Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:18:28 AM EDT
First off, I've voted for every Republican Presidential candidate I could, beginning with Reagan and including GWB twice. I re-entered the military after 9/11 and served on active duty for 18 months in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have several friends still over there. I detest the left on a number of levels and for a number of reasons.

But this "domestic spying" story may prove to be the downfall of President Bush. This article, with its many references, encapsulates the arguments by all parties as to whether his authorization of warrant-less wiretaps was legal. From what I've read to this point, the Administration's arguments for legality are very shaky. Congressional hearings will bring out many more details.

Next year could be very bad for President Bush and very bad for the nation.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:20:14 AM EDT
what about the alphabet agencies that followed through with it? they should be held responsible too
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:20:43 AM EDT

Will Bush be impeached?


No way. Not possible. The Bilderbergers would not allow it.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:21:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 6:23:54 AM EDT by macman37]
Nope

This is just another red herring thrown about by the Democrats. They really need to watch themselves: Someday they'll swindle their way back into power and the Republicans will do the same thing to them. Only then, it won't be "fair" and they'll be "playing partisan politics..."

Edit: You do understand how the "domestic spying" thing worked, don't you? They only used it on people with proven ties to Al Qaeda.

Edit 2: AND they covered it off with Congress every 45 days to renew it! The Dems who aren't speaking up and saying "We knew about this" are spineless cowards.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:21:46 AM EDT
This is a pile of horseshit. No attacks on US soil since 9/11 and the libtards want to spank-off over this.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:22:05 AM EDT
No
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:22:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
Nope

This is just another red herring thrown about by the Democrats. They really need to watch themselves: Someday they'll swindle their way back into power and the Republicans will do the same thing to them. Only then, it won't be "fair" and they'll be "playing partisan politics..."



Do you really think this is just another political witch hunt? Have you been paying attention to the reactions from Congressional Republicans?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:22:33 AM EDT
Time to consult the magic

"No"

That was easy.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:23:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:26:26 AM EDT
Not that concerned about the domestic spying. I have assumed it's been going on forever.


Now the border thing, is starting to piss me off.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:26:43 AM EDT
Where was everyone's righteous indignation when Clinton was doing the same thing?
Look up Clinton's program called Echelon
Link
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:27:16 AM EDT
I don't know why people are so pissed over this. J Edgar Hoover did the same thing, only he didn't have the resources currently available.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:27:51 AM EDT
NO
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:28:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Time to consult the magic

"No"

That was easy.




Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:30:23 AM EDT
NO. Where's the poll? We are wasting bandwidth here man!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:30:29 AM EDT
The law allowing it was signed by Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. Clinton used it repeatedly, probably for something much less than a war...( if he had used it the right way, would 9/11 have happened?)

As I understand it, these phone calls were not from US to US....they were from the US to KNOWN terrorist cells, and from KNOWN terrorist cells to the US.. None of the taps originated in the US according to what I've heard.


Will he be impeached? The Democrats sure hope so, but I doubt it. No advisor would hang the boss out to dry like that without some kind of law backing it up...............................................
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:30:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ClayP:
This is a pile of horseshit. No attacks on US soil since 9/11 and the libtards want to spank-off over this.


hey, damage is done! how many people actually read up on this and really know wtf is going on? macman37 and how many others? certainly not the poster of this thread! hahahahahaha
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:04 AM EDT
Umm No!


Impeachent doesnt mean anything anymore anyways, we impeached slick willy and he stayed right there in the oval office.

But GWB will not be impeached.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By macman37:
Nope

This is just another red herring thrown about by the Democrats. They really need to watch themselves: Someday they'll swindle their way back into power and the Republicans will do the same thing to them. Only then, it won't be "fair" and they'll be "playing partisan politics..."



Do you really think this is just another political witch hunt? Have you been paying attention to the reactions from Congressional Republicans?



I'm seeing - from the link you provided - that there are more Senators on both sides complaining about this than Congresspeople. Makes sense, since Congress was in on it from the start.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bubblehead597:
NO. Where's the poll? We are wasting bandwidth here man!



Added, just for you.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By archer2:
The law allowing it was signed by Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. Clinton used it repeatedly, probably for something much less than a war...( if he had used it the right way, would 9/11 have happened?)

As I understand it, these phone calls were not from US to US....they were from the US to KNOWN terrorist cells, and from KNOWN terrorist cells to the US.. None of the taps originated in the US according to what I've heard.


Will he be impeached? The Democrats sure hope so, but I doubt it. No advisor would hang the boss out to dry like that without some kind of law backing it up...............................................



+1 Also if this was such a bombshell, how come the story was held onto for a full year before the NYT decided to run it?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:34:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gaz:

Originally Posted By archer2:
The law allowing it was signed by Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. Clinton used it repeatedly, probably for something much less than a war...( if he had used it the right way, would 9/11 have happened?)

As I understand it, these phone calls were not from US to US....they were from the US to KNOWN terrorist cells, and from KNOWN terrorist cells to the US.. None of the taps originated in the US according to what I've heard.


Will he be impeached? The Democrats sure hope so, but I doubt it. No advisor would hang the boss out to dry like that without some kind of law backing it up...............................................



+1 Also if this was such a bombshell, how come the story was held onto for a full year before the NYT decided to run it?



Because the White House asked them to.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:35:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 6:36:04 AM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]
Impeached? By a Republican House and Senate? With no attacks on US soil since 9/11? And Iraq getting better every day? And the US economy staying relatively strong given the event of the last four years?

Are you serious?



ETA: Where's that .gif of the two Japanese girls laughing at somebody?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:36:44 AM EDT
Survey says........................... NO impeachment....... Thanks for playing... Nothing to see here... Move along....
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:36:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Impeached? By a Republican House and Senate? With no attacks on US soil since 9/11? And Iraq getting better every day? And the US economy staying relatively strong given the event of the last four years?

Are you serious?




Yes. Illegal is illegal. I mean, I suppose that a Republican Congress could shield him from impeachment, but they may pay a heavy price to do so.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:38:44 AM EDT
but nothing was illegal, right?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:39:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Yes. Illegal is illegal. I mean, I suppose that a Republican Congress could shield him from impeachment, but they may pay a heavy price to do so.


Like the Republican Congress paid after not convicting Bill Clinton during his impeachment?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:45:04 AM EDT
He will be demoted to INS agent on the Arizona/Mexico border.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:45:58 AM EDT
NO. It's possible that some of our Congressmen/Women had their hands in the cookie jar. I heard that the majority of Americans support Bush in doing this. Carter and Clinton did domestic spying. Clinton's purpose in spying was to destroy political opponents not to fight terrorism.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:47:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 6:53:10 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Pay no attention to the solid US economy.

Brush aside the success of Bush's tax cuts on stimulating economic growth and individual financial prosperity and opportunities for all Americans.

Ignore the fact that there've been no major terrorist strikes on US soil since 9-11.

Disregard the successful and history-making free and open elections in Iraq (first in any Arab Muslim nation).

Minimize the incredible success of the Iraq War by inflating the impact of terrorist attacks there.

Discount polls showing the MAJORITY of Iraqis feel more secure and more confident now than living under Saddam Hussein.

And most importantly, conveniently neglect to tell the public that Clinton and Carter ALSO used surveillence on US citizens and that international calls monitored OUTSIDE the US need no warrant.



Gee, what EVER is there to talk about nowadays!??

Hey, let's follow where the finger of the apolitical, unbiased and objective "journalists" of the mainstream media point and see what THEY want us to focus on!!!




Never forget:
The news media don't control you what to think, they just control what you think about.

Texas Air National Guard Memos

Downing Street Memos

Valerie Plame's "outing"

"Illegal" surveillance of US citizens

Next?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:48:28 AM EDT
No! And for those contestants not appearing on stage, we have some nice parting gifts from our sponsors!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:02:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Pay no attention to the solid US economy.

Brush aside the success of Bush's tax cuts on stimulating economic growth and individual financial prosperity and opportunities for all Americans.

Ignore the fact that there've been no major terrorist strikes on US soil since 9-11.

Disregard the successful and history-making free and open elections in Iraq (first in any Arab Muslim nation).

Minimize the incredible success of the Iraq War by inflating the impact of terrorist attacks there.

Discount polls showing the MAJORITY of Iraqis feel more secure and more confident now than living under Saddam Hussein.

And most importantly, conveniently neglect to tell the public that Clinton and Carter ALSO used surveillence on US citizens and that international calls monitored OUTSIDE the US need no warrant.



Gee, what EVER is there to talk about nowadays!??

Hey, let's follow where the finger of the apolitical, unbiased and objective "journalists" of the mainstream media point and see what THEY want us to focus on!!!




Never forget:
The news media don't control you what to think, they just control what you think about.

Texas Air National Guard Memos

Downing Street Memos

Valerie Plame's "outing"

"Illegal" surveillance of US citizens

Next?



+1
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:04:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Impeached? By a Republican House and Senate? With no attacks on US soil since 9/11? And Iraq getting better every day? And the US economy staying relatively strong given the event of the last four years?

Are you serious?




Yes.



Then you're stoned.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:04:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
And most importantly, conveniently neglect to tell the public that Clinton and Carter ALSO used surveillence on US citizens and that international calls monitored OUTSIDE the US need no warrant.



As you note, this is most important, at least in terms of public opinion. So why aren't we hearing these things from the Right?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:06:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
And most importantly, conveniently neglect to tell the public that Clinton and Carter ALSO used surveillence on US citizens and that international calls monitored OUTSIDE the US need no warrant.



As you note, this is most important, at least in terms of public opinion. So why aren't we hearing these things from the Right?



It was secret! They didn't know about it!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:58:56 AM EDT
^
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:05:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Impeached? By a Republican House and Senate? With no attacks on US soil since 9/11? And Iraq getting better every day? And the US economy staying relatively strong given the event of the last four years?

Are you serious?




Yes. Illegal is illegal. I mean, I suppose that a Republican Congress could shield him from impeachment, but they may pay a heavy price to do so.



It's not illegal, read the rest of the posts and listen to Rush once in a while he dismantles it all.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:15:34 AM EDT
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation. But impeaching a president who lied about getting a blowjob when we should not have been asking in the FIRST PLACE is just fine. Talk about a group of hypocrits
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:22:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation. But impeaching a president who lied about getting a blowjob when we should not have been asking in the FIRST PLACE is just fine. Talk about a group of hypocrits



That's 90% of the people on this board. Aside from owning guns and being an ardent gun rights supporter I don't think I have anything in common with most of them. They claim to be pro-civil liberties but then they support this and the Patriot act, they don't care about being lied to over Iraq.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:24:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation.


US Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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."

Any rational reading of the 4th Amendment would conclude that there ARE "reasonable" searches that can be conducted without warrants, otherwise the FFs would not have qualified that whole amendment with the word "unreasonable".

Therefore, monitoring international calls and emails sent to terrorists in Pakistan, Syria or Saudi Arabia or to other known Al Qaeda operatives and leaders is not necessarily "unreasonable" and thus, not necessarily unconstitutional either.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:26:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Impeached? By a Republican House and Senate? With no attacks on US soil since 9/11? And Iraq getting better every day? And the US economy staying relatively strong given the event of the last four years?

Are you serious?




Yes. Illegal is illegal. I mean, I suppose that a Republican Congress could shield him from impeachment, but they may pay a heavy price to do so.



It's not illegal, read the rest of the posts and listen to Rush once in a while he dismantles it all.



What has Rush said about the legality of this? I work everyday when his show is on.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:28:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation. But impeaching a president who lied about getting a blowjob when we should not have been asking in the FIRST PLACE is just fine. Talk about a group of hypocrits



Sure, let's talk about your hypocrtical Democratic friends.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:29:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DLoken:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation. But impeaching a president who lied about getting a blowjob when we should not have been asking in the FIRST PLACE is just fine. Talk about a group of hypocrits



That's 90% of the people on this board. Aside from owning guns and being an ardent gun rights supporter I don't think I have anything in common with most of them. They claim to be pro-civil liberties but then they support this and the Patriot act, they don't care about being lied to over Iraq.



Yeah, since we don't agree with your interpretation of what happened, we must not "care about being lied to." You're the one swallowing the lies, sheep-boy.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:30:41 AM EDT
I just hope that I am never labled a "know terrorist". Remember my decent as we travel down the slipery slope.

Anyone want to know what the hardest book to teach middle schoolers is these days?

1984.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:32:35 AM EDT
Why would he be impeached? DC sees the constitution as a old piece of paper, it doesnt mean anything if it doesnt follow their best interests. That goes for both sides, republican and democrat.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:33:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
First off, I've voted for every Republican Presidential candidate I could, beginning with Reagan and including GWB twice. I re-entered the military after 9/11 and served on active duty for 18 months in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have several friends still over there. I detest the left on a number of levels and for a number of reasons.

But this "domestic spying" story may prove to be the downfall of President Bush. This article, with its many references, encapsulates the arguments by all parties as to whether his authorization of warrant-less wiretaps was legal. From what I've read to this point, the Administration's arguments for legality are very shaky. Congressional hearings will bring out many more details.

Next year could be very bad for President Bush and very bad for the nation.



No, everything he did is 100% legal, and 100% appropriate....

Since 1978 it has been COMPLETELY legal under FISA to do EXACTLY what has been done here...

There is no need to get a warrant for wiretaps used in gathering foreign intelegence.... And it's still foreign intelegence so long as one party involved is a foreigner....
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:33:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By killingmachine123:
I just hope that I am never labled a "know terrorist". Remember my decent as we travel down the slipery slope.

Anyone want to know what the hardest book to teach middle schoolers is these days?



From your post, I would guess The Little Brown Book of Composition.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:35:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 8:36:46 AM EDT by CastorTroy]
wiretaps with no due process and no oversight are not reasonable. simple as that

*eta* lol my hypocrit democrat friends. because i think bush is a piece of shit, i *must* be a liberal commie asshole. */eta*
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:39:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 8:46:46 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Impeached? By a Republican House and Senate? With no attacks on US soil since 9/11? And Iraq getting better every day? And the US economy staying relatively strong given the event of the last four years?

Are you serious?




Yes. Illegal is illegal. I mean, I suppose that a Republican Congress could shield him from impeachment, but they may pay a heavy price to do so.



One problem with that... there was absolutely NOTHING illegal done.

Saying something is that is legal is illegal over and over does not magically change the fact it was legal.

This is nothing new Clinton authorized far more intrusive DOMESTIC spying without warrants.


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


Remember who Jamie S. Gorelick is…
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:40:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation.


US Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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."

Any rational reading of the 4th Amendment would conclude that there ARE "reasonable" searches that can be conducted without warrants, otherwise the FFs would not have qualified that whole amendment with the word "unreasonable".

Therefore, monitoring international calls and emails sent to terrorists in Pakistan, Syria or Saudi Arabia or to other known Al Qaeda operatives and leaders is not necessarily "unreasonable" and thus, not necessarily unconstitutional either.




Exactly....

Did you know that under certain circumstances your car can be searched without consent and without a warrant? The Supreme Court has held this to be legal...

Further, the 'searches' conducted in this case can be held to not be searches of 'the people of the United States', but rather of suspected FOREIGN terrorists who are not 'the People of the United States'. That the communications have an American party involved is irrelevant...
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:52:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DLoken:

Originally Posted By CastorTroy:
Yes, impeaching a president who authorized illegal wiretaps, violating the constitution, would be very bad for the nation. But impeaching a president who lied about getting a blowjob when we should not have been asking in the FIRST PLACE is just fine. Talk about a group of hypocrits



That's 90% of the people on this board. Aside from owning guns and being an ardent gun rights supporter I don't think I have anything in common with most of them. They claim to be pro-civil liberties but then they support this and the Patriot act, they don't care about being lied to over Iraq.


that's kinda harsh. the patriot act is in response to a very real and ongoing threat. it IS unuusal and DOES invade our privacy to an extent, BUT IT'S NECESSARY TO FIGHT THE WAR! that's why it had a built in time limit. congress is seeing to it that those time limits stay intact and aren't made permanent (as bush wants to do). i don't like the patriot act but i'm willing to put up with it until it's no longer necessary.

as for bush lying about the war? that's assinine and totally ignores the facts.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top