Bush authorized domestic wiretaps without warrants

[rushmc 23]

He references more than one SCOTUS decision and some lower court decisions too

The biggest unknown todate is the range of taps. If the taps are as they say then Bush has done nothing wrong and is ignoring a law (FISA) that is un-constitutional, which is his role and responcibility as defined by the SC.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

He references more than one SCOTUS decision and some lower court decisions too

The biggest unknown todate is the range of taps. If the taps are as they say then Bush has done nothing wrong and is ignoring a law (FISA) that is un-constitutional, which is his role and responcibility as defined by the SC.

Lawyers on both sides of any legal dispute reference legal precedents too. He's just being a lawyer and you, as usual, jump the gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

He references more than one SCOTUS decision and some lower court decisions too

The biggest unknown todate is the range of taps. If the taps are as they say then Bush has done nothing wrong and is ignoring a law (FISA) that is un-constitutional, which is his role and responcibility as defined by the SC.

Lawyers on both sides of any legal dispute reference legal precedents too. He's just being a lawyer and you, as usual, jump the gun.

I JUMP THE GUN??

You got Bush convicted and hung long before any details come out and I jump the gun??

If you read the letter you see where a lawyer for Clinton is quoted arguing the same as Bush's lawyers are today. But that same lawyer now says that what Bush is doing is illeagal (much to your joy)

When was he right now or then???

It is becoming ovious to me that I may not be the 1 with a closed mind.........


I jump the gun..... that is brilliant........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He references more than one SCOTUS decision and some lower court decisions too

The biggest unknown todate is the range of taps. If the taps are as they say then Bush has done nothing wrong and is ignoring a law (FISA) that is un-constitutional, which is his role and responcibility as defined by the SC.

Lawyers on both sides of any legal dispute reference legal precedents too. He's just being a lawyer and you, as usual, jump the gun.

I JUMP THE GUN??

You got Bush convicted and hung long before any details come out and I jump the gun??

If you read the letter you see where a lawyer for Clinton is quoted arguing the same as Bush's lawyers are today. But that same lawyer now says that what Bush is doing is illeagal (much to your joy)

When was he right now or then???

It is becoming ovious to me that I may not be the 1 with a closed mind.........


I jump the gun..... that is brilliant........

That Bush did it at all is wrong.

That he LIED about it is wrong.

Whether the SC finds it Constitutional is a different matter. It is still wrong.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

-- George W. Bush, White House Press Release, April 20, 2004

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He references more than one SCOTUS decision and some lower court decisions too

The biggest unknown todate is the range of taps. If the taps are as they say then Bush has done nothing wrong and is ignoring a law (FISA) that is un-constitutional, which is his role and responcibility as defined by the SC.

Lawyers on both sides of any legal dispute reference legal precedents too. He's just being a lawyer and you, as usual, jump the gun.

I JUMP THE GUN??

You got Bush convicted and hung long before any details come out and I jump the gun??

If you read the letter you see where a lawyer for Clinton is quoted arguing the same as Bush's lawyers are today. But that same lawyer now says that what Bush is doing is illeagal (much to your joy)

When was he right now or then???

It is becoming ovious to me that I may not be the 1 with a closed mind.........


I jump the gun..... that is brilliant........

That Bush did it at all is wrong.

That he LIED about it is wrong.

Whether the SC finds it Constitutional is a different matter. It is still wrong.

You can't see through your blinding hatred (IMO). Even when the facts are in front of you you can't see.......

It is not wrong (inteligence gathering of this type has been going on since Washington and Lincoln(not electronic))and he did not lie about it. But you hung your hat on this hook so high you can't admit it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Dude, that quote from Bush...that is a lie.

I don't want to debate the actual tapping, but he lied about it. He said, in PLAIN language, that any wiretapping done was done with a court order. Obviously, we now know this to be untrue.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Dude, that quote from Bush...that is a lie.

I don't want to debate the actual tapping, but he lied about it. He said, in PLAIN language, that any wiretapping done was done with a court order. Obviously, we now know this to be untrue.

Oh ya, he should have told us and and the terrorists that he was gathering intel

He should have given up the this "TOP SECRETE" operation

come on man, you know better than that.....

and he said he was following the law, and he is.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

I don't care if it is legal or not. You said he did not lie and he did. That is my ONLY point. Whether you lie for National Security or not, you are STILL lying.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I don't care if it is legal or not. You said he did not lie and he did. That is my ONLY point. Whether you lie for National Security or not, you are STILL lying.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.
If he broke the law, then he lied. It appears that the only laws broken was when Congress passed FISA, Carter signed it and when the intel program was outed.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

I am afraid your definition of lying is incorrect. Law has nothing to do with the concept of lying. Stop trying to relate the two.

If I say to you, "I own a blue car" and you find out my car is silver, I lied. And no law has been broken.

What I think you need to say is that you are okay with lying in the interest of National Security instead of trying to say that he did not lie. Because he did. Boldy. He did not even attempt to skirt the issue.

Sometimes lying is okay...at least to me. But I say that, not try to make up ways that the lie is not really a lie.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I am afraid your definition of lying is incorrect. Law has nothing to do with the concept of lying. Stop trying to relate the two.

If I say to you, "I own a blue car" and you find out my car is silver, I lied. And no law has been broken.

What I think you need to say is that you are okay with lying in the interest of National Security instead of trying to say that he did not lie. Because he did. Boldy. He did not even attempt to skirt the issue.

Sometimes lying is okay...at least to me. But I say that, not try to make up ways that the lie is not really a lie.

To quote you

"alrighty"........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Dude, that quote from Bush...that is a lie.

I don't want to debate the actual tapping, but he lied about it. He said, in PLAIN language, that any wiretapping done was done with a court order. Obviously, we now know this to be untrue.

Oh ya, he should have told us and and the terrorists that he was gathering intel

He should have given up the this "TOP SECRETE" operation

come on man, you know better than that.....

and he said he was following the law, and he is.....

He didn't have to say anything, did he?

He CHOSE to lie.

If you can't tell truth from lying and we all know it, what is the point of your posting here - no one will believe anything you write.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

I forgot, you are the only one any one would beleive.


I love how the insults come with the frustrations of being wrong?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Isn't it ironic...

That the liberals don't want the government to listen in on phone conversations with terrorists who have sworn to kill us, keeping track of who talked to whom, when and where...

And at the same, the same liberals, think it is perfectly acceptable to keep detailed records on gun owners, as to what guns they've purchased, from whom, when and where.

I guess that Liberals think that law-abiding gun owners are more of a threat to America than the terrorists.

[JohnRich 4]

I've been thinking: maybe we should have a "Bill of Rights" for terrorists. It would make the Liberals happy to know that the rights of those sworn to kill us are protected.

So I'll start with an idea of my own, and others can append additional items to protect the civil rights of these poor muslim extremists.

Bill of Rights for Terrorists

Article I: Communication with terrorist cells domestically and internationally being vital to the killing of Americans, the right of terrorists to speak freely and privately on phones will not be abridged.

* * *

There, that's a start, and something that every good Liberal should agree with.

[Trent 0]

Quote

If you can't tell truth from lying and we all know it, what is the point of your posting here - no one will believe anything you write.

Or how about posting quotes out of context? Should we believe YOU when you do that?

The "evidence" that Bush was lying that you posted was from a news conference about the Patriot Act. I SAW it. He was SPECIFICALLY talking about the Patriot Act which concerns people HERE in the US. The new controversy involves wiretapping conversations with 1 party outside of the US. It is not the same thing.

But I can see how people who are already frothing at the mouth use it to try to convince themselves that Bush is pure evil.

Oh, hello again!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Isn't it ironic...

That the liberals don't want the government to listen in on phone conversations with terrorists who have sworn to kill us, keeping track of who talked to whom, when and where...

And at the same, the same liberals, think it is perfectly acceptable to keep detailed records on gun owners, as to what guns they've purchased, from whom, when and where.

I guess that Liberals think that law-abiding gun owners are more of a threat to America than the terrorists.

You are in flagrant violation of the Rules of The Thread© :

Quote

Focus not on whether the wiretaps may have been justified, but whether they should have been authorized without warrants.

We will now deliberate the appropriate punishment.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

If you can't tell truth from lying and we all know it, what is the point of your posting here - no one will believe anything you write.

Or how about posting quotes out of context? Should we believe YOU when you do that?

The "evidence" that Bush was lying that you posted was from a news conference about the Patriot Act. I SAW it. He was SPECIFICALLY talking about the Patriot Act which concerns people HERE in the US. The new controversy involves wiretapping conversations with 1 party outside of the US. It is not the same thing.

But I can see how people who are already frothing at the mouth use it to try to convince themselves that Bush is pure evil.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "

What part of "any time" don't you understand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Dude, why bother?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Channman 2]

The senate is presently having hearings on wiretaps, and it should'nt belong before the Dems present us with the Terrorist Bill of Rights, (TBR) for short.

[Trent 0]

Quote

What part of "any time" don't you understand?

Oops, you're right. We SHOULD take the quote out of context.

I noticed that you didn't dispute that the discussion where you got this quote was a discussion specifically about the Patriot Act. But hey, if it makes your argument look good... why care about it, right?

As for the "why bother" comment...

I guess reality isn't important to you, so, indeed, why bother?

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

The senate is presently having hearings on wiretaps, and it should'nt belong before the Dems present us with the Terrorist Bill of Rights, (TBR) for short.

Surely you learnt in civics class that rights are what all people are entitled to, not just what the people you like are entitled to. That's why they are called "rights" and not "privileges".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

What part of "any time" don't you understand?

Oops, you're right. We SHOULD take the quote out of context.

I noticed that you didn't dispute that the discussion where you got this quote was a discussion specifically about the Patriot Act. But hey, if it makes your argument look good... why care about it, right?

As for the "why bother" comment...

I guess reality isn't important to you, so, indeed, why bother?

I repeat, what part of "ANY TIME" don't you understand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

What part of "any time" don't you understand?

Oops, you're right. We SHOULD take the quote out of context.

I noticed that you didn't dispute that the discussion where you got this quote was a discussion specifically about the Patriot Act. But hey, if it makes your argument look good... why care about it, right?

As for the "why bother" comment...

I guess reality isn't important to you, so, indeed, why bother?

No, this is exactly why I should not bother; excuses. If he meant the Patriot Act, he should have said "if we are wiretapping under the Patriot Act, it will involve a warrant."

He did not. he said ANY TIME. And then he repeated and included, " chasing down terrorists". If that does not include all instances of wiretapping, I really don't know what does. Especially when the point of the Patriot Act is to fight terrosim. Stop trying to redefined words.

I really have no problem with actions done in secret, but I cannot stand when instead of just not answering, people lie about them. And not in a roundabout way either, but boldly.

And even worse is when people try to explain it away.

Argh, see what I did, I got in a pointless debate. Excuse me, I have to hit myself with a wet noodle.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Trent 0]

Do you reference the context of your discussion in every sentence that you say? Or is it understood that when you're talking about roaches that when you say, "ANY TIME I see one of the little brown fuckers, I'll kill him." that you're talking about roaches and not brown dogs, deer, or people with brown skin?

If you guys are fine with being disingenuous, okay. Your arguments would be better served by finding another "gotcha" point to harp on though.

What you consider me explaining away, I consider you to be stretching for a point.

Oh, hello again!