Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 12/20/2005 5:50:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 6:00:03 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
Note domestic searches without warrant.

www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm


CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

END

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 5:53:16 PM EDT
Libs live to lie.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 5:55:15 PM EDT
Well what do you know...
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 5:58:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:00:12 PM EDT
Remember the Klintons also illegally used the IRS against their enemies


-and-


Remember all those FBI files that were left in the White House?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:00:23 PM EDT
Send this to Drudge, Rush, and Fox News.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:01:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Remember the Klintons also illegally used the IRS against their enemies


-and-


Remember all those FBI files that were left in the White House?



Uh-huh
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:05:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 6:05:45 PM EDT by captainpooby]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Send this to Drudge, Rush, and Fox News.



Uh, it came from Drudge.


edit for speeling
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:08:37 PM EDT
Doesn't matter!

Bush lied and people died!

Illegal war for oil!

We are occuppiers!

Free Mumia!

Save the whales!

Free Weed!

Fucking Libtards!
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:11:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Doesn't matter!

Bush lied and people died!

Illegal war for oil! Fuck that! I want my cheap gasoline!

We are occuppiers!

Free Mumia!

Save the whales!

Free Weed!

Fucking Libtards!

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:18:19 PM EDT
Where's that libtard Bush basher that was ranting on the other thread hiding now?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:27:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:38:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 6:39:41 PM EDT by offctr]
C'mon guys do you really belive that an old retired couple was just HAPPENED to be driving around Fla and just HAPPENED to have a scanner capable of following a cell call from cell site to cell site and the frequency hop, and that scanner HAPPENED to be hooked up to a recorder and they just HAPPENED to lock onto a cell call that just HAPPENED to be Newt Gingrich and later just HAPPEND to forget to erase the tape and later just HAPPENED to give it to a guy --thinking it was blank of course-- who just HAPPENED to be a reporter and He just HAPPENED to figure out who the voice on the tape was and just HAPPENED to air said tape despite the legalities involved.
Nope --no way the Clintons were involved. No monitoring of domestic phone calls there.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:43:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Send this to Drudge, Rush, and Fox News.


Uh, it came from Drudge.

edit for speeling




Whoops.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:47:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Doesn't matter!

Bush lied and people died!

Illegal war for oil!

We are occuppiers!

Free Mumia!

Save the whales!

Free Weed!

Fucking Libtards!




SAVE TOOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:51:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Note domestic searches without warrant.

www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm


CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER ...





Well, the last time I checked Bush Jr. was President so all this is supposed to change what ?

(Maybe it is "Monkey see, Monkey do.")
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:56:08 AM EDT
Why doesn't the Bush Admin aggressively get this information out?

Bomber
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:43:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Note domestic searches without warrant.

www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm


CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER ...





Well, the last time I checked Bush Jr. was President so all this is supposed to change what ?

(Maybe it is "Monkey see, Monkey do.")



Change what?

The President has done NOTHING wrong.

This is just one more manufactured attempt to make something out of nothing by the NYTs.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:10:26 AM EDT
YOu people seem to think that because Klinton and Carter did this that what? somehow it's ok now? I dont care who did it, it's wrong. Also the law carter passed spelled out specific instances like Foreign intel ONLY, not for a Country farmers pot growing ring. And there was a specific time limit of one year. Further investigation is needed.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:05:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
YOu people seem to think that because Klinton and Carter did this that what? somehow it's ok now? I dont care who did it, it's wrong. Also the law carter passed spelled out specific instances like Foreign intel ONLY, not for a Country farmers pot growing ring. And there was a specific time limit of one year. Further investigation is needed.



Bullshit...

There is no need for another phony investigation. It is plenty clear what Clinton did was far more intrusive and domestic on top of that AND legal. You might not like it but what the President did was well within his powers.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:06:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:


The President has done NOTHING wrong.





How would you know what he has or hasn't done ? Are you in the NSA ?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:11:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 1:13:14 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
Well, the last time I checked Bush Jr. was President so all this is supposed to change what ?

(Maybe it is "Monkey see, Monkey do.")

It wasn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when Clinton did it.

It wasn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when Carter did it.

And it wasn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when GWBush did it.

The point is that precedent matters. And GWBush is following precedent.

REASONABLE searches without a warrant are completely allowed under the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution - exactly as the founding fathers intended!




Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:14:19 PM EDT
"whatever it takes to fit your current story" or LSM "liberal selective memory" are daily things I have to point out to the liberals I argue with daily.

They have no foundation or principals.

Nothing to ground them or a standard to judge by.

Whatever you can get past the fence sitters or conservatives without getting call out on, goes.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:25:32 PM EDT
Guys, this has NOTHING to do with liberals versus conservatives. Since we have had the technology to listen in, every president has done it... illegally. Repub and dem alike. If you think they haven't, you are either naive or you've been pretty sheltered.

I don't give a shit that Clinton listened in on phonecalls, I don't give a shit that Bush did either. What I give a shit about is that they were dumb enough to get caught. I don't wany a president that isn't willing to be a little sleazy in order to fulfill the needs of the country. However, I DO want someone who is smart enough, and surrounds himself with the right ppl, so that he doesn't get caught.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:27:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 4:11:09 PM EDT by gunchyck]
repeat, oops
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:32:45 PM EDT
I submit to you that the Bush Administration wasn't caught, but rather that this NSA operation was deliberately leaked by a senior CIA bureaucrat with an axe to grind WRT the Bush White House. This is not the first time something sensetive was leaked, either. Overseas detention facilities, anyone?

This is yet another battle in the "war" between the CIA and the Bush White House, with the media playing along like the hapless idiots they are.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:40:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
I don't give a shit that Clinton listened in on phonecalls, I don't give a shit that Bush did either. What I give a shit about is that they were dumb enough to get caught. I don't wany a president that isn't willing to be a little sleazy in order to fulfill the needs of the country. However, I DO want someone who is smart enough, and surrounds himself with the right ppl, so that he doesn't get caught.



And whose cum stains were left on the blue dress after a slurpy in the Oval Office? And who had to surrender his license to practice law after he was caught perjuring himself? And who was impeached by the House of Representatives?

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:49:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
YOu people seem to think that because Klinton and Carter did this that what? somehow it's ok now? I dont care who did it, it's wrong. Also the law carter passed spelled out specific instances like Foreign intel ONLY, not for a Country farmers pot growing ring. And there was a specific time limit of one year. Further investigation is needed.



Haven't they already said that is exactly what the Bush people were monitoring?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:51:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:
Well, the last time I checked Bush Jr. was President so all this is supposed to change what ?

(Maybe it is "Monkey see, Monkey do.")

It wasn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when Clinton did it.

It wasn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when Carter did it.

And it wasn't "illegal" or "unconstitutional" when GWBush did it.

The point is that precedent matters. And GWBush is following precedent.

REASONABLE searches without a warrant are completely allowed under the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution - exactly as the founding fathers intended!








Absolutely! The founders never intended for warrants to be in common usage.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:54:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Guys, this has NOTHING to do with liberals versus conservatives. Since we have had the technology to listen in, every president has done it... illegally. Repub and dem alike. If you think they haven't, you are either naive or you've been pretty sheltered.

I don't give a shit that Clinton listened in on phonecalls, I don't give a shit that Bush did either. What I give a shit about is that they were dumb enough to get caught. I don't wany a president that isn't willing to be a little sleazy in order to fulfill the needs of the country. However, I DO want someone who is smart enough, and surrounds himself with the right ppl, so that he doesn't get caught.



You gotta realize that there are a buttload of people out there doing everythign they can to bring the President (whoever he may be) down. Remember the 48% who didn't vote for him.

The part that gets me steaming is that it is always at the cost of letting our enemy know what were doing. The only investigation here should be "Who leaked this to the press?"

Fuckhead Rockefeller acts like he's all innocent and that he had questioned this in a letter but wasn't allowed to pursue it past the IC. But low and behold the NY Times had the story so how did they get it?

The Dems stink like shit on this one. It's blatantly obvious.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:13:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
I submit to you that the Bush Administration wasn't caught, but rather that this NSA operation was deliberately leaked by a senior CIA bureaucrat with an axe to grind WRT the Bush White House. This is not the first time something sensetive was leaked, either. Overseas detention facilities, anyone?

This is yet another battle in the "war" between the CIA and the Bush White House, with the media playing along like the hapless idiots they are.



When something is leaked and it gets out that they are doing something that they weren't supposed to do, that is called "being caught"

Linda Tripp "leaked info. Clinton was "Caught"
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:16:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 4:19:02 PM EDT by gunchyck]

Originally Posted By TomHighway:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
I don't give a shit that Clinton listened in on phonecalls, I don't give a shit that Bush did either. What I give a shit about is that they were dumb enough to get caught. I don't wany a president that isn't willing to be a little sleazy in order to fulfill the needs of the country. However, I DO want someone who is smart enough, and surrounds himself with the right ppl, so that he doesn't get caught.



And whose cum stains were left on the blue dress after a slurpy in the Oval Office? And who had to surrender his license to practice law after he was caught perjuring himself? And who was impeached by the House of Representatives?




Clinton did, I'm not getting your point. I wasn't refuting that he did any of those things. I'm not saying he is a nice man or a grand politician. I'm argueing that it doesn't matter if a president is republican or dem, they use their power in ways they see fit and break the law at times. ALL of them.

I want a president who lies well. To get through politics today, that is a requirement.

Asking, "Well, what is your definition of 'is'?" is not someone that lies well. (is that what he asked? I remember it was a ridiculous word, but I'm too lazy to look it up).
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:21:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
I submit to you that the Bush Administration wasn't caught, but rather that this NSA operation was deliberately leaked by a senior CIA bureaucrat with an axe to grind WRT the Bush White House. This is not the first time something sensetive was leaked, either. Overseas detention facilities, anyone?

This is yet another battle in the "war" between the CIA and the Bush White House, with the media playing along like the hapless idiots they are.



When something is leaked and it gets out that they are doing something that they weren't supposed to do, that is called "being caught"

Linda Tripp "leaked info. Clinton was "Caught"



Nominated for stupid post of the day.

Linda Tripp leaked nothing… getting a BJ in the Oval Office is not a national security matter.

When means of catching terrorist… especially means that have successfully stopped terrorist attacks is leaked you have endangered peoples lives and removed a tool... and broke the law.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:24:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 4:30:41 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
dupe post
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:49:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
I submit to you that the Bush Administration wasn't caught, but rather that this NSA operation was deliberately leaked by a senior CIA bureaucrat with an axe to grind WRT the Bush White House. This is not the first time something sensetive was leaked, either. Overseas detention facilities, anyone?

This is yet another battle in the "war" between the CIA and the Bush White House, with the media playing along like the hapless idiots they are.



When something is leaked and it gets out that they are doing something that they weren't supposed to do, that is called "being caught"

Linda Tripp "leaked info. Clinton was "Caught"



Nominated for stupid post of the day.

Linda Tripp leaked nothing… getting a BJ in the Oval Office is not a national security matter.

When means of catching terrorist… especially means that have successfully stopped terrorist attacks is leaked you have endangered peoples lives and removed a tool... and broke the law.



I agree that getting a bj in the oval office was not a national security matter.

The post was about the definition of "being caught"
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:52:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
I submit to you that the Bush Administration wasn't caught, but rather that this NSA operation was deliberately leaked by a senior CIA bureaucrat with an axe to grind WRT the Bush White House. This is not the first time something sensetive was leaked, either. Overseas detention facilities, anyone?

This is yet another battle in the "war" between the CIA and the Bush White House, with the media playing along like the hapless idiots they are.



When something is leaked and it gets out that they are doing something that they weren't supposed to do, that is called "being caught"

Linda Tripp "leaked info. Clinton was "Caught"



Nominated for stupid post of the day.

Linda Tripp leaked nothing… getting a BJ in the Oval Office is not a national security matter.

When means of catching terrorist… especially means that have successfully stopped terrorist attacks is leaked you have endangered peoples lives and removed a tool... and broke the law.



I agree that getting a bj in the oval office was not a national security matter.

The post was about the definition of "being caught"



No the post was about making a bad and fallacious comparison about unrelated things.

The President was not caught doing one damn thing Congress was briefed on this and it is legal.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:07:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:
I submit to you that the Bush Administration wasn't caught, but rather that this NSA operation was deliberately leaked by a senior CIA bureaucrat with an axe to grind WRT the Bush White House. This is not the first time something sensetive was leaked, either. Overseas detention facilities, anyone?

This is yet another battle in the "war" between the CIA and the Bush White House, with the media playing along like the hapless idiots they are.



When something is leaked and it gets out that they are doing something that they weren't supposed to do, that is called "being caught"

Linda Tripp "leaked info. Clinton was "Caught"



Nominated for stupid post of the day.

Linda Tripp leaked nothing… getting a BJ in the Oval Office is not a national security matter.

When means of catching terrorist… especially means that have successfully stopped terrorist attacks is leaked you have endangered peoples lives and removed a tool... and broke the law.



I agree that getting a bj in the oval office was not a national security matter.

The post was about the definition of "being caught"



No the post was about making a bad and fallacious comparison about unrelated things.

The President was not caught doing one damn thing Congress was briefed on this and it is legal.



If you would like to read the whole thing yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536310.stm

Here are some snippets:

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional".


What news have you been reading and/or listening to that is telling you it is legal?

I'm curious.

And yes, I chose BBC news on purpose

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:29:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
If you would like to read the whole thing yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536310.stm

Here are some snippets:

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional".


What news have you been reading and/or listening to that is telling you it is legal?

I'm curious.

And yes, I chose BBC news on purpose




The New York Times… ACLU… and BBC. Oh please next you will quote Al Jazeera.

Oh I have just been listening the former Clinton Justice Department officials that are saying it is legal.

This a legal practice that has been in use for decades and simply saying it is illegal over and over will not change the facts.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:40:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
If you would like to read the whole thing yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536310.stm

Here are some snippets:

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said eavesdropping in the US without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was "both illegal and unconstitutional".


What news have you been reading and/or listening to that is telling you it is legal?

I'm curious.

And yes, I chose BBC news on purpose




The New York Times… ACLU… and BBC. Oh please next you will quote Al Jazeera.

Oh I have just been listening the former Clinton Justice Department officials that are saying it is legal.

This a legal practice that has been in use for decades and simply saying it is illegal over and over will not change the facts.



Got link?

Unlike some, I'm open to having more information, but I'm sure as hell not going to take your word for it.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 5:36:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 8:54:12 AM EDT by thebomber]

The only investigation here should be "Who leaked this to the press?"


+1....Who recently has had their panties in a wad about Valerie Plame? The whole emphasis was on the leak and not about whether it was already known or if the leak even mattered since she was just an analyst.

This leak actually impacts National Security.

Bomber
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:14:55 AM EDT
Democrats are the pawns of Satan. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people worshipping at the alter of the anti-christ these days.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:29:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 8:44:36 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
Got link?

Unlike some, I'm open to having more information, but I'm sure as hell not going to take your word for it.



Well if you are too lazy to want to know the facts for yourself… here is some of it if you want more find it yourself it is abundant.

I don’t want to be insulting but using the NYTs, ACLU, and BBC as examples of where you get your information says bad things about your ability to wade through bullshit and actually get to the truth. You need to be able to discern the difference between political attack (as this is) and actually real news… knowing the source and their biases helps. The NYTs. nor ACLU cannot be trusted on anything they print/say regarding this Administration or the War... the BBC is almost as bad.

This is all really a non-issue and all the NYTs did was alert terrorist to methods used by the US to expose them... all this to sell a book. Shame on the NYTs and shame on those willing to buy in to their lying treasonous bullshit.

Associate attorney general under Clinton: President had legal authority to OK taps...


President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

<snip see link for rest>

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.



'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented


In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:40:26 AM EDT
tHERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE between something we might think to be unethical or dangerous to our liberties and something that is 'legal' strictly speaking...

The NSA no doubt has complete legal authority to do what it does and the Pres had authority - legally - to say "go", especially as there is no positive law or court case that specifically denies them the said authority (and we are a nation of laws).

But is it smart, ethical, wise in the long run? Who knows. If you want it all to change, then pass a constitutional amendment otherwise, it's something you don't approve of but still legal.
Top Top