposable cell. They could get the congress to rewrite what "probable cause" is necessary, and they could put limits on what uses information that was learned about on a tap can be used for.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 10:04 AM

bendog

08-18-2006, 10:04 AM

someone a time ago was trying to explain the terry stop thing to me - it gets murkey - i don't quite get it.
For a Terry stop the cop needs a little probable cause. Probable cause for a warrant is a reasonable belief a crime is being committed, or the reasonable belief that there's evidence of crime, and a reasonable belief that its being committed or the evidence is where the warrant lets the cops search.

For a Terry, the cop just has to articluate something that reasonably makes him suspicious. Then, the cop can do a frisk to make sure the "stopee" doesn't have a gun or something to hurt the cop with. Of course the cop then pats the guy in the crotch and "surprise suprise" finds the bag of weed.

A cop can also just walk up and ask for ID for no good reason. Refusing isn't enough for a Terry stop, but .... "The subject had a furtive expression as he jumped into his car, after which he ran a stop sign."

alkemical

08-18-2006, 10:09 AM

Give me one name of one American who has lost their constitutional rights in 6 years under Bush, just one!

Claviculasolomonis
SteveTensi13
Blueflame
Ro
....
..
.

bendog

08-18-2006, 10:11 AM

Errend unwittingly raises a good pt. Assuming we knew what city the terrorists were in, and we did when they were in flight school, does anyone really doubt congress and the courts would ok a program whereby all disposable cell calls from a location could be tracked to see if they called each other or overseas? (yes, btw, the "stupid bitch in detroit" explicitly said the govt could KEEP doing that, and THAT NSA program was actually designed under OMG Clinton).

Then does anybody doubt that a FISA court would ok (even after the fact) a tap on those numbers?

You neocon fools don't even bother to READ what the opinion says or what the govt admits it does.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 10:14 AM

*I will say as far as "stomping" on constitutional rights, ANYONE who in any way aides and abeds the success of ANY terrorists organization in the execution of terrorist acts against the US or it's citizens HAS NO RIGHTS. They deserve the right to recieve a 9mm slug to the brain, that is about it...

I feel the same way about totalitarians & authoritarians who wish to dismantle the constitution dman. To me anyone who wishes to alter the 8th wonder of the world is a terrorist.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 10:18 AM

For a Terry stop the cop needs a little probable cause. Probable cause for a warrant is a reasonable belief a crime is being committed, or the reasonable belief that there's evidence of crime, and a reasonable belief that its being committed or the evidence is where the warrant lets the cops search.

For a Terry, the cop just has to articluate something that reasonably makes him suspicious. Then, the cop can do a frisk to make sure the "stopee" doesn't have a gun or something to hurt the cop with. Of course the cop then pats the guy in the crotch and "surprise suprise" finds the bag of weed.

A cop can also just walk up and ask for ID for no good reason. Refusing isn't enough for a Terry stop, but .... "The subject had a furtive expression as he jumped into his car, after which he ran a stop sign."

thanks bendog

you aren't a southern lawyer are ya? ;)

bendog

08-18-2006, 10:38 AM

I'll plead the Fifth.

But ya know, what kills me is that FISA courts are pretty secretive. We could just have a law that sets a pretty low burden for tapping a phone, and then private discussions of what was going to be ok'd. And terrorists still have to use disposible cells and internet cafe's/libraries for email. It's not like they have a lot of options of what medium to use.

The govts problem is the sheer amount of cells and emails. There has to be a reasonable compromise between the old style probable cause and warrants that grew up before cells and the net, and bushii's simply randomly (or worse targeting political opponents) phone numbers. Of course, suggest a compromise, and you're a terrorist lover who deserves a 9mm.

The only other way they could do it was what we thought the old soviets were up to. Plant sleeper cells over here for decades and then activate a preplanned attack via some code word spoken on some radio program that the terrorists had to listen to every time it was on.

errand

08-18-2006, 10:39 AM

You're right about Smith v. Maryland, but you are so VERY wrong about the rest!

Free Fourth Amendment Lesson

You have LESS protection in your car than your house, but you DO have Fourth Amendment protections there, and in fact EVERYWHERE. You even have protection for the contents of a shopping bag you carry down a public sidewalk. Less protection than in your home, granted, but you DO have protection.

Every person has protection from unreasonable searches in ANY PLACE and under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that "society is prepared to recognize." These quotes survives as law today from the 1969 (appx) case Katz vs. United States (I think US - Katz is right).

So again, tell me and the rest of us how listening to terrorist chatter on cell phones is unreasonable after 9/11?

BTW, the "reasonable expectation of privacy" you cited does not pertain to criminal activity, like I dunno....discussing how one is going to blow up a building in order to forward a religious or political belief (i.e. - terrorism)....unless of course you can find people in our society that are prepared to recognize that right of a terrorist to plot his dastardly deed.

errand

08-18-2006, 10:43 AM

FEAR is a greater enemy than terrorists, much as Rohirrim has been saying in this thread.

Learn from him:

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for briliiance.

Quoted for the obvious.

Learn, dammit. Learn!

Yeah, right....

So tell me how fearless is a president who after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, went out an ordered the internment of allJapanese and americans of Japanese descent?

Now imagine if after 9/11, instead of doing wiretaps, GW went out and ordered the deportation of all arabs and Americans of arab descent?

errand

08-18-2006, 01:03 PM

Nah they liked to party with jack abramoff's casino crews...

If you didn't have a reasonable answer, then why answer at all?

Let me ask you libs another question...since you claim we're not safer because of Bush.

Do you feel safer knowing that the terrorists overseas can now scheme and plot another 9/11 with people in this country and we have no way of knowing it unless they give our boys a reason to grab a search warrant?

Getting a search warrant works if you know he's here...but those clowns on 9/11 were amongst us. In fact two of them lived within 2 blocks of 4 people they killed on 9/11. Imagine that....your next door neighbor could be calling Hadji with al-Q right now....and according to this dumb bitch, he's allowed to unhindered.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 01:11 PM

I'll plead the Fifth.

But ya know, what kills me is that FISA courts are pretty secretive. We could just have a law that sets a pretty low burden for tapping a phone, and then private discussions of what was going to be ok'd. And terrorists still have to use disposible cells and internet cafe's/libraries for email. It's not like they have a lot of options of what medium to use.

The govts problem is the sheer amount of cells and emails. There has to be a reasonable compromise between the old style probable cause and warrants that grew up before cells and the net, and bushii's simply randomly (or worse targeting political opponents) phone numbers. Of course, suggest a compromise, and you're a terrorist lover who deserves a 9mm.
The only other way they could do it was what we thought the old soviets were up to. Plant sleeper cells over here for decades and then activate a preplanned attack via some code word spoken on some radio program that the terrorists had to listen to every time it was on.

A workable solution is just fine with me. As long as , it gets the job done as good if not better than the previous method. That said, there WILL be folks that try to find a way to "torpedo" the alternate method also, EVEN if it accepted by all as just and prudent, just out of spite. And what say you to them?...dman

alkemical

08-18-2006, 01:12 PM

Barry Ramey

08-18-2006, 01:13 PM

Seems to me, when it comes to terrorism, the left would rather have a system where passengers at airports sign a statement before boarding(assuming the ACLU agrees writing one's name on a piece of paper doesn't violate civil rights) promising not to hijack or blow people up and if they do and still alive and in one piece, that person would be in such big trouble :P

alkemical

08-18-2006, 01:15 PM

If you didn't have a reasonable answer, then why answer at all?

Let me ask you libs another question...since you claim we're not safer because of Bush.

Do you feel safer knowing that the terrorists overseas can now scheme and plot another 9/11 with people in this country and we have no way of knowing it unless they give our boys a reason to grab a search warrant?

Getting a search warrant works if you know he's here...but those clowns on 9/11 were amongst us. In fact two of them lived within 2 blocks of 4 people they killed on 9/11. Imagine that....your next door neighbor could be calling Hadji with al-Q right now....and according to this dumb b****, he's allowed to unhindered.

I can't help it you don't like the answer, so don't get sand in your mangina.

I can't help it you want a world more like USSR than america.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 01:15 PM

OK, then name them. Who? Like StevTensi13 challenged you to do...name one

FYI...in '79 the SC ruled in Smith vs. Maryland that the numbers you dial are not protected by the 4th Amendment.

Also just as cars are not considered residences and are not protected by the 4th Amendment, neither is any space outside of the immediate dwelling. In other words the air and land outside the boundaries of your personal property is not protected.

And it protects us from unreasonable searches...now explain to all of us how monitoring the airwaves for terrorist chatter is unreasonable after 9/11?

OK, you want a name.... how about John Kerry? It would be quite naive to think that the administration didn't take full advantage of the illegal wiretaps to gain any possible information on his campaign strategies in '04. I'd say it's very likely that all Democratic candidates in the '06 election are also being fully monitored.

No, the numbers one dials are not protected by the 4th amendment... but the content of the conversations one has with the party on the other end of the line are.

It's unreasonable to monitor the personal calls of every American citizen just in the hopes that maybe one could inadvertently stumble upon a terrorist message amongst the millions upon millions of mundane, everyday conversations of innocent American citizens. The point is that the Constitution does not give the government the right to do this; in fact, it specifies that they cannot do it. If we allow our Consitutionally-protected freedoms to be eroded, then the terrorists have, in fact, won.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 01:19 PM

Why you would engage with Errant and Tensi in their nonsensical, elementary tripe is the question. Neither actually exist in the same dimension the rest of the planet does.

You're probably right... Ha!

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 01:27 PM

Right ... but there are "exceptions" to the "warrant requirement," most notably the "Plain View" exception ... if they see something illegal (while standing where they're permitted to stand) they can walk right in/open the car door and sieze it.

In order to be certain that the seizure of the illegal item(s) stands up in court, the best course of action for the officer is to keep the motorist detained while the search warrant is obtained... even if contraband is clearly visible. The visibility of the item(s) constitutes probable cause for the search warrant... but a warrantless seizure could leave open the possibility of a court questioning its validity.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 01:28 PM

OK, you want a name.... how about John Kerry? It would be quite naive to think that the administration didn't take full advantage of the illegal wiretaps to gain any possible information on his campaign strategies in '04. I'd say it's very likely that all Democratic candidates in the '06 election are also being fully monitored.

No, the numbers one dials are not protected by the 4th amendment... but the content of the conversations one has with the party on the other end of the line are.

It's unreasonable to monitor the personal calls of every American citizen just in the hopes that maybe one could inadvertently stumble upon a terrorist message amongst the millions upon millions of mundane, everyday conversations of innocent American citizens. The point is that the Constitution does not give the government the right to do this; in fact, it specifies that they cannot do it. If we allow our Consitutionally-protected freedoms to be eroded, then the terrorists have, in fact, won.

Quite an accusation wouldn't you say? I'd be providing proof of this. Pretty major charges to accuse someone of with absolutely no proof. ...dman

defenseman

08-18-2006, 01:31 PM

Next on the hit parade the NSA is taping the dems in their homes for your viewing pleasure. C'mon Blueflame, after watergate , I'm thinking the repubs aren't stupid enough to go there again......dman

defenseman

08-18-2006, 01:31 PM

Next on the hit parade the NSA is taping the dems in their homes for your viewing pleasure. C'mon Blueflame, after watergate , I'm thinking the repubs aren't stupid enough to go there again......dman

TailgateNut

08-18-2006, 01:33 PM

Next on the hit parade the NSA is taping the dems in their homes for your viewing pleasure. C'mon Blueflame, after watergate , I'm thinking the repubs aren't stupid enough to go there again......dman

Maybe not stupid enough, but definately arrogant enough!

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 01:35 PM

Quite an accusation wouldn't you say? I'd be providing proof of this. Pretty major charges to accuse someone of with absolutely no proof. ...dman

Oh, come off it... you really expect us to believe any politician has everyone's phones wiretapped, but that ethics or morals would keep him from listening to the conversations of his opponent? If you'll buy that.... I have some waterfront property in the Mojave Desert to sell you.

Next on the hit parade the NSA is taping the dems in their homes for your viewing pleasure. C'mon Blueflame, after watergate , I'm thinking the repubs aren't stupid enough to go there again......dman

Do you think Watergate taught anyone anything except to be more careful not to get caught next time? I don't.

SteveTensi13

08-18-2006, 01:41 PM

OK, you want a name.... how about John Kerry? It would be quite naive to think that the administration didn't take full advantage of the illegal wiretaps to gain any possible information on his campaign strategies in '04. I'd say it's very likely that all Democratic candidates in the '06 election are also being fully monitored.

No, the numbers one dials are not protected by the 4th amendment... but the content of the conversations one has with the party on the other end of the line are.

It's unreasonable to monitor the personal calls of every American citizen just in the hopes that maybe one could inadvertently stumble upon a terrorist message amongst the millions upon millions of mundane, everyday conversations of innocent American citizens. The point is that the Constitution does not give the government the right to do this; in fact, it specifies that they cannot do it. If we allow our Consitutionally-protected freedoms to be eroded, then the terrorists have, in fact, won.

OH..MY..GOD..Talk about dellusional and conspiratorial! And you say Republicans are playing scare tactics. Kerry's antics sunk his ship (no pun intended). Bush could've won that election without campaining against Senator Flip-Flop, he didn't need any wire-tap to gain an advantage.

Rohirrim

08-18-2006, 01:43 PM

Maybe not stupid enough, but definately arrogant enough!

Bingo!

defenseman

08-18-2006, 01:46 PM

Bingo!

Nope, don't buy it. Besides, by the nature of the beast both parties have cornered the market on arrogance.....dman

TailgateNut

08-18-2006, 01:54 PM

Bush could've won that election without campaining against Senator Flip-Flop, he didn't need any wire-tap to gain an advantage.

Bush stole the election with the support of paperless Diebold machines and his entourage of "puss in boots" followers brainwashed by his "be very afraid" tactics which the likes of you swallowed lock, stock and barrel.
Attempting to say this creepy consortium of crooks didn't resort to illegal procedures to keep the moron in the White House is pure BS.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 01:58 PM

Oh, come off it... you really expect us to believe any politician has everyone's phones wiretapped, but that ethics or morals would keep him from listening to the conversations of his opponent? If you'll buy that.... I have some waterfront property in the Mojave Desert to sell you.

Do you think Watergate taught anyone anything except to be more careful not to get caught next time? I don't.

Well, if you really believe that, I'd say provide proof of your conspiracy, and we'll all take a look at it. "Oh, come off it" doesn't quite cut the mustard in this particular conspiracy. And describe to me the basis for said "ethics and morals" when you can accuse the republican party of this conspiracy without any evidence? I'd be examining my own "ethics" before I attempted to step out on the limb you've stepped out on. You sure you aren't a contributor in kind to some "media outlet"? I always thought they had the market cornered on conspiracies and such, without solid evidence...dman

bendog

08-18-2006, 02:03 PM

A workable solution is just fine with me. As long as , it gets the job done as good if not better than the previous method. That said, there WILL be folks that try to find a way to "torpedo" the alternate method also, EVEN if it accepted by all as just and prudent, just out of spite. And what say you to them?...dman
1. I don't see them in the Senate. Not even feingold.

2. I think the biggest problem would be stating the standard w/o giving away too much. It would have to be vague. Like, some fact makes us suspect this just might be a terror call. And then have some judge review it at some pt. There doesn't have to be publicity. But, if it's abused, as the NSA program is being misused, I'd hope the gop (or Dems if they have the white house) won't say "ah, prosecute the whistleblowers."

3. But, if one's honest about this, there won't be a compromise because bushii doesn't want one, because he's more concerned about the next 8 mos and 1.6 years than what happens after he's back in Crawford. Now why he acts that way ... I have no idea ... aside from he's gotta be the worst potus since Harding, and maybe even worse.

TailgateNut

08-18-2006, 02:06 PM

Well, if you really believe that, I'd say provide proof of your conspiracy, and we'll all take a look at it. "Oh, come off it" doesn't quite cut the mustard in this particular conspiracy. And describe to me the basis for said "ethics and morals" when you can accuse the republican party of this conspiracy without any evidence? I'd be examining my own "ethics" before I attempted to step out on the limb you've stepped out on. You sure you aren't a contributor in kind to some "media outlet"? I always thought they had the market cornered on conspiracies and such, without solid evidence...dman

I didn't realize we stepped into a court a law when we logged on to the server today.
We know Bush lies like a rug, so why don't you tell us why we should trust him.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 02:07 PM

OH..MY..GOD..Talk about dellusional and conspiratorial! And you say Republicans are playing scare tactics. Kerry's antics sunk his ship (no pun intended). Bush could've won that election without campaining against Senator Flip-Flop, he didn't need any wire-tap to gain an advantage.

Again, it's my opinion that it would be incredibly naive to believe that any politician who has wiretaps in place did not eavesdrop on his opponent... particularly in an election that split 51% to 49%. That's not a landslide victory by anyone's measures, Dman.

on edit: that should have been "Steve" not "Dman"... got my Bushbots confused here. Ha!

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 02:12 PM

Well, if you really believe that, I'd say provide proof of your conspiracy, and we'll all take a look at it. "Oh, come off it" doesn't quite cut the mustard in this particular conspiracy. And describe to me the basis for said "ethics and morals" when you can accuse the republican party of this conspiracy without any evidence? I'd be examining my own "ethics" before I attempted to step out on the limb you've stepped out on. You sure you aren't a contributor in kind to some "media outlet"? I always thought they had the market cornered on conspiracies and such, without solid evidence...dman

I don't have to "provide proof" of an assertion that was prefaced "I believe"...

It is a fact that the NSA wiretapped American telephone calls without warrants. What makes you think John Kerry's phone would be exempt?

Barry Ramey

08-18-2006, 02:22 PM

Yikes, the conspiracy theories run amok. Listening to Kerry's phone lines? Yeah, I'm sure there would be a lot of info. gathered in that exercise. A lot of "duh" being heard on his end. And I'm sure when Clinton was using the FBI and IRS to investigate political opponents and his former and current bimbos, that was alright though. Must have been since nobody said a thing about it. I guess only democrats don't do such things or only have great reasons when they do this stuff.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 02:28 PM

I don't have to "provide proof" of an assertion that was prefaced "I believe"...

It is a fact that the NSA wiretapped American telephone calls without warrants. What makes you think John Kerry's phone would be exempt?

You know what , you're right. Believe it if you desire. But, the conspiracy theorists of today, which you appear to come off as, are as about half cocked as I've seen in along time, based on what, who knows? I really do hope you enjoy living in this "dreamworld" of yours..dman

*Wait a minute? Yeah, I do know why. It's GW isn't it! You hate GW , so it HAS to be a conspiracy to get the DEMS. Yeah, solid logical thought process there, congrats!

Now you can send one to me , hows that?

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 02:29 PM

I'm sorry to say this, because I don't want to offend you ... but the "terrorists-around-every-corner" fear, so implicit in your post, is EXACTLY the societal mindset that permits fascist and quasi-fascist authority-driven governments to take hold. I so wish you could understand that.

FEAR is a greater enemy than terrorists, much as Rohirrim has been saying in this thread.

Learn from him:

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for briliiance.

Quoted for the obvious.

Learn, dammit. Learn!

Who said I was afraid? I dont go around all day looking over my shoulder. That was a very sarcastic post. I'm sorry you fail to recognize I was just messing around with Spider.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 02:31 PM

alkemical

08-18-2006, 02:32 PM

Next on the hit parade the NSA is taping the dems in their homes for your viewing pleasure. C'mon Blueflame, after watergate , I'm thinking the repubs aren't stupid enough to go there again......dman

Dman,

but a (R) did get in trouble for jamming phone lines.....

alkemical

08-18-2006, 02:34 PM

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 02:34 PM

OK, you want a name.... how about John Kerry? It would be quite naive to think that the administration didn't take full advantage of the illegal wiretaps to gain any possible information on his campaign strategies in '04. I'd say it's very likely that all Democratic candidates in the '06 election are also being fully monitored.

No, the numbers one dials are not protected by the 4th amendment... but the content of the conversations one has with the party on the other end of the line are.

It's unreasonable to monitor the personal calls of every American citizen just in the hopes that maybe one could inadvertently stumble upon a terrorist message amongst the millions upon millions of mundane, everyday conversations of innocent American citizens. The point is that the Constitution does not give the government the right to do this; in fact, it specifies that they cannot do it. If we allow our Consitutionally-protected freedoms to be eroded, then the terrorists have, in fact, won.

LOL LOL LOL

Kerry, wiretapped? talk about way out in left-field....like really really far left-field.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 02:45 PM

You know what , you're right. Believe it if you desire. But, the conspiracy theorists of today, which you appear to come off as, are as about half cocked as I've seen in along time, based on what, who knows? I really do hope you enjoy living in this "dreamworld" of yours..dman

*Wait a minute? Yeah, I do know why. It's GW isn't it! You hate GW , so it HAS to be a conspiracy to get the DEMS. Yeah, solid logical thought process there, congrats!

Now you can send one to me , hows that?

See if you can follow this thought process... first the administration told us they were only gonna wiretap the terrorists. (that was a lie) Then they told us only overseas calls would be tapped (another lie). Now we know they're wiretapping everyone and a federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional. That ain't a "dreamworld"; it's fact.

If the NSA's listening in on all phone calls, why wouldn't one assume that John Kerry's phone was included? Hey, I'm pretty sure the NSA was listening when I told my mom (cellphone conversation) that my husband was stung by a bee on the golf course last weekend. Is that vital to national security? No. But they probably heard it anyway.

bendog

08-18-2006, 02:49 PM

he wouldnt' have to, he'd just talk to him at the next skull and bones meeting.
oh, oh (jumping in seat with hand up)

VONNEGUT ON POLITICS
In another article he slyly pointed out that presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry were "twins" -- "two Nordic, aristocratic multi-millionaires", both Yale men and both members of Skull and Bones Society. What's more, said Vonnegut, here they were running for president "at a time when entire vertebrate species" were in danger of "becoming, hey presto, nothing but skulls and bones".

http://www.nndb.com/people/928/000022862/

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 02:49 PM

LOL LOL LOL

Kerry, wiretapped? talk about way out in left-field....like really really far left-field.

Then why won't they specify exactly who has been wiretapped and the justification for it? Why did they repeatedly lie about the wiretap program? Why are they appealing to keep it in place?

defenseman

08-18-2006, 02:50 PM

Still no answer from a conservative as to why Kerry's communications would be exempt from a nationwide NSA wiretapping program.

Blue, why should we respond to this? You said yourself , you need no justification to believe as you do (conspiracy theory w/ Kerry). Why are should we be required to respond to your "belief"? A response would lend one to believe that it has creedance at all, justifying your belief. If it was proven, i'd be lock and step with you calling for somebodies head and hoping whomever was responsible got their butts in a sling. Count on that. Like I said, watergate was bad. I'm thinking they won't go out on that very weak branch again. If they did though, they deserve everything that is coming to them. that is as far as I'll go on this one. I won't lend your belief on this "conspiracy" though, any credibility ....dman

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 02:54 PM

See if you can follow this thought process... first the administration told us they were only gonna wiretap the terrorists. (that was a lie) Then they told us only overseas calls would be tapped (another lie). Now we know they're wiretapping everyone and a federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional. That ain't a "dreamworld"; it's fact.

If the NSA's listening in on all phone calls, why wouldn't one assume that John Kerry's phone was included? Hey, I'm pretty sure the NSA was listening when I told my mom (cellphone conversation) that my husband was stung by a bee on the golf course last weekend. Is that vital to national security? No. But they probably heard it anyway.

Yeah, a liberal judge ruled it. Gee, what a surprise. ACLU did a good job finding a very liberal judge to hear this case.

Do you really believe that the NSA is listening in on ALL phone calls? I mean honestly, does that even make sense? Theres no proof that they just listen in on everyday Americans. And you're "pretty sure" :rofl: that they listend to you tell your mom that your poor hubby was stung? I hope for your sake you're joking.

You are as delusional as they come.

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 02:56 PM

Then why won't they specify exactly who has been wiretapped and the justification for it? Why did they repeatedly lie about the wiretap program? Why are they appealing to keep it in place?
Why would you have made it public in the first place? Why go out and say to the public, "By the way, we are no wiretapping all potential terrorists making calls in and out of this country."

That makes perfect sense. Lets tell them what we are doing, do that the terrorits can find a way around it.

Thanks to Al jazeera...errr I mean NYT, they now know about.

And my guess as to why they are appealing it is because they know that its vital to the war on terrorism. They know we need to know what they are doing, and when they are doing it.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 02:58 PM

bendog

08-18-2006, 03:00 PM

Blue, why should we respond to this? You said yourself , you need no justification to believe as you do (conspiracy theory w/ Kerry). Why are should we be required to respond to your "belief"? A response would lend one to believe that it has creedance at all, justifying your belief. If it was proven, i'd be lock and step with you calling for somebodies head and hoping whomever was responsible got their butts in a sling. Count on that. Like I said, watergate was bad. I'm thinking they won't go out on that very weak branch again. If they did though, they deserve everything that is coming to them. that is as far as I'll go on this one. I won't lend your belief on this "conspiracy" though, any credibility ....dman
ah, but you're fallign for it hook line and sinker (pardon the pun)

You ask blue to prove a negative, and that's bushii's (well he didn't come up with it hisself) tactic. Diebold will not release the data to explain the Ohio discrepency. Bushii will not disclose the data on who got tapped. One can only test a hypothesis by looking at the the data.

Logically it appears the Ohio vote was not consistent with exit polls, and beyond a doubt the reported vote had blacks voting gop way out of ordinary proportion. But to show one way or another if the vote was tampered with, only diebold knows ... or knew. It's gone now, I think.

Similarly, as even you admit, it's beyond reason for bushii not to get a deal with a REPUBLICAN senate. I mean he's not dealing from weakness on this issue. So, his motives are open to speculation. Best case, he seeks to make the presidency stronger so long as he's potus. Worst case, he's tapping Sheehan and Kerry. But to ask Blue to prove something when only Bushii has the data ....

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 03:01 PM

Because they've lied so often about precisely who was monitored, I think we have to assume that everyone was. Including Kerry.

You mean because they dont come out and say, "We wiretapped Zawahiri last night." They are lying? Why show the terrorists our hand?

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 03:03 PM

Yeah, a liberal judge ruled it. Gee, what a surprise. ACLU did a good job finding a very liberal judge to hear this case.

Do you really believe that the NSA is listening in on ALL phone calls? I mean honestly, does that even make sense? Theres no proof that they just listen in on everyday Americans. And you're "pretty sure" :rofl: that they listend to you tell your mom that your poor hubby was stung? I hope for your sake you're joking.

You are as delusional as they come.

The Constitution isn't "liberal" or "conservative"... protecting it is what all presidents from either party are sworn to do. This president knows that some of the policies he's implementing are unconstitutional but he does them anyway. It lends credence to the reports that he views the Constitution as "a goddamn piece of paper".

How many times do you believe their lies before you begin to suspect that they're lying to you?

bendog

08-18-2006, 03:06 PM

The Constitution isn't "liberal" or "conservative"... protecting it is what all presidents from either party are sworn to do. This president knows that some of the policies he's implementing are unconstitutional but he does them anyway. It lends credence to the reports that he views the Constitution as "a goddamn piece of paper".

How many times do you believe their lies before you begin to suspect that they're lying to you?
psst, blue. He doesn't care. Lies are ok if it's the gop, but not if its the Dems, in fact he figgers everythign those sob's say is a lie.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 03:07 PM

Why would you have made it public in the first place? Why go out and say to the public, "By the way, we are no wiretapping all potential terrorists making calls in and out of this country."

That makes perfect sense. Lets tell them what we are doing, do that the terrorits can find a way around it.

Thanks to Al jazeera...errr I mean NYT, they now know about.

And my guess as to why they are appealing it is because they know that its vital to the war on terrorism. They know we need to know what they are doing, and when they are doing it.

Why would they lie repeatedly about it? Because they knew what they were doing was unconstitutional.

Show me where the illegal wiretaps have resulted in the apprehension of a terrrorist and/or foiled a plot. Remember... the illegal warrantless wiretapping did commence before 9/11....

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 03:09 PM

The Constitution isn't "liberal" or "conservative"... protecting it is what all presidents from either party are sworn to do. This president knows that some of the policies he's implementing are unconstitutional but he does them anyway. It lends credence to the reports that he views the Constitution as "a goddamn piece of paper".

How many times do you believe their lies before you begin to suspect that they're lying to you?

There is no proof he lied about this. It's all a bunch of assumptions that he listens to average Americans each day. It's stupid really.

And since when is a liberal activist judge making a ruling based on the constitution. They are always interpreting it as they see fit.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 03:11 PM

psst, blue. He doesn't care. Lies are ok if it's the gop, but not if its the Dems, in fact he figgers everythign those sob's say is a lie.

You're right, Bendog... to some, lies are A-ok coming from a Republican, but it's an impeachable offense if it's a Dem and involves extramarital sex. Got it. :)

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 03:11 PM

Why would they lie repeatedly about it? Because they knew what they were doing was unconstitutional.

Show me where the illegal wiretaps have resulted in the apprehension of a terrrorist and/or foiled a plot. Remember... the illegal warrantless wiretapping did commence before 9/11....

Show me that they listened to you and Kerry. Since you are so "sure."

You act like they make all info public on their website. It's the NSA. I'm sure there are a lot of plots that have been spoiled, yet they dont go out and tell all of America they stopped a potential attack.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 03:11 PM

Yeah, a liberal judge ruled it. Gee, what a surprise. ACLU did a good job finding a very liberal judge to hear this case.

Do you really believe that the NSA is listening in on ALL phone calls? I mean honestly, does that even make sense? Theres no proof that they just listen in on everyday Americans. And you're "pretty sure" :rofl: that they listend to you tell your mom that your poor hubby was stung? I hope for your sake you're joking.

You are as delusional as they come.

You laugh about conspiracies, but then you cite a 'liberal conspiracy'.....

Actually the tech side of this isn't THAT hard to accomplish. I mean CARNIVORE was reading emails......

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 03:12 PM

You laugh about conspiracies, but then you cite a 'liberal conspiracy'.....

Actually the tech side of this isn't THAT hard to accomplish. I mean CARNIVORE was reading emails......

Um yeah. I laugh at all conspiracies. I think they are a waste of time, and I find it sad people spend their entire lives suspicious of conspiracies.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 03:12 PM

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 03:13 PM

There is no proof he lied about this. It's all a bunch of assumptions that he listens to average Americans each day. It's stupid really.

And since when is a liberal activist judge making a ruling based on the constitution. They are always interpreting it as they see fit.

Was it Rush or Fox News that gave you that rightwing talking point? Do you think for yourself at all? ???

alkemical

08-18-2006, 03:14 PM

Um yeah. I laugh at all conspiracies. I think they are a waste of time, and I find it sad people spend their entire lives suspicious of conspiracies.

So then i guess this 'liberal' conspiracy is just a silly one of those, eh?

Could be worse, we could be scared of muslim terrorists in a nation that is 77% christian.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 03:17 PM

ah, but you're fallign for it hook line and sinker (pardon the pun)

You ask blue to prove a negative, and that's bushii's (well he didn't come up with it hisself) tactic. Diebold will not release the data to explain the Ohio discrepency. Bushii will not disclose the data on who got tapped. One can only test a hypothesis by looking at the the data.

Logically it appears the Ohio vote was not consistent with exit polls, and beyond a doubt the reported vote had blacks voting gop way out of ordinary proportion. But to show one way or another if the vote was tampered with, only diebold knows ... or knew. It's gone now, I think.

Similarly, as even you admit, it's beyond reason for bushii not to get a deal with a REPUBLICAN senate. I mean he's not dealing from weakness on this issue. So, his motives are open to speculation. Best case, he seeks to make the presidency stronger so long as he's potus. Worst case, he's tapping Sheehan and Kerry. But to ask Blue to prove something when only Bushii has the data ....

IF, the bolded is true, I agree. Even I have a problem with withholding the information. But, I won't assume that they've gone off the deep end, YET. But , this information you just provided HAS to be true. My question is why withhold? Even the republicans have to have a problem with this. It potentially sets them up for a major fall. At minumum, again, IF this is true, I would need to know WHY they are withholding the information. If it is somehow based on some sort of security issue, then provide what you can at least. BUT, again, if this is true, it most certianly would bother me also. But, I won't assume any sort of conspiracy. Need lots more to prove that..dman

*the "open to speculation" issue is a killer. It is one of the key reasons GW has had such a tough ride in the WH, along with others (rumsfeld).,,,dman

**I backed off on making blue prove anything, she's entitled to her opinion. Again though, if the information bolded is true, I can at least empathize on her take to minor degree based on combining not providing the information and worst case scenario. But, don't buy into the conspiracy with present data personally.

DBruleU

08-18-2006, 03:17 PM

Was it Rush or Fox News that gave you that rightwing talking point? Do you think for yourself at all? ???

Wait a minute. How are your thoughts "original" and mine arent?

Are you telling me Hillary, Reid, and Dean arent saying the exact same things you are saying?

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 03:19 PM

Show me that they listened to you and Kerry. Since you are so "sure."

You act like they make all info public on their website. It's the NSA. I'm sure there are a lot of plots that have been spoiled, yet they dont go out and tell all of America they stopped a potential attack.

I don't have access to the NSA's secret files listing who was or was not wiretapped, DBruleU. And if this secretive administration lies and breaks the law on a regular basis, then we have to presume that the wiretapping was more...not less... extensive.

As to any useful information gleaned by the spying, obviously the illegal wiretaps did not foil 9/11... and the publicity gained by the recent foiling of the UK terror plot and the "miami 7" tells you that they would, in fact, go out and tell all of America that they stopped a potential attack if they had done so.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 03:25 PM

Um yeah. I laugh at all conspiracies. I think they are a waste of time, and I find it sad people spend their entire lives suspicious of conspiracies.

Except when it's liberals conspiring, eh

bendog

08-18-2006, 03:30 PM

IF, the bolded is true, I agree. Even I have a problem with withholding the information. But, I won't assume that they've gone off the deep end, YET. But , this information you just provided HAS to be true. My question is why withhold? Even the republicans have to have a problem with this. It potentially sets them up for a major fall. At minumum, again, IF this is true, I would need to know WHY they are withholding the information. If it is somehow based on some sort of security issue, then provide what you can at least. BUT, again, if this is true, it most certianly would bother me also. But, I won't assume any sort of conspiracy. Need lots more to prove that..dman

*the "open to speculation" issue is a killer. It is one of the key reasons GW has had such a tough ride in the WH, along with others (rumsfeld).,,,dman

**I backed off on making blue prove anything, she's entitled to her opinion. Again though, if the information bolded is true, I can at least empathize on her take to minor degree based on combining not providing the information and worst case scenario. But, don't buy into the conspiracy with present data personally.

Gonzalez as WH advisor was from the get go trying to get more power for the WH. The upshot is bushii's unprecidented use of the little declarations "I'll sign the law, but I'm not bound by it." I would like to say I don't assume there's bad stuff going on, but the one consistency about this admin is that a. they're truly crooks and b. they're really screwups beyond anything more difficult than graft. Aside from getting a gop senate to confirm judges, he's failed on every single thing he promised, and he's either flip flop or lied all the way along. But, on the other hand, IF they were tapping Kerry, they'd screw it up so bad, they'd get caught.

Rohirrim

08-18-2006, 03:39 PM

All I know is, I don't have to see a skunk to know one is nearby.

alkemical

08-18-2006, 03:41 PM

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70908-0.html

AT&T Whistle-Blower's Evidence

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476/

All About NSA's and AT&T's Big Brother Machine, the Narus 6400

defenseman

08-18-2006, 03:43 PM

Honestly, if they were wiretapping any DEMS, I'm thinking it would have surfaced by now. that said, I'm not sure how the country would handle another watergate type scenario if it were to occur, on either side. Man, it would be bad, very very bad. Hoping it never occurs again....dman

defenseman

08-18-2006, 03:45 PM

All I know is, I don't have to see a skunk to know one is nearby.

That skunk could have a D or an R in front of it, keep that in mind...dman

To me, both parties are in need of a major overhaul in alot of respects.

Rohirrim

08-18-2006, 03:48 PM

That skunk could have a D or an R in front of it, keep that in mind...dman

To me, both parties are in need of a major overhaul in alot of respects.

Well, the last big stinker I whiffed was the results of the Ohio election compared to the exit polls. Since then, I'm willing to believe anything about these guys.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 03:55 PM

Wait a minute. How are your thoughts "original" and mine arent?

Are you telling me Hillary, Reid, and Dean arent saying the exact same things you are saying?

I don't know if Hillary, Reid, Dean, or Santa Claus is saying the exact same things I'm saying. And I don't much care either.... :P But I can recognize a rightwing talking point when I see one.

Honestly, if they were wiretapping any DEMS, I'm thinking it would have surfaced by now. that said, I'm not sure how the country would handle another watergate type scenario if it were to occur, on either side. Man, it would be bad, very very bad. Hoping it never occurs again....dman

They didn't admit that the illegal warrantless wiretapping involved more than just "suspected terrorists" or that domestic, as well as overseas calls were tapped... until they were caught. And yes, I think it's far worse than Watergate...and that so far we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

bendog

08-18-2006, 03:56 PM

Well, the last big stinker I whiffed was the results of the Ohio election compared to the exit polls. Since then, I'm willing to believe anything about these guys.
yeah, me too, BUT in Ohio the tampering could have been done by Rove and just one or two Diebold guys. I'd like to be more upset, but hey, it was John F. Kerry. It's not like the country was robbed.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 04:02 PM

yeah, me too, BUT in Ohio the tampering could have been done by Rove and just one or two Diebold guys. I'd like to be more upset, but hey, it was John F. Kerry. It's not like the country was robbed.

You provided me with some reasonable links on this debacle. I needed a bit of pepto after finding out what occurred. Yeah, I got a whiff of something after reading about ohio also to be honest.....dman

*Been following the fallout from the hez-israel debacle. Israel is in deep deep doo-doo on this one. Wouldn't surprise me at all if extremists hit them in short order. Really sad....dman

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 04:09 PM

You provided me with some reasonable links on this debacle. I needed a bit of pepto after finding out what occurred. Yeah, I got a whiff of something after reading about ohio also to be honest.....dman

*Been following the fallout from the hez-israel debacle. Israel is in deep deep doo-doo on this one. Wouldn't surprise me at all if extremists hit them in short order. Really sad....dman

As a footnote to the Ohio election results... I found it interesting that the exit polls and the results were consistent in the recent CT primary... an election that utilized no Diebold electronic voting machines.

defenseman

08-18-2006, 04:15 PM

As a footnote to the Ohio election results... I found it interesting that the exit polls and the results were consistent in the recent CT primary... an election that utilized no Diebold electronic voting machines.

Yep , caught that also. I had to take a 3rd shot of the pepto right after I found out. Not good to leave things dangling thats for damn sure......being above board is pretty important from where I sit. There are some times in each administrations history where I'm sure each one of them couldn't be above board for whatever reason, security, terrorists, whatever....I don't classify the ohio debacle as one of them. as many here, I still would like to know what the hell happened.....dman

*Diebold or not, I'm thinking lieberman still wins out CT. I'd be surprised if he didn't carry a good portion of the state..

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 04:51 PM

Yep , caught that also. I had to take a 3rd shot of the pepto right after I found out. Not good to leave things dangling thats for damn sure......being above board is pretty important from where I sit. There are some times in each administrations history where I'm sure each one of them couldn't be above board for whatever reason, security, terrorists, whatever....I don't classify the ohio debacle as one of them. as many here, I still would like to know what the hell happened.....dman

*Diebold or not, I'm thinking lieberman still wins out CT. I'd be surprised if he didn't carry a good portion of the state..

I'd like to know what the hell happened in Ohio, too. A Republican-supported Lieberman could win in CT... if he can retain a significant percentage of the Democrats. I expect him to lose at least half of them (the ones who voted for him in the primary) once he starts openly taking Republican $$, though. You'll have the Dems who supported Lamont + the Dems who support whichever Dem wins the primary + the Dems who might have supported Lieberman as a Dem or an Independent but won't support a Republican-sponsored Lieberman.... who will fall in line behind Lamont. CT is a very "blue" state... the election could go either way, imo. It's good to know Diebold won't be able to influence it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-18-2006, 06:06 PM

defenseman

08-18-2006, 06:45 PM

ROFL!

Reading comprehension: It is a b*tch when you're errant, DBruleU, or SteveCoulter13.

Bottom line is adjustments may be to be made possibly to put this issue to bed. There has to be a way to meet the gov's requirements on expendient intel gathering and still not supplanting any issues wrt personal rights. They need to get their collective heads to gether and get it solved. I have absolutely no problem with that. ....dman

*I will say , if they need to tap and they know they have or are going to get valuable info, then get it. Make the FISA resolution correctly address the issue and nothing is lost, I really don't see the issue here.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-18-2006, 06:58 PM

Make the FISA resolution correctly address the issue

It already does.

Anyone who understands the part about retroactive warrants gets this.

I really don't see the issue here.

The issue is that Bush doesn't like the idea of congressional and/or judicial oversight (any more than he respects the rule of law or the constitution) of the executive. He thinks he's some sort of monarch or prince. Wrong country, Dim Son.

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 07:46 PM

Bottom line is adjustments may be to be made possibly to put this issue to bed. There has to be a way to meet the gov's requirements on expendient intel gathering and still not supplanting any issues wrt personal rights. They need to get their collective heads to gether and get it solved. I have absolutely no problem with that. ....dman

*I will say , if they need to tap and they know they have or are going to get valuable info, then get it. Make the FISA resolution correctly address the issue and nothing is lost, I really don't see the issue here.

The issue... as I see it... is this, Dman. If a wiretap is needed for expedient intel gathering, the FISA court would have granted the warrant(s). Their history of granting warrants is very high... it's incredibly rare for them to deny a warrant. It's even possible to obtain the warrant from the FISA court after the wiretap has already been conducted. The administration knew all this...but still chose to go with illegal wiretaps. Why? It can't be because they thought the court would turn down a request to wiretap a suspected terrorist... so one has to surmise that perhaps they didn't go to the court because they wanted to wiretap others... people who were not suspected terrorists... people that the court would not grant them authority to spy on.

Now, others may come to a different conclusion as to why the Bush administration chose to go with a course of action they knew was unconstitutional....rather than going about it according to the law... but the question of "why" is, nonetheless, a valid one.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-18-2006, 08:02 PM

What the Democrats should say about the Court's declaring the President's wiretapping unconstitutional

The issue here is not whether the president should conduct surveillance on the terorrists' communications. Everyone agrees that such surveillance is necessary.

The issue is whether it's OK for the President to run roughshod over the law and the Constitution to do such surveillance.

Don't let the Republicans change the subject. The law provides for such surveillance. There's a Court specially set up to issue warrants for such surveillance. In an emergency, the president's people can even do the surveillance first and get the warrant second.

But the Bush administration has never shown any reason why they could not protect this country AND follow the law. And it does make you wonder: why didn't they do it legally?

The British authorities got the legally-required warrants for all the surveillance they did to break up the alleged terror plot in their country. Why has the Bush administration been unwilling to do likewise in America?

Since no court issued a warrant, we don't even really know who they were spying on. Was it only terrorists, or was it political opponents, too? We just don't know.

In America, we're not supposed to wonder about things like that. Our Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution that requires warrants so that we can be sure that the invasion of people's privacy serves a legitimate national purpose.

As for Bush's surveillance, maybe it served a legitimate purpose and maybe it didn't. Only the president and his men know for sure. They say "Trust us." But "Trust us" is precisely what our Founding Fathers said was NOT the way to maintain our liberties and our security.

Now a judge has declared that no one --not even the president, indeed, with all his power, ESPECIALLY not the president-- is above the law.

Don't believe the Republicans when they say that this decision is a decision against protecting our country. It is precisely the opposite: it is about protecting this country against both terrorists from outside and against unchecked presidential power inside.

We don't have to choose between being protected from the terrorists and being a nation ruled by law. Shame on the Bush administration for pretending that the two cannot readily go together. Shame on the Bush administration for trampling on the law.

- Andrew Bard Schmookler

Spider

08-18-2006, 09:13 PM

I knew you couldn't!! Come back later when you have a stronger argument.
I sure in the hell can name 2.5 million , and you being a cop , you should know also ......... Truckers and Haz-mat . huh ... go ahead tell me that hasnt changed ........ but then proving you wrong all the time is getting to easy .............. Like Errand

errand

08-18-2006, 10:03 PM

errand

08-18-2006, 10:08 PM

I don't have to "provide proof" of an assertion that was prefaced "I believe"...

It is a fact that the NSA wiretapped American telephone calls without warrants. What makes you think John Kerry's phone would be exempt?

What makes you think John Kerry didn't already know that phone lines were neing tapped. Bush told some members of Congress, those that had a need to know.

errand

08-18-2006, 10:11 PM

Still no answer from a conservative as to why Kerry's communications would be exempt from a nationwide NSA wiretapping program.

...no need to answer it. You accused the bush administration of tapping his lines. So prove it, or stop this silly nonsense

BTW, America already knows Kerry is on al-Qaeda's side anyways.

errand

08-18-2006, 10:17 PM

Hey, I'm pretty sure the NSA was listening when I told my mom (cellphone conversation) that my husband was stung by a bee on the golf course last weekend. Is that vital to national security? No. But they probably heard it anyway.

So now explain to us how you have been damaged by the NSA hearing this conversation?

errand

08-18-2006, 10:31 PM

Then why won't they specify exactly who has been wiretapped and the justification for it? Why did they repeatedly lie about the wiretap program? Why are they appealing to keep it in place?

Because if our enemies know we're wiretapping them they'll use other methods to plot and plan and carry out their acts of terror.

Why is that so hard for you liberal clowns to understand?

Case in point, you might recall the "Night Stalker" killings in LA back in the mid '80s. Riuchard Ramirez was running around killing and raping, robbing ,and beating people at a record pace.

Well he ventured into SF and murdered an Asian man and his wife. Upon hearing this the LA task force went up to SF and joined with the SF police and disclosed what they had on this killer.

Two very important peices of evidence were that the killer was using a .22 caliber handgun, and was wearing Avia shoes with a very distinctive tread pattern.

Well being the lib that she is,, then SF mayor Diane Feinstein held a press conference and told the public and anyone in the viewing area the evidence that until then was kept secret. Ramirez after watching the news conference promptly went to the Golden Gate bridge and dumped the gun and shoes into the bay.

This brilliant move by her delayed his capture for a few more months...and after a few more people had lost their lives.

so the moral of the story is if you let those you seek to capture in on how you're gonna capture them....do you not see how much harder you make it to actually capture them?

We nailed al Zaqarwi because that idiot had no idea we knew where he was until it was too late.You libs have done nothing but taken the element of suprise away from our guys trying to nail these bastards.

errand

08-18-2006, 10:39 PM

So then i guess this 'liberal' conspiracy is just a silly one of those, eh?

Could be worse, we could be scared of muslim terrorists in a nation that is 77% christian.

...it only took 19 of 'em to wipe out 3000, there dipstick.

You ever been to Detroit here lately...or better yet, Dearborn?

Spider

08-18-2006, 10:49 PM

...it only took 19 of 'em to wipe out 3000, there dipstick.

You ever been to Detroit here lately...or better yet, Dearborn?
you just cant help but show your communist side can you ?

Blueflame

08-18-2006, 11:30 PM

So you have proof of this, right?
Trust me nobody needs to eavesdrop on Dems to find out what their campaign strategy is....you clowns have been running the same old tired playbook since God knows when.
All you're doing is trying to lay the foundation for another Dem excuse when Diebold helps the Republicans steal another election.
Fixed it for you... :P
What makes you think John Kerry didn't already know that phone lines were neing tapped. Bush told some members of Congress, those that had a need to know.
Kerry may or may not have known Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans. Remember, first they said it was just "suspected terrorists" that were being spied on... then they said the spying was limited to overseas calls...neither of which was true.
...no need to answer it. You accused the bush administration of tapping his lines. So prove it, or stop this silly nonsense
BTW, America already knows Kerry is on al-Qaeda's side anyways.
Another rightwing talking point....

So now explain to us how you have been damaged by the NSA hearing this conversation?
There's this little thing called the Constitution... we are all damaged when the rights guaranteed by it are violated.
Because if our enemies know we're wiretapping them they'll use other methods to plot and plan and carry out their acts of terror.
Why is that so hard for you liberal clowns to understand?
Case in point, you might recall the "Night Stalker" killings in LA back in the mid '80s. Riuchard Ramirez was running around killing and raping, robbing ,and beating people at a record pace.
Well he ventured into SF and murdered an Asian man and his wife. Upon hearing this the LA task force went up to SF and joined with the SF police and disclosed what they had on this killer.
Two very important peices of evidence were that the killer was using a .22 caliber handgun, and was wearing Avia shoes with a very distinctive tread pattern.
Well being the lib that she is,, then SF mayor Diane Feinstein held a press conference and told the public and anyone in the viewing area the evidence that until then was kept secret. Ramirez after watching the news conference promptly went to the Golden Gate bridge and dumped the gun and shoes into the bay.
This brilliant move by her delayed his capture for a few more months...and after a few more people had lost their lives.
so the moral of the story is if you let those you seek to capture in on how you're gonna capture them....do you not see how much harder you make it to actually capture them?
We nailed al Zaqarwi because that idiot had no idea we knew where he was until it was too late.You libs have done nothing but taken the element of suprise away from our guys trying to nail these bastards.
Is that anything like demanding that the British rush to announce that they'd foiled a terrorist plot? The result being that the investigation was incomplete and all the evidence wasn't properly assembled and some of the conspirators won't be charged with serious crimes?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/16/nterror216.xml&site=5&page=0

Oh, well... nevermind that some of the conspirators may go scot-free... the tactic served its purpose in knocking Lieberman's primary loss out of the headlines and giving the neocons an avenue for attacking Lamont.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 12:03 AM

So you have proof of this, right?

Considering Bush's illegal spying is eerily reminiscent of Tricky Dick's crimes, it's a reasonable assumption.

It's certainly a question which is infinitely more deserving of an independent investigation than a stained dress or a failed land deal in Arkansas.

Trust me nobody needs to eavesdrop on Dems to find out what their campaign strategy is...

The only campaign strategy the Democrats should need:

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-gasprices3.gif

http://www.bartcop.com/tom-gasprices1.gif

alkemical

08-19-2006, 12:19 AM

...it only took 19 of 'em to wipe out 3000, there dipstick.

You ever been to Detroit here lately...or better yet, Dearborn?

Have you? Or is it just the talk radio that tells you about all those muslims in detriot?

BOOOOOO!

DBruleU

08-19-2006, 12:29 AM

Because if our enemies know we're wiretapping them they'll use other methods to plot and plan and carry out their acts of terror.

Why is that so hard for you liberal clowns to understand?

Case in point, you might recall the "Night Stalker" killings in LA back in the mid '80s. Riuchard Ramirez was running around killing and raping, robbing ,and beating people at a record pace.

Well he ventured into SF and murdered an Asian man and his wife. Upon hearing this the LA task force went up to SF and joined with the SF police and disclosed what they had on this killer.

Two very important peices of evidence were that the killer was using a .22 caliber handgun, and was wearing Avia shoes with a very distinctive tread pattern.

Well being the lib that she is,, then SF mayor Diane Feinstein held a press conference and told the public and anyone in the viewing area the evidence that until then was kept secret. Ramirez after watching the news conference promptly went to the Golden Gate bridge and dumped the gun and shoes into the bay.

This brilliant move by her delayed his capture for a few more months...and after a few more people had lost their lives.

so the moral of the story is if you let those you seek to capture in on how you're gonna capture them....do you not see how much harder you make it to actually capture them?

We nailed al Zaqarwi because that idiot had no idea we knew where he was until it was too late.You libs have done nothing but taken the element of suprise away from our guys trying to nail these bastards.

Exactly. Blueflame being the genius she is still doesnt get this. Unbelievable.!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 12:35 AM

Exactly. Blueflame being the genius she is still doesnt get this. Unbelievable.!

You mean she "doesn't get" idiotic RNC talking points the illogic of which even a third-grade child could spot?

That would be to her credit. :thumbs:

Blueflame

08-19-2006, 12:38 AM

Exactly. Blueflame being the genius she is still doesnt get this. Unbelievable.!

You and Errand are the ones who "don't get it", DBruleU. Bush could have still had his wiretaps... legal ones... against suspected terrorists. All he had to do was go to the FISA court which would have granted any warrants he wanted against terrorism suspects. He did not do this... instead he opted to launch a broad program of illegal wiretaps, trampling all over the Constitutional rights of everyday American citizens.

You're right... Unbelievable!

alkemical

08-19-2006, 12:43 AM

You and Errand are the ones who "don't get it", DBruleU. Bush could have still had his wiretaps... legal ones... against suspected terrorists. All he had to do was go to the FISA court which would have granted any warrants he wanted against terrorism suspects. He did not do this... instead he opted to launch a broad program of illegal wiretaps, trampling all over the Constitutional rights of everyday American citizens.

You're right... Unbelievable!

Blueflame,

You don't see it do you? Don't you get it, by not being a republican - you ARE a terrorist. Nevermind the continued trashing of the constitution or the setup for the erosion of civil liberties. All of which are far more dangerous than terrorism in the long term view - but yet - your choice to disagree is labled as treason and terrorist in nature.

There are times when i really wish people would value what America really is, instead of some stupid piece of bull**** they've been sold.

Blueflame

08-19-2006, 12:49 AM

Blueflame,

You don't see it do you? Don't you get it, by not being a republican - you ARE a terrorist. Nevermind the continued trashing of the constitution or the setup for the erosion of civil liberties. All of which are far more dangerous than terrorism in the long term view - but yet - your choice to disagree is labled as treason and terrorist in nature.

There are times when i really wish people would value what America really is, instead of some stupid piece of bull**** they've been sold.

The sad part is that I do see it... the whole thing is intended to discourage any type of dissent from the neocons' party line. That's why corporate media is given their talking points each morning and they're all "on message"... from Limbaugh to Hannity, to O'Reilly, they all say the same thing. Even if it's a lie, the concept is that a lie, repeated often enough, becomes perceived as truth.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 12:53 AM

"The only thing pinheads like Bush have to sell is fear itself."

- L.A. BRONCOS FAN

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 12:55 AM

DBruleU

08-19-2006, 01:04 AM

You mean she "doesn't get" idiotic RNC talking points the illogic of which even a third-grade child could spot?

That would be to her credit. :thumbs:

You keep talking of these third graders? Do you spend a lot of time around them or what?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 01:06 AM

You keep talking of these third graders? Do you spend a lot of time around them or what?

Yep.

I spend a fair amount of time here on the OM listening to you, don't I?

Blueflame

08-19-2006, 01:07 AM

The ability of people like error and DBruleU to ignore simple facts like these is simply staggering, isn't it?

All they have left is fear mongering and ridiculous straw man arguments.

But... but... FauxNews told them that the loss of some of our freedoms was "worth it" in the fight against terrorism.... because the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, so we have to give 'em all up to appease the bad guys. ::)

DBruleU

08-19-2006, 01:11 AM

But... but... FauxNews told them that the loss of some of our freedoms was "worth it" in the fight against terrorism.... because the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, so we have to give 'em all up to appease the bad guys. ::)

I havent lost any freedom whatsoever. And I'm sure you were distraught that the Bush heard you tell mommy that little hubby was stung. Poor guy. Was he allergic?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 01:18 AM

Blueflame

08-19-2006, 01:19 AM

I havent lost any freedom whatsoever. And I'm sure you were distraught that the Bush heard you tell mommy that little hubby was stung. Poor guy. Was he allergic?

Yeah, I'm very distraught over the violation of our Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect ordinary citizens from an over-reaching government, y'know.... to prevent power-hungry tyrants from transforming our republic into a dictatorship.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 01:24 AM

But according to ExxonMobil sock puppet DBruleU supports, the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper."

http://www.bartcop.com/cancer-pres.jpg

TomServo

08-19-2006, 02:41 AM

YES its me. dont think ive been in here since last election. same ol same ol i see. labf posting photoshop bush pics. "bush is taking away our constitutional rights" all the while Not being able to cite which ones have personally affected him.
this ruling by a carter judge will quickly be overuled. why is it pple who are bothered by nsa taps dont freak out over dwi roadblocks? both concern public safety and ive had to waste my time twice now in these unconstitional roadblocks and yet i dont give a rats ass if the gov. crosschecks my phone records.
i guess drunk drivers are Still more villanous than terrorists.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-19-2006, 03:42 AM

same ol same ol i see. labf posting photoshop bush pics. "bush is taking away our constitutional rights" all the while Not being able to cite which ones have personally affected him.

Same ol' same ol' drive-by RNC talking points we usually get from you, e.g., the specious argument that threats to our Constitution are nothing to worry about until one is personally affected by them. (But this is part and parcel of the whole "I got mine - f_ck everybody else" neocon worldview, isn't it?)

According to your logic, the German Jews who watched the first Nazis trash the synagogues should have just shut up and stayed put.

alkemical

08-19-2006, 02:25 PM

defenseman

08-19-2006, 03:38 PM

DWI checkpoints are different than "Saftey checkpoints" IMO -

however - i also understand that driving is not a right outlined in the US Constitution as well.

there is ALOT of things that could be deemed "unconstitutional" and are not mentioned in the constitution. Whatever you do don't complile a list. the ACLU will be in that in a second and make money hand over fist for the next 20 years, or until the constitution in amended. Freakin morons most of the time..dman

BroncoBuff

08-19-2006, 08:18 PM

Umm, sorry wrong! In New Mexico the VERY liberal state supreme court ruled that if I stop a car for speeding and walk up to it and see a dime bag of MJ on the center console I cannot seize it nor arrest the person for it.

Their "reasoning" is that the "plain view" concept does not apply because I would never had seen it in the first place if I had not compelled the vehicle to stop in the first place!
Something sounds wrong there .... you do realize that, as a law enforcement officer, seeing a car speeding IS probable cause, right? It's a minor crime (actually not a crime in most states, but an "infraction,") but your seeing him exceed the speed limit gives you probable to stop him - therefore, standing beside his window is perfectly okay for plain-view. Now, if your radar gun is defective, or for some other reason he is found NOT guilty for speeding, then the marijuana is supressed as evidence.

All that said - I grant you I know nothing of New Mexico law.

And that brings us to a VERY INTERESTING point of Constitutional law regarding individual rights found in the Bill of Rights and its common law progeny:The U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Court cases rule only on MINIMUM amounts of protection - "At the Very Least" levels of protections the state must allow/grant to people. In short, the State (shorthand for cops, prosecutors, courts, etc...) has NO rights to anything. A state is free to grant MORE protections, or decide to restrict state/police power in any way they wish. If it was heroin or coke, Tensi, I'd be on board with you. But marijuana? That is SO not scary - SO not dangerous :flower:

errand

08-19-2006, 08:43 PM

however - i also understand that driving is not a right outlined in the US Constitution as well.

...neither is privacy.

TomServo

08-20-2006, 02:08 AM

"rnc talking points"?all i want is for you to list a constituitional right thats being violated....personally..by you

Blueflame

08-20-2006, 04:12 AM

...neither is privacy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-20-2006, 10:41 PM

"rnc talking points"?all i want is for you to list a constituitional right thats being violated....personally..by you

All I want is for you to explain why threats to our Constitution are nothing to worry about until one is personally affected by them.

Bush could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, has testified against the NSA operation in Congress and is lead counsel in a case challenging the operation.

If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order.

For people working in government, this opinion may lead to some collar tugging. If Taylor's decision is upheld or other courts reject the program, will the president promise to pardon those he ordered to carry out unlawful surveillance?

The question of the president's possible criminal acts has long been the pig in the parlor that polite people in Congress refused to acknowledge. For the last six years, the Republican-controlled Congress has refused to conduct any serious oversight of the administration and has specifically refused to investigate the NSA operation. Certainly, nobody wants to mention the "I" word, particularly not the Democrats who believe that the threat of impeachment could scare away independent voters in the November elections.

Court decisions, however, may make it increasingly difficult for members to ignore a squealing constitutional violation in their midst.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0608200377aug20,1,129733.story?

alkemical

08-20-2006, 10:48 PM

...neither is privacy.

Anything for the Fatherland, eh comrade

errand

08-21-2006, 11:20 AM

There's this little thing called the Constitution... we are all damaged when the rights guaranteed by it are violated.

.

So are you also outraged by these instances where presidents did the same exact thing?

[] May 23rd 1979 in response to the Iranian hostage crisis, then President Jimmy Carter signed executive order 12139 authorizing warrantless surveillance and explained his authority to do so -

"Pursuant to Section 102(a) (1) of the FISA of 1978 (50u.s.c. 1802a), the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foriegn intelligence without a court order."

[] December 4th 1981 then President Ronald Reagan signed executive order 12333 that provided for warrantless searches directed against a "foriegn power or an agent of a foriegn power". It also stated that -

"The attorney general is hereby delegated power to approve for the use of intelligence purposes within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foriegn power or an agent of a foriegn power"

[] And of course on February 9th, 1995 then president Bill Clinton signed executive order 12949 that asserted his authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foriegn intelligence purposes.

He explained - "Pursuant to section 302a1 of the FISA act the Attorney General is authroized to approve physical searches without a court order to acquire foriegn intelligence information" This order incidently came after a 1994 Congressional expansion of the FISA act.

This order was instrumental in the arrest and conviction of Aldrich Ames, a US citizen who was suspected of spying for the Soviets and (afterwards) the Russians.

In '94 Deputy Attny General Jamie Gorelick defended the warrantless searches and electronic surveillance of Aldrich Ames by telling the House Select Committee on Intelligence -

"The Justice Dept. believes...and the case law supports...that the president has inherent authroity to conduct warrantless physical searches for foriegn intelligence purposes, and that the president may as he has done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General"

The FISA subchapter on electronic surveillance begins -

"Not withstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foriegn intelligence for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath"

Using the inherent authority granted to him as president thru the FISA Act, your boy Bill was able to nab a guy selling secrets to the Soviets.... to which I say good!

Now if I wasn't consistent on I'd point out, if he suspected Aldrich Ames was a spy, why didn't he just go and get a warrant to conduct surveillance on this clown...well bottom line is he nabbed a spy and didn't harm me in anyway doing so. so again, your side is just politicizng this issue to make hay with those kooks on your side.

BTW Blueflame, just as not wearing uniforms and following the rules of War established by the Geneva convention does not protect those terrorists you lefties weep for in Gitmo....a US citizen loses his protections under FISA if he is determined to be a agent of a foriegn power.

errand

08-21-2006, 11:28 AM

Have you? Or is it just the talk radio that tells you about all those muslims in detriot?

BOOOOOO!

They're marching in the streets shouting "We're all Hezbollah!"...and not to mention the liberals in Dearborn are so politcally correct and scared to take a stand, they allow the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic, 5 times a day over loud speakers.

The call to prayer by the way uses the phrase "Allah Akbar!"...I'm sure one of your terrorist buddies on here can translate that for you

BroncoBuff

08-21-2006, 11:30 AM

They're marching in the streets shouting "We're all Hezbollah!"...and not to mention the liberals in Dearborn are so politcally correct and scared to take a stand, they allow the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic, 5 times a day over loud speakers.

The call to prayer by the way uses the phrase "Allah Akbar!"...I'm sure one of your terrorist buddies on here can translate that for you
I can translate, errand:

"Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...

Understand now?

Spider

08-21-2006, 11:35 AM

I can translate, errand:

"Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...

Understand now?
go piss all over Errand communist dreams .......we ll should pray and act the same ..... Diversity is another word for Terrorism support you yankee ;D

errand

08-21-2006, 11:38 AM

I can translate, errand:

"Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...

Understand now?

I suggest you buy your prayer rug soon, then sir.....I'm sure Omar's has them on sale.

Spider

08-21-2006, 11:41 AM

I suggest you buy your prayer rug soon, then sir.....I'm sure Omar's has them on sale.
can I get one with a picture of a Semi on it ?
Omar sells those ?
How do you know so much about Omar ?

defenseman

08-21-2006, 12:16 PM

So are you also outraged by these instances where presidents did the same exact thing?

[] May 23rd 1979 in response to the Iranian hostage crisis, then President Jimmy Carter signed executive order 12139 authorizing warrantless surveillance and explained his authority to do so -

"Pursuant to Section 102(a) (1) of the FISA of 1978 (50u.s.c. 1802a), the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foriegn intelligence without a court order."

[] December 4th 1981 then President Ronald Reagan signed executive order 12333 that provided for warrantless searches directed against a "foriegn power or an agent of a foriegn power". It also stated that -

"The attorney general is hereby delegated power to approve for the use of intelligence purposes within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foriegn power or an agent of a foriegn power"

[] And of course on February 9th, 1995 then president Bill Clinton signed executive order 12949 that asserted his authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foriegn intelligence purposes.

He explained - "Pursuant to section 302a1 of the FISA act the Attorney General is authroized to approve physical searches without a court order to acquire foriegn intelligence information" This order incidently came after a 1994 Congressional expansion of the FISA act.

This order was instrumental in the arrest and conviction of Aldrich Ames, a US citizen who was suspected of spying for the Soviets and (afterwards) the Russians.

In '94 Deputy Attny General Jamie Gorelick defended the warrantless searches and electronic surveillance of Aldrich Ames by telling the House Select Committee on Intelligence -

"The Justice Dept. believes...and the case law supports...that the president has inherent authroity to conduct warrantless physical searches for foriegn intelligence purposes, and that the president may as he has done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General"

The FISA subchapter on electronic surveillance begins -

"Not withstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foriegn intelligence for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath"

Using the inherent authority granted to him as president thru the FISA Act, your boy Bill was able to nab a guy selling secrets to the Soviets.... to which I say good!

Now if I wasn't consistent on I'd point out, if he suspected Aldrich Ames was a spy, why didn't he just go and get a warrant to conduct surveillance on this clown...well bottom line is he nabbed a spy and didn't harm me in anyway doing so. so again, your side is just politicizng this issue to make hay with those kooks on your side.

BTW Blueflame, just as not wearing uniforms and following the rules of War established by the Geneva convention does not protect those terrorists you lefties weep for in Gitmo....a US citizen loses his protections under FISA if he is determined to be a agent of a foriegn power.

Presidents have used it in the past, they'll use it in the future, no doubt. Nice read. And quite to the point. Unfortunately, the "political" landscape has changed quite a bit since the three instances above. Lots of PC in everybodies morning coffee if you know what I mean. Alot of them don't start the day asking the most important questions, they concentrate on the most PC question to be resolved though. Case of not seeing the trees for the forest......dman

alkemical

08-21-2006, 12:40 PM

They're marching in the streets shouting "We're all Hezbollah!"...and not to mention the liberals in Dearborn are so politcally correct and scared to take a stand, they allow the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic, 5 times a day over loud speakers.

The call to prayer by the way uses the phrase "Allah Akbar!"...I'm sure one of your terrorist buddies on here can translate that for you

So have you been to michigan errand? Or are you releying on what you hear on the radio?

You didn't answer the question.

Spider

08-21-2006, 02:27 PM

Presidents have used it in the past, they'll use it in the future, no doubt. Nice read. And quite to the point. Unfortunately, the "political" landscape has changed quite a bit since the three instances above. Lots of PC in everybodies morning coffee if you know what I mean. Alot of them don't start the day asking the most important questions, they concentrate on the most PC question to be resolved though. Case of not seeing the trees for the forest......dman
Before this gets too far out of hand , and people start thinking Errand can think . a few things needed to be pointed out like ......... No one is bítching about spying over seas, it is the domestic spying we have a problem with
or Calls comming into the USA from another country or Calls going out ....... Should be tapped , but Calls from every day citizens calling each other should be left alone .....
I will let you chew on that for awhile ......

BroncoInferno

08-21-2006, 02:59 PM

They're marching in the streets shouting "We're all Hezbollah!"...

But, wait, errand...you saw that footage curtesy of the left wing media! I thought you couldn't trust the media to get it right? Or are they only trustworthy when what they report fits in with your narrow, xenophobic world view?

DBruleU

08-21-2006, 04:01 PM

Before this gets too far out of hand , and people start thinking Errand can think . a few things needed to be pointed out like ......... No one is bítching about spying over seas, it is the domestic spying we have a problem with
or Calls comming into the USA from another country or Calls going out ....... Should be tapped , but Calls from every day citizens calling each other should be left alone .....
I will let you chew on that for awhile ......

Spider, I like you and all, but what the hell are you talking about? It isnt "Domestic Spying." There isnt even any proof he spies on "everyday citizens" like you put it.

Good points by Errand btw. Cant really argue it.

alkemical

08-21-2006, 04:04 PM

Spider, I like you and all, but what the hell are you talking about? It isnt "Domestic Spying." There isnt even any proof he spies on "everyday citizens" like you put it.

Good points by Errand btw. Cant really argue it.

If the "proof" is locked up in a secret court with 'sealed' documents - how are "we the people" going to know the truth?

Spider

08-21-2006, 04:24 PM

Spider, I like you and all, but what the hell are you talking about? It isnt "Domestic Spying." There isnt even any proof he spies on "everyday citizens" like you put it.

Good points by Errand btw. Cant really argue it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Spider

08-21-2006, 04:28 PM

alkemical

08-21-2006, 04:38 PM

this is my point DBruleU , Domestic spying is wrong 100% completely wrong , now incomming calls from over seas or outgoing calls from USA to over seas is fair game , the party on the other side of the pond , is not cover under our constitution ....... I dont think you will find one person that objects to spying on peoples in other countrys , in fact I think we need ot do more spying on Mexico and Canada , well maybe not Canada , but Mexico for sure ........
you jusr dont spy on Americans .......

Why not spider, don't you know democrats=nazis=republicans?

So we are all potential terrorists.

I mean when a D gets into office and repeats GW's applications of domestic spying then the R's will be the 'hunted'....

rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse repeat

wow, this equivalent exchange thing has some truth to it.

Spider

08-21-2006, 04:45 PM

Why not spider, don't you know democrats=nazis=republicans?

So we are all potential terrorists.

I mean when a D gets into office and repeats GW's applications of domestic spying then the R's will be the 'hunted'....

rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse repeat

wow, this equivalent exchange thing has some truth to it.
I hope this soon changes ........I know the question is , is there some groups that should be spied on like the KKK , the Black Panthers , several other hate groups , Some Militias , and a few renagade Boyscouts / Girls Scouts also ? ......

alkemical

08-21-2006, 04:55 PM

I hope this soon changes ........I know the question is , is there some groups that should be spied on like the KKK , the Black Panthers , several other hate groups , Some Militias , and a few renagade Boyscouts / Girls Scouts also ? ......

Well according to the FBI: "Defenders of the constitution" are considered domestic threats. I think "hate groups" should def. have taps. We know the boyscouts and girl scouts will due to the pedo's... (couldn't resist) - ;)

but to blanket all of us, every single person? People don't see the violation of the constitution with this? With secret 'sneek n peek' warrants?

Honesty is the only basis for democracy to work. When it's infiltrated with parasites that ruin that trust and that bond between the people - it's time for the people to take a stance and make that change.

I personally prefer to do it in peaceful over the top messages - such as having 1 million people take a big dump right on DC - but ya get my drift (violence is not the answer, only through civil disob. and through peaceful - lol - albiet disguisting methods can this change be done).

Spider

08-21-2006, 05:05 PM

Well according to the FBI: "Defenders of the constitution" are considered domestic threats. I think "hate groups" should def. have taps. We know the boyscouts and girl scouts will due to the pedo's... (couldn't resist) - ;)

but to blanket all of us, every single person? People don't see the violation of the constitution with this? With secret 'sneek n peek' warrants?

Honesty is the only basis for democracy to work. When it's infiltrated with parasites that ruin that trust and that bond between the people - it's time for the people to take a stance and make that change.

I personally prefer to do it in peaceful over the top messages - such as having 1 million people take a big dump right on DC - but ya get my drift (violence is not the answer, only through civil disob. and through peaceful - lol - albiet disguisting methods can this change be done).

I think most do see that this is a violation , but they hide behind the terrorist threat ...... yes we do need an over the top message ......

DBruleU

08-21-2006, 05:55 PM

this is my point DBruleU , Domestic spying is wrong 100% completely wrong , now incomming calls from over seas or outgoing calls from USA to over seas is fair game , the party on the other side of the pond , is not cover under our constitution ....... I dont think you will find one person that objects to spying on peoples in other countrys , in fact I think we need ot do more spying on Mexico and Canada , well maybe not Canada , but Mexico for sure ........
you jusr dont spy on Americans .......

Of course they shouldnt be "spying" on regular innocent civilians. I highly doubt they are just wasting time by "spying" on people who are no credible threat. They need to monitor people who may even be US citizens who may be connected, or help potential terrorists.

Why is it so hard to let the NSA continue doing their job, and monitor individuals who may be a threat to the US, and our security?

errand

08-21-2006, 07:15 PM

So have you been to michigan errand? Or are you releying on what you hear on the radio?

You didn't answer the question.+

Mother was born in Flint, grandfather worked for Buick, uncles and aunts in Davidson, (one of my cousins dated former Michigan QB and Detroit Tiger Rick Leach), Clio, Mt. Morris, Grayling.

Best friend in USMC from Muskegon, and other Marine buddies from Lansing and Pontiac.

errand

08-21-2006, 07:18 PM

I hope this soon changes ........I know the question is , is there some groups that should be spied on like the KKK , the Black Panthers , several other hate groups , Some Militias , and a few renagade Boyscouts / Girls Scouts also ? ......

I thought you were against spying on American citizens, clown? And what? did you just lose your love for free speech?

And how is it a group of people shouting how Hitler was right is hate speech, but a bunch of Muslims shouting how Hezbollah is all that isn't?

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:23 PM

I thought you were against spying on American citizens, clown? And what? did you just lose your love for free speech?

And how is it a group of people shouting how Hitler was right is hate speech, but a bunch of Muslims shouting how Hezbollah is all that isn't?
Do you comprehend what this means ?

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:25 PM

Of course they shouldnt be "spying" on regular innocent civilians. I highly doubt they are just wasting time by "spying" on people who are no credible threat. They need to monitor people who may even be US citizens who may be connected, or help potential terrorists.

Why is it so hard to let the NSA continue doing their job, and monitor individuals who may be a threat to the US, and our security?
See thats the thing , no one is stoping them , we just ask they do it legaly , they can retro a warrent ........ Just cause we are in a war with Vile scum , doesnt me we become scum ourselfs , we can beat these terrorist without losing who we are asa people

errand

08-21-2006, 07:30 PM

Of course they shouldnt be "spying" on regular innocent civilians. I highly doubt they are just wasting time by "spying" on people who are no credible threat. They need to monitor people who may even be US citizens who may be connected, or help potential terrorists.

Why is it so hard to let the NSA continue doing their job, and monitor individuals who may be a threat to the US, and our security?

Have any of these clowns even listened to their conversations before?

Imagine if you will the scenario of an NSA agent listening to Spider talk to his wife about how he's hauling some pile of cow manure from point A to point B?

Get real....your conversations aren't worthy of anyone listening in on, you clowns

Spider keeps talking about how average American citizens are being spied on, and yet again cannot name one.

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:37 PM

Have any of these clowns even listened to their conversations before?

Imagine if you will the scenario of an NSA agent listening to Spider talk to his wife about how he's hauling some pile of cow manure from point A to point B?

Get real....your conversations aren't worthy of anyone listening in on, you clowns

Spider keeps talking about how average American citizens are being spied on, and yet again cannot name one.
I have named more then one , it is your inabilty to comprehend the answer ..I can name about 2.5 Million that has been effected ....... Truckers when it comes to Haz Mat ........ Please pay attention this time , it gets old repeating the same answer .......

errand

08-21-2006, 07:37 PM

See thats the thing , no one is stoping them , we just ask they do it legaly , they can retro a warrent ........ Just cause we are in a war with Vile scum , doesnt me we become scum ourselfs , we can beat these terrorist without losing who we are asa people

They are doing it legally...within the frame work of the FISA Act that allows the president to use warrantless electronic surveillance. And you want to question someone else's comprehension skills?

BTW, clown...when we start cutting off the heads of our enemies, when we start flying planes into buildings, and sending our children out with C-4 inside their diapers, like these terrorists you weep for have done numerous times....then you can refer to us as scum.

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:39 PM

They are doing it legally...within the frame work of the FISA Act that allows the president to use warrantless electronic surveillance. And you want to question someone else's comprehension skills?

BTW, clown...when we start cutting off the heads of our enemies, when we start flying planes into buildings, and sending our children out with C-4 inside their diapers, like these terrorists you weep for have done numerous times....then you can refer to us as scum.
LOL . I see that mental block is working overtime ........ I dont know what part of over seas spying is ok , get a warrent for Domestic spying , you dont understand , but man you just cant seperate the 2 ..........you commies are all alike

errand

08-21-2006, 07:40 PM

I have named more then one , it is your inabilty to comprehend the answer ..I can name about 2.5 Million that has been effected ....... Truckers when it comes to Haz Mat ........ Please pay attention this time , it gets old repeating the same answer .......

Really? I doubt that's true...but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that yes, they are surveilling truckers with hazardous materials, are you saying you don't think trucks carrying materials that could be used for a possible terrorist act should be monitored?

And is there a possibility however small that one of these truckers could conspire with people who may want to use said materials in a plot? Is that not possible?

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:44 PM

Really? I doubt that's true...but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that yes, they are surveilling truckers with hazardous materials, are you saying you don't think trucks carrying materials that could be used for a possible terrorist act should be monitored?
Now answer this , soince when have I gave a damn what you believe ? 90% of the board thinks you are off your rocker ........I prefer you dont believe me , that way I know I am right .........hell you answered your own damn question about if the Haz mat issue is true or not , I wont bog you down with whats concidered Haz mat , you have enough on your plate trying to figure out things now ..... But yeah a trucker hauling of load of Batteries is some damn dangerous stuff ....Uhh

errand

08-21-2006, 07:54 PM

Now answer this , soince when have I gave a damn what you believe ? 90% of the board thinks you are off your rocker ........I prefer you dont believe me , that way I know I am right .........hell you answered your own damn question about if the Haz mat issue is true or not , I wont bog you down with whats concidered Haz mat , you have enough on your plate trying to figure out things now ..... But yeah a trucker hauling of load of Batteries is some damn dangerous stuff ....Uhh

So again, clown answer this....is that something that perhaps NSA should be tracking? You said a trucklaod of batteries is dangerous and I'll agree that they could be if they were in the wrong hands.

Now unless you can personally vouch for the character and loyalty of all 2.5 million truckers who are transporting Haz Mat, then quit whining like a baby about if cell phone calls are being monitored. All it takes is one trucker to sell out his country and we could have another 9/11 right?

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:57 PM

So again, clown answer this....is that something that perhaps NSA should be tracking? You said a trucklaod of batteries is dangerous and I'll agree that they could be if they were in the wrong hands.

Now unless you can personally vouch for the character and loyalty of all 2.5 million truckers who are transporting Haz Mat, then quit whining like a baby about if cell phone calls are being monitored. All it takes is one trucker to sell out his country and we could have another 9/11 right?
LOL so I did name more then 1 didnt I .Case closed goofball ........oh and if another 9-11 took place , wouldnt you smuggle a dirty bomb onto a container , instead of trying to blow somthing up with a bunch of D sized batteries ?
I know women all over would be upset over the loss of D batteries though .... but hardly a castrophie ......

Spider

08-21-2006, 07:58 PM

oh No .Stand Back Jeb , he got a D size Battery and he isnt afraid to use it .......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-21-2006, 08:02 PM

They are doing it legally...

http://www.ohanaed.com/images/4533.gif

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional. . . and ordered to cease immediately.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...uit/index.html

errand

08-21-2006, 08:26 PM

LOL so I did name more then 1 didnt I .Case closed goofball ........oh and if another 9-11 took place , wouldnt you smuggle a dirty bomb onto a container , instead of trying to blow somthing up with a bunch of D sized batteries ?
I know women all over would be upset over the loss of D batteries though .... but hardly a castrophie ......

You didn't name anyone clown...you gave a scenario, a possibility. You don't know that their cell phone calls are being monitored...if you did, you'd have posted proof of it. You believe your calls are being tapped, but you don't know they are.

Anyone can claim people's rights are being violated, just like Jessie Jackson can claim millions of black voters were disenfranchised,but giving an actual case, is another story.

And if I'm plotting to blow something up, I would use whatever I could get ahold of...a truckload of batteries is easier to acquire than a dirty bomb, wouldn't you agree?

alkemical

08-21-2006, 08:30 PM

Have any of these clowns even listened to their conversations before?

Imagine if you will the scenario of an NSA agent listening to Spider talk to his wife about how he's hauling some pile of cow manure from point A to point B?

Get real....your conversations aren't worthy of anyone listening in on, you clowns

Spider keeps talking about how average American citizens are being spied on, and yet again cannot name one.

Me.

I have a secret clearence and i worked for the DoD.

I am a civilian, i am not a gov't employee.

errand

08-21-2006, 08:31 PM

http://www.ohanaed.com/images/4533.gif

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional. . . and ordered to cease immediately.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...uit/index.html

FISA Act signed into law by Jimmy Carter gives the president authority to use electronic surveillance without court orders. You must not have read an earlier post that gave this information.

You really should read it before you start questioning other people's ability to comprehend, etc.

alkemical

08-21-2006, 08:38 PM

+

Mother was born in Flint, grandfather worked for Buick, uncles and aunts in Davidson, (one of my cousins dated former Michigan QB and Detroit Tiger Rick Leach), Clio, Mt. Morris, Grayling.

Best friend in USMC from Muskegon, and other Marine buddies from Lansing and Pontiac.

Ok, so now you have something different Errand. Now you have verifiable proof - now do you think that these people who are chanting and marching to this AREN'T UNDER WATCH?

**** the KKK, Militias (like the one that mcviegh an nichols were in up near there) and these cats are all under watch man.

But somehow you think everyone should be applied to a cavity search.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-21-2006, 08:39 PM

FISA Act signed into law by Jimmy Carter gives the president authority to use electronic surveillance without court orders. You must not have read an earlier post that gave this information.

Wrong.

The president still needs a warrant, but he can initiate the surveillance immediately and then get the warrant retroactively.

In other words, AWOL Boy already had the all the power he needed to spy on suspected terrorists without breaking the law.

This is really about Bush's contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the idea of Congressional or judicial oversight of the imperial presidency.

errand

08-21-2006, 08:41 PM

Me.

I have a secret clearence and i worked for the DoD.

I am a civilian, i am not a gov't employee.

Trust me, your work calls might be under surveillance, but your personal ones aren't....a secret clearance is nothing....PFC's in the USMC have that status.

But again, like with Spider I'll play along and give you the benefit of the doubt that your calls are being monitored and that your little secret clearance is a big deal....and you have access to info that could be of great national concern.

Are you saying that a civilian with a secret clearance working for the DoD where our nation's security is possibly at stake.....shouldn't be monitored?

Once again the only instances you clowns can give is where it makes sense to do it.

Truckers haulking hazardous materials that could possibly used to make a bomb or worse....

People working around clasified materials that could be harmful to our nation's security....

And while no proof of this is presented by you, or Spider....

do you clowns truly believe that they shouldn't be monitored?

Spider

08-21-2006, 08:42 PM

You didn't name anyone clown...you gave a scenario, a possibility. You don't know that their cell phone calls are being monitored...if you did, you'd have posted proof of it. You believe your calls are being tapped, but you don't know they are.

Anyone can claim people's rights are being violated, just like Jessie Jackson can claim millions of black voters were disenfranchised,but giving an actual case, is another story.

And if I'm plotting to blow something up, I would use whatever I could get ahold of...a truckload of batteries is easier to acquire than a dirty bomb, wouldn't you agree?
LOL ..........sure thing Errand , I suppose now you are an expert on what goes on in trucking , but yes you are consistanly monitored , through phone , Computer if your truck has one , and by little Radio devices installed in the load ......when you make your check in Call they inform you you are being taped .... so much for your little theory hey errand .next time check how deep the water is before you jump ....... oh and by the way Genius , just to get a haz mat endorcment ( yeah an endorcement ) you have to fingerprinted , pay a 100.00 , then have a background check done by the FBI for the last 10 years .................. oh and why get a truck load of batteries when you dont need that many ?........And according to your god Bush and the rest of his ilk , it isnt that hard to get WMD ........... or you calling Bush a liar with the rest of us ?

errand

08-21-2006, 08:43 PM

Wrong.

The president still needs a warrant, but he can initiate the surveillance immediately and then get the warrant retroactively.

In other words, AWOL Boy already had the all the power he needed to spy on suspected terrorists without breaking the law.

This is really about Bush's contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the idea of Congressional or judicial oversight of the imperial presidency.

That's not what the Act states, clown...I posted it for you a few pages ago. Carter Reagan and Clinton all used them, and none of them got retoactive warrants for them

Spider

08-21-2006, 08:46 PM

Trust me, your work calls might be under surveillance, but your personal ones aren't....a secret clearance is nothing....PFC's in the USMC have that status.

But again, like with Spider I'll play along and give you the benefit of the doubt that your calls are being monitored and that your little secret clearance is a big deal....and you have access to info that could be of great national concern.

Are you saying that a civilian with a secret clearance working for the DoD where our nation's security is possibly at stake.....shouldn't be monitored?

Once again the only instances you clowns can give is where it makes sense to do it.

Truckers haulking hazardous materials that could possibly used to make a bomb or worse....

People working around clasified materials that could be harmful to our nation's security....

And while no proof of this is presented by you, or Spider....

do you clowns truly believe that they shouldn't be monitored?

LOL trust you ? Hilarious! dude you couldnt even get the Jane fonda story right .......... you dont have a shred of Proof of what you say , yet I posted links about telephone companies except Qwest handing over phone records ....... now you want people to trust you ? too much snake venom not enough reality

errand

08-21-2006, 08:49 PM

LOL ..........sure thing Errand , I suppose now you are an expert on what goes on in trucking , but yes you are consistanly monitored , through phone , Computer if your truck has one , and by little Radio devices installed in the load ......when you make your check in Call they inform you you are being taped .... so much for your little theory hey errand .next time check how deep the water is before you jump ....... oh and by the way Genius , just to get a haz mat endorcment ( yeah an endorcement ) you have to fingerprinted , pay a 100.00 , then have a background check done by the FBI for the last 10 years .................. oh and why get a truck load of batteries when you dont need that many ?........And according to your god Bush and the rest of his ilk , it isnt that hard to get WMD ........... or you calling Bush a liar with the rest of us ?

My wife rana day care out of our home once...she had to get fingerprinted and background check too....big freaking deal.:rofl: :rofl:

BTW, your fingerprints are already on file with the FBI clown....or had you forgotten your felony arrest for attempted murder?

alkemical

08-21-2006, 08:58 PM

Trust me, your work calls might be under surveillance, but your personal ones aren't....a secret clearance is nothing....PFC's in the USMC have that status.

But again, like with Spider I'll play along and give you the benefit of the doubt that your calls are being monitored and that your little secret clearance is a big deal....and you have access to info that could be of great national concern.

Are you saying that a civilian with a secret clearance working for the DoD where our nation's security is possibly at stake.....shouldn't be monitored?

Once again the only instances you clowns can give is where it makes sense to do it.

Truckers haulking hazardous materials that could possibly used to make a bomb or worse....

People working around clasified materials that could be harmful to our nation's security....

And while no proof of this is presented by you, or Spider....

do you clowns truly believe that they shouldn't be monitored?

Well considering i'm no longer working for DoD (and yes, the info i dealt with Dman would be very aware of).

So where does it end errand, who WOULDN'T Be tapped since you think everyone has the capicity to be a terrorist?

It's this thinking you have that is more dangerous than anything else, your fear gives the terrorists victory.