For those against Bush/Phone taps/taking war on terror abroad read then sit and spin!

[Hotrod]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051006-7.html

[Old Dude]

The issue isn't wiretapping or surveillance, the issue is warrants.

They ain't that hard to come by.

The only reason I can imagine why the govt doesn't want them is because the govt is wiretapping people it has no business spying on.

[alkemical]

exactly

[Requiem]

Bingo, ooooh woah.

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

The issue isn't wiretapping or surveillance, the issue is warrants.

They ain't that hard to come by.

The only reason I can imagine why the govt doesn't want them is because the govt is wiretapping people it has no business spying on.

And they can be gotten retroactively.

So far the only explanation I have heard for circumventing the court entirely was in a Bush interview with 60 minutes (I believe). He was asked: why not just get the warrants retroactively?" His answer was something to the effect of "I asked the same question to the people who are running the program and they said that it wouldn't work. I can't tell you why it wouldn't work because then our enemies would know what we are up to." To me, that's a rather convenient excuse. Let's say one believes him though. He still has refused to brief the Congressional intelligence committees. Now saying that 60 minutes might (inadvertently) give info to our enemies is one thing. Suggesting that members of Congress could leak info is quite another. He has, to his credit at least allegedly briefed the “gang of 8” about the program- but that’s not the same as briefing the entire committee as required under the law. More telling, it is some members of that gang of 8 (Specter, etc) who are most vocal about the need to investigate.

Look. No one is saying don’t spy on the damn terrorists. The legit opposition to this program is that it is a blatant power grab under the guise of war powers – a war we all agree will never end.

Finally, how exactly does the fact that we have foiled multiple attacks relate directly to circumventing the warrant requirement? Do we know that a warrant less tap foiled the plot? If no warrantless tap was needed in these cases, doesn’t that suggest that maybe the program is unnecessary?

Or, more likely, is Hotrod just trying to have more fun today?

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by Antilles

And they can be gotten retroactively.

So far the only explanation I have heard for circumventing the court entirely was in a Bush interview with 60 minutes (I believe). He was asked: why not just get the warrants retroactively?" His answer was something to the effect of "I asked the same question to the people who are running the program and they said that it wouldn't work. I can't tell you why it wouldn't work because then our enemies would know what we are up to." To me, that's a rather convenient excuse. Let's say one believes him though. He still has refused to brief the Congressional intelligence committees. Now saying that 60 minutes might (inadvertently) give info to our enemies is one thing. Suggesting that members of Congress could leak info is quite another. He has, to his credit at least allegedly briefed the “gang of 8” about the program- but that’s not the same as briefing the entire committee as required under the law. More telling, it is some members of that gang of 8 (Specter, etc) who are most vocal about the need to investigate.

Look. No one is saying don’t spy on the damn terrorists. The legit opposition to this program is that it is a blatant power grab under the guise of war powers – a war we all agree will never end.

Finally, how exactly does the fact that we have foiled multiple attacks relate directly to circumventing the warrant requirement? Do we know that a warrant less tap foiled the plot? If no warrantless tap was needed in these cases, doesn’t that suggest that maybe the program is unnecessary?

Or, more likely, is Hotrod just trying to have more fun today?

Ok does anyone else find the timing strange of this list being released?

1. Proving how important the patriot act is
2. Pre-emptive strike against info which is about to be released by the dems
3. Terror attack is expected soon (well we stopped 10 we cant stop them all excuse?) (maybe to be blamed on Iran to justify war to stop nukes and euro-oil)

ok #3 is pretty hard core conspiracy stuff

[Requiem]

It's being addressed now because Bush's ratings are **** and he needs support for his cause. Nothing else, nothing more.

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Damn. Walked right into that one. Screw you guys. I'm going home.

[TailgateNut]

"PROPAGANDA"

[Hotrod]

Nobody touching the #3 euro-oil thing

[Hotrod]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

Its all about money baby

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051006-7.html

One question, Hotrod.... given the history of "bad information" "misinformation" and other untruths this white house has broadcast to the American public, is there a good reason why we should put 100% faith in the veracity of this news release? I can't think of one.

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

One question, Hotrod.... given the history of "bad information" "misinformation" and other untruths this white house has broadcast to the American public, is there a good reason why we should put 100% faith in the veracity of this news release? I can't think of one.

All I can say to that is even thou I dont trust either side of the isle the Bush 'clan' has enough problems the last thing they need is to get caught flat out lying over something like this. I for one think its probebly factual Im just not sure I buy the timing of the release.

[alkemical]

the 'downing street' item was to be factual as well.

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by amesj523

the 'downing street' item was to be factual as well.

So you have a hard time thinking that our intel/CIA/FBI/men in black choppers have stopped other terrorist attacks I just dont see whats so hard to belive about that. I can certainly understand not trusting the motive behind the release but to doubt the events happened would make one think you just hate Bush

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

All I can say to that is even thou I dont trust either side of the isle the Bush 'clan' has enough problems the last thing they need is to get caught flat out lying over something like this. I for one think its probebly factual Im just not sure I buy the timing of the release.

The sad fact about propaganda is that if it's repeated often enough, even the most outrageous lie can become widely accepted as truth.

I'm not sure being caught in lies bothers Bush much... I mean, it happens so often wouldn't he have to be at least somewhat used to it?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

So you have a hard time thinking that our intel/CIA/FBI/men in black choppers have stopped other terrorist attacks I just dont see whats so hard to belive about that. I can certainly understand not trusting the motive behind the release but to doubt the events happened would make one think you just hate Bush

Well i like how they listed jose pedilla - but yet they didn't do anything really on that case. Infact the evidence was pretty shaky on that case.

Do i feel that NO attacks have been thwarted? Of course not.

Am i a fan of bush? Not in politiks.

Why should i trust a gov't who has a penchant for lying?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

The sad fact about propaganda is that if it's repeated often enough, even the most outrageous lie can become widely accepted as truth.

I'm not sure being caught in lies bothers Bush much... I mean, it happens so often wouldn't he have to be at least somewhat used to it?

can you tell a lie if you've never told the truth?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ok does anyone else find the timing strange of this list being released?

Ooooooh yeah.

It's just as fishy as the timing of the last two Bin Laden tapes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

The issue isn't wiretapping or surveillance, the issue is warrants.

They ain't that hard to come by.

The only reason I can imagine why the govt doesn't want them is because the govt is wiretapping people it has no business spying on.

Hammer, nail, head.

[Hotrod]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=48751

[alkemical]

yep, i've posted that before hotrod - BOURSE would be a keyword to search by, it's in my newsthread as well.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by amesj523

can you tell a lie if you've never told the truth?

For those who have never told the truth, lying comes so naturally that it eventually becomes virtually impossible for them to distinguish truth from lies as they're speaking.

Another good question is this... if the illegal wiretapping really does have the potential to stop a terrorist attack (as the linked news release seems to be claiming), then why wasn't Bush able to stop 9/11? Evidence suggests the spying started before September 2001.

[Spider]

I deal with homeland security more then I care to ........... you would shít a brick at the people they have protecting these sites , hell one guy was so damn skinny he could fall through his own áss and hang himself .........

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

For those who have never told the truth, lying comes so naturally that it eventually becomes virtually impossible for them to distinguish truth from lies as they're speaking.

Another good question is this... if the illegal wiretapping really does have the potential to stop a terrorist attack (as the linked news release seems to be claiming), then why wasn't Bush able to stop 9/11? Evidence suggests the spying started before September 2001.

the prince or sheik that was being sued for 9/11 was at the STofUA