User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:20:14 AM EDT
[#1]
what about the alphabet agencies that followed through with it? they should be held responsible too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:20:43 AM EDT
[#2]
No way. Not possible. The Bilderbergers would not allow it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:21:01 AM EDT
[#3]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:21:46 AM EDT
[#4]
This is a pile of horseshit. No attacks on US soil since 9/11 and the libtards want to spank-off over this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:22:05 AM EDT
[#5]
No
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:22:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Do you really think this is just another political witch hunt? Have you been paying attention to the reactions from Congressional Republicans? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:22:33 AM EDT
[#7]
Time to consult the magic
 "No" That was easy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:23:45 AM EDT
[#8]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:26:26 AM EDT
[#9]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:26:43 AM EDT
[#10]
Where was everyone's righteous indignation when Clinton was doing the same thing?
Look up Clinton's program called Echelon Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:27:16 AM EDT
[#11]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:27:51 AM EDT
[#12]
NO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:28:22 AM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:30:23 AM EDT
[#14]
NO. Where's the poll? We are wasting bandwidth here man!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:30:29 AM EDT
[#15]
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............................................... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:30:47 AM EDT
[#16]
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
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:04 AM EDT
[#17]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:20 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Added, just for you. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:32:45 AM EDT
[#20]
+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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:34:15 AM EDT
[#21]
Because the White House asked them to. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:35:09 AM EDT
[#22]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:36:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Survey says........................... NO impeachment....... Thanks for playing... Nothing to see here... Move along....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:36:45 AM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:38:44 AM EDT
[#25]
but nothing was illegal, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:39:01 AM EDT
[#26]
Like the Republican Congress paid after not convicting Bill Clinton during his impeachment? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:45:04 AM EDT
[#27]
He will be demoted to INS agent on the Arizona/Mexico border.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:45:58 AM EDT
[#28]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:47:01 AM EDT
[#29]
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. Next? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 6:48:28 AM EDT
[#30]
No! And for those contestants not appearing on stage, we have some nice parting gifts from our sponsors!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:02:48 AM EDT
[#31]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:04:13 AM EDT
[#32]
Then you're stoned. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:04:43 AM EDT
[#33]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:06:04 AM EDT
[#34]
It was secret!  They didn't know about it!
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 7:58:56 AM EDT
[#35]
^
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:05:17 AM EDT
[#36]
It's not illegal, read the rest of the posts and listen to Rush once in a while he dismantles it all. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:15:34 AM EDT
[#37]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:22:20 AM EDT
[#38]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:24:33 AM EDT
[#39]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:26:15 AM EDT
[#40]
What has Rush said about the legality of this? I work everyday when his show is on. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:28:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Sure, let's talk about your hypocrtical Democratic friends. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:29:42 AM EDT
[#42]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:30:41 AM EDT
[#43]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:32:35 AM EDT
[#44]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:33:22 AM EDT
[#45]
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.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:33:40 AM EDT
[#46]
From your post, I would guess The Little Brown Book of Composition. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:35:02 AM EDT
[#47]
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* |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:39:10 AM EDT
[#48]
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.
Remember who Jamie S. Gorelick is… |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:40:33 AM EDT
[#49]
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... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2005 8:52:12 AM EDT
[#50]
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. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
