kallend 2,182 #1 January 17, 2007 today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-17T191938Z_01_N17341517_RTRUKOC_0_US-SURVEILLANCE-BUSH.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #2 January 17, 2007 Excellent! Let's hope this is an indication that we are beginning to get away from the politics of fear and get back to a goverment that heeds our constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 January 17, 2007 I will make sure I wont get caught with \my hand in the cookie jar again ... mommy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #4 January 17, 2007 "Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales said. Okay, where's that rubber stamp? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #5 January 18, 2007 Gotta love that thread title... Notwithstanding the fact that BOTH sides of the aisle have done it in their respective terms in office, I'm glad that the warrants will be going back to FISA.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #6 January 18, 2007 WHY: Gonzales raises his right hand and goes before congress tomorrow, that's why. A criminal uses the same methods and tactics until they don't work anymore, and then he changes tactics. I expect the warrantless tapping to continue, under greater secrecy. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 January 18, 2007 QuoteWHY: Gonzales raises his right hand and goes before congress tomorrow, that's why. A criminal uses the same metheds and tactics until they don't work anymore, and then he changes tactics. I expect the warrantless tapping to continue, under greater secrecy. Care to explain why the taps on Aldridge Ames never went to FISA, then? Oh - I forgot...that was when the President was a Democrat... nevermind - it's perfectly ok, then!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #8 January 18, 2007 Quote Care to explain why the taps on Aldridge Ames never went to FISA, then?! Never heard this. Where's your proof? Quote Oh - I forgot...that was when the President was a Democrat... nevermind - it's perfectly ok, then! No, you assume too much. I feel a court order should be required in all cases. There IS a bit of difference in that Aldridge Ames was a CIA officer who should expect to be looked after as part of his job. When you get a job with CIA you agree to givve up all kinds of personal information and rights, inclluding bank records, medical records, and anything else they want. BTW, you may be the most die-hard Bush supporter in SC, right after rushmc. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuote Care to explain why the taps on Aldridge Ames never went to FISA, then?! Never heard this. Where's your proof? http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm QuoteQuote Oh - I forgot...that was when the President was a Democrat... nevermind - it's perfectly ok, then! No, you assume too much. I feel a court order should be required in all cases. There IS a bit of difference in that Aldridge Ames was a CIA officer who should expect to be looked after as part of his job. When you get a job with CIA you agree to givve up all kinds of personal information and rights, inclluding bank records, medical records, and anything else they want. Wrong - if it's illegal to do, it's illegal to do to ANYONE - full stop. QuoteBTW, you may be the most die-hard Bush supporter in SC, right after rushmc. You'd be wrong there, too - there's plenty of stuff Bush has done that I don't agree with. Don't confuse my pointing out Dem hypocrisy with blind support for everything the Rep side does.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #10 January 18, 2007 QuoteDon't confuse my pointing out Dem hypocrisy with blind support for everything the Rep side does. Sadly, there are a number of SC posters who seem unable to make this distinction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteDon't confuse my pointing out Dem hypocrisy with blind support for everything the Rep side does. Sadly, there are a number of SC posters who seem unable to make this distinction. what distinction? aren't they the EXACT same thing ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #12 January 18, 2007 But the FISA was different back then - it ws changed to the current version AFTER the Ames case. Do you have proof that Reno acted illegally?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #13 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDon't confuse my pointing out Dem hypocrisy with blind support for everything the Rep side does. Sadly, there are a number of SC posters who seem unable to make this distinction. what distinction? aren't they the EXACT same thing Right. Kind of like saying anyone opposed to the adminstration's treatment of Gitmo detainees is a supporter of Osama bin Laden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 January 18, 2007 QuoteRight. Kind of like saying anyone opposed to the adminstration's treatment of Gitmo detainees is a supporter of Osama bin Laden. There have been a couple of Right wingers who did exactly that. Its part of the whole " you are either with us or you are against us" mentality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #15 January 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteRight. Kind of like saying anyone opposed to the adminstration's treatment of Gitmo detainees is a supporter of Osama bin Laden. There have been a couple of Right wingers who did exactly that. Its part of the who you are either with us or you are against us mentality. So, since "a couple of Right wingers" have demonstrated this kind of flawed thinking, you think it's acceptable for you to do the same on a regular basis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #16 January 18, 2007 I do so love shoving the hypocrisy back down your fucking throats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #17 January 18, 2007 QuoteI do so love shoving the hypocrisy back down your fucking throats. This one's off the irony scale. Dizzying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #18 January 18, 2007 Since you get dizzy so easily perhaps skydiving and climbing may not be the sports for you. Has anyone had the Bowling or Golf talk with you yet??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 January 18, 2007 QuoteI do so love shoving the hypocrisy back down your fucking throats. [sneaky playful icon] are you talking about interns again? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 January 18, 2007 Gee did anyone ask them if THEY enjoyed it?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #21 January 18, 2007 QuoteCare to explain why the taps on Aldridge Ames never went to FISA, then?! Quote But the FISA was different back then - it ws changed to the current version AFTER the Ames case. Do you have proof that Reno acted illegally? Hey, Mnealtx - Umm dee dum dee dum... while we're awaiting your reply, you might read Exec. Order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #22 January 19, 2007 Is is dam funny that you (and your favorite media outlets) frame this the way you have. To prove the point: Can you tell me exactly what has been agreed to? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #23 January 19, 2007 QuoteIs is dam funny that you (and your favorite media outlets) frame this the way you have. To prove the point: Can you tell me exactly what has been agreed to? So can YOU explain how Janet Reno broke then existing law in the Ames case, since mnealtx has gone all quiet. Inquiring minds want to know. Did you hear Specter tearing into the AG today. Cool how even the GOP's point man in the Senate disagrees with the administration. It seems that you are suggesting that the administration intends to continue flouting the law by some other means, a tactic it has used in the past: But if the administration is now complying fully and exclusively with FISA when eavesdropping, all of its prior claims that it could not do so and still fight terrorists are false. These are claims that, incidentally, the administration tried to use to win the last election; if you wanted to make it comply with FISA, it meant that you loved the terrorists. But the arrogation of power in failing to comply with FISA was always about only that -- power. An administration with a radical theory of executive power grabbed what it could while Congress was compliant. But whether the reversal is partial or total, reversal is standard operating procedure for the Bush White House. Every time it is about to face consequences for its conduct, it stops doing what it is doing and finds another way. When the Supreme Court was about to rule on the legality of its detention of Jose Padilla, the administration transferred him to a criminal court and finally charged him, thentold the court that the questions about his detention were "moot." When the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ordered the administration to give Yaser Hamdi (a U.S. citizen) a venue to charge him with a crime and prove his guilt, it simply let this "extremely dangerous terrorist" go free instead of charging him. This is what the Bush administration does and how it always operates. It has not conceded anything and it has certainly not done anything that mitigates its lawbreaking -- its crimes -- over the past five years with regard to eavesdropping without warrants. The president has been committing felonies on purpose and systematically for the past five years because he wants to. The fact that he might have decided he should stop does not excuse his lawbreaking and must not be allowed to shield him or anyone else from accountability. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 January 19, 2007 QuoteThe president has been committing felonies on purpose and systematically for the past five years because he wants to. The fact that he might have decided he should stop does not excuse his lawbreaking and must not be allowed to shield him or anyone else from accountability. Well there are plenty of Bush deadenders out there that will support him to the very end..just like Sadaam had his crazed fedayeen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 January 19, 2007 Quote QuoteCare to explain why the taps on Aldridge Ames never went to FISA, then?! Quote But the FISA was different back then - it ws changed to the current version AFTER the Ames case. Do you have proof that Reno acted illegally? Hey, Mnealtx - Umm dee dum dee dum... while we're awaiting your reply, you might read Exec. Order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. Sorry, had some network problems here yesterday. The information that I've read (still trying to find actual copies of warrants) stated that Reno illegaly signed warrants for the search of Ame's house. For the EO... I take it you're talking about section 2.4, Collection techniques? Care to make a quote and explain your mention of the EO? I *think* I know where you're going with it, but would appreciate clarification.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
