COURT: NSA Wiretaps Must End - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 02:54 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Do you believe that the administration had the approval of the Senate Intelligence Committee to engage in this wiretap activity?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 02:57 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanStar
Do you believe that the administration had the approval of the Senate Intelligence Committee to engage in this wiretap activity?
Senator Jay Rockefeller released a sealed 7/03 letter that warned of “profound oversight issues” with warrant-less spying program: he stated, “For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresents the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.”

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #23 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 03:13 PM
guage
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstone
Senator Jay Rockefeller released a sealed 7/03 letter that warned of “profound oversight issues” with warrant-less spying program: he stated, “For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresents the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.”
New York Times, 1/19/06
post #24 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 03:29 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
rstone's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by guage
New York Times, 1/19/06
Which also cited on that same day... in a separate report from the one described above, the Congressional Research Office concluded that “the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance")

"Protecting the Constitution vs Presidental powers is not about terrorism, but of doing what is right vs. what is easy. I choose doing right... where do you stand?"
rstone is offline  
post #25 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 04:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
I was listening to a talk-radio program where the comment was made that it was exactly this type of surveillance that the UK authorities used to track the perpetrators and break open the plot to bring down the airliners.

I'm really glad the ACLU has no power in the UK.

I've become ashamed to admit that I was once a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Last I checked the people we got rid of so we could have a free country was the British. Again, thick skulled right wing dolts, no one is saying we cannot have survelliance. The only thing that is being asked for is that survelliance of Americans by any governmental agency be reviewed by a court and that a warrant is issued describing exactly what and who is to be surveilled. NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO NON-US CITIZENS. IT APPLIES TO US CITIZENS ONLY YOU AM RADIO KOOLAID DRINKING MORONS. The FISA law allows these warrants to be obtained two days after the survelliance has occurred. Gregs210, instead of whining about your talk radio fascist asshole pals, why don't you tell us why this would produce any different results from what you claim the British do (which is probably bullshit anyway if you heard on AM radio) ? What is the big problem with getting a warrant? Why is Bush fighting having to get warrants, even retro active ones tooth and nail? Could it possibly be that the Plame-outing, WMD lying, McCain "nigger baby" smearing scumbag fascist fuck really wants to spy on his political opponents ?

This is what the Constitution says:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

You don't like it, move to Iran where you can hang out with a million other fascist bootlicks.

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 08-17-2006 at 04:15 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #26 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 04:11 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '01 C320
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
I guess my point is that I'm still willing to give up some of my freedoms in light of global terrorism and this is a perfect example that the surveillance does in fact work. I don't know if they had enough to get a warrant under US standards, I'm just glad the case didn't arise here.
I can't believe you admit to this. Its this kind of nanny state bed wetting mentality that is allowing the erosion of our freedom, the trampling of the constitution, and eventually the downfall of our nation. I'm ashamed to share this country with people like you.

Look at how muddled your thinking is. You don't KNOW if it they would have had enough for a warrant here to stop such an attack but your already willing to give up your freedom. What's the point? You don't want freedom and want to be SAFE (save me from those bad men government), move to somewhere else. America was founded based on an individuals right to these freedoms you so willingly give away. Millions of our countrymen have died defending those freedoms, and you relinquish them because MAYBE they will keep you safe from a terrorist attack? Sickening. Realistically, your chances of dying in a terrorist attack is somewhere around 1 in 10 million but you'll consent to a big brother state in order to avoid it.

Generally you seem like a reasonable person Gregs, I suggest you reevaluate your values.
That Guy is offline  
post #27 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 04:26 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
Uh, it's a little early to conclude that it's actually illegal. NSA contends otherwise and it is on appeal. Judges actually have been found to be wrong on their interpretations and applications of the law. Of course, so have government agencies.

I guess my point is that I'm still willing to give up some of my freedoms in light of global terrorism and this is a perfect example that the surveillance does in fact work. I don't know if they had enough to get a warrant under US standards, I'm just glad the case didn't arise here. Hmmm...maybe if it's a global issue we can just farm all of our surveillance to the UK and then there's no US issue. After all, I suspect other governments already spy on us all the time.
Again, you claim that "survelliance does work". Of course it works. You really don't have any of this figured out do you? This is what happens when you fill your brain full of AM radion soundbite thinking. It's like stuffing shit into your ears and hoping ice cream comes out your ass. Again, survelliance is not the issue, the issue is this:

"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this nation apart ... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which make the defense of the nation worthwhile."

That is what the judge said. You keep repeating this doltish bullshit that somehow this prevents survelliance. What a fucking drone.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #28 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 04:39 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
Old300D, you still don't get that you don't know me. I have a general distrust of government, period (and politicians, particularly), and it didn't start with Clinton or end with Bush. That said, I'll always trust the government more than I will criminals and particularly terrorists.

Let's assume all things terrorist continue the way they have, so that busses start exploding in your neighborhood with suicide bombers. Will you still be upset that the government might be bending the rules to try and apprehend these jackals before they strike again? How far does your apparent distrust extend?
I concede I don't know you. I certainly do not have any quotes from you from 8 years ago, so I apologize that I included you in my generalization. But my point is the current administration is politicizing the security issue instead of actually doing anything about security. I can provide numerous examples if you like. If they cannot stay within the existing laws, why do they not make a case for expanding the laws instead of breaking them and only telling us about it after they've been outed? That is my case for not trusting them.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #29 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 04:43 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
They ARE operating w/in the law and the Constitution! Just because a very liberal judge, citing several other very liberal judges, says it is not DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!!! Let's wait until it has been fully adjudicated, including consolidation of all cases and appellate court decisions, and probably Supreme Court consideration and possible new Congressional action before we declare them GUILTY!!

If the left-wingnuts were running things in GB, 3,000 to 4,000 people would probably be laying dead at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean right now. The only thing the left-wingnuts seem to support is a war on Wal-Mart. God help us all if the world ever starts to take any of you seriously.
Oh, there you go. You are the first one to implement the "liberal" judge defense (read activist). What else is Rush saying?

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #30 of 151 (permalink) Old 08-17-2006, 04:44 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old300D
I concede I don't know you. I certainly do not have any quotes from you from 8 years ago, so I apologize that I included you in my generalization. But my point is the current administration is politicizing the security issue instead of actually doing anything about security. I can provide numerous examples if you like. If they cannot stay within the existing laws, why do they not make a case for expanding the laws instead of breaking them and only telling us about it after they've been outed? That is my case for not trusting them.
The Nexus of Politics and Terror

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    NSA: We are Powerless! rstone Off-Topic 2 08-09-2006 09:37 AM
    Culture of Corruption: GOP aides Iraqi funds theft, White House stonewall on wiretaps FeelTheLove Off-Topic 2 05-11-2006 11:41 AM
    Security Expert Says Microsoft Placed NSA Backdoor In Windows. firstmb Off-Topic 9 04-08-2006 05:01 PM
    EFF suing AT&T for helping NSA illegally spy on Americans MBL87560SEC Off-Topic 2 01-31-2006 10:25 PM
    NYT: NSA Spying Broader Than Bush Admitted firstmb Off-Topic 1 12-23-2005 11:55 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome