FISA Court to monitor domestic spying program

MMDad

Lem Putt
AndyMarquisLIVE said:
Show me 5 solid and hardcore examples of where WMD were found after the war. And I don't want to see stuff about 20 year-old busted up missiles that "could" reach Israel.
So 4 hardcore examples would not be enough to convince you? How stupid are you? Never mind, you just answered that.

If I showed you that he had Sarin, Nerve Gas, Anthrax and a Nuke, would you still say he didn't have anything since there were only 4? One example proves it, dummy.

As for the missles, do you only want proof newer than 20 years ago? Guess what. He proved it. Repeatedly. Less than 20 years ago. If you are too stupid to know that, it is not my job to educate you.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad said:
Those that were briefed about Bush's domestic spying program were not allowed to talk about it. What they thought about the legality of it at the time is irrelevent...they weren't in a position to do/say anything about it.
Ahhh yes... Secrets in the midst of war. Who ever heard of such a thing? :rolleyes:
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
Ahhh yes... Secrets in the midst of war. Who ever heard of such a thing? :rolleyes:

What the heck is wrong with you? An extra bowl of of "Stupidos" for breakfast?


PsyOps said:
And my question to you on this is, after the democrats backed this war in Afghanistan and Iraq and received briefings on the wiretapping deal and was silent about the legality of it, why are THEY doing a 180 on the matter? Change of heart or lack of resolve?

It was you who seems to have a problem with them being silent on the confidential briefings, not I.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad said:
What the heck is wrong with you? An extra bowl of of "Stupidos" for breakfast?




It was you who seems to have a problem with them being silent on the confidential briefings, not I.
You folks from the left have no concept of how to fight a war. So the same question I throw back at you. What I am trying to say is CONGRESS WAS BRIEFED; BUSH DID NOTHING ILLEGAL.
 
Last edited:

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
You folks from the left have no concept of how to fight a war. So the same question I throw back at you. What I am trying to say is CONGRESS WAS BRIEFED; BUSH DID NOTHING ILLEGAL.

Oh great...this is where this goes into the "talking in circles" phase, is it? :bigwhoop: Okay. I'm just going to copy and paste my earlier comments from this thread if that's what you want to do.

Kerad said:
"The Bushies desperately tried to get the 109th to retroactively legalize his domestic spying program in the final days. Now why, exactly, would you need to legalize something that is already legal? Why do you think he pulled this 180 on the matter? Because he is/was about to get his ass handed to him over it...that's why."

The "legality" of the program isn't primarily about brieifing Congress...it's about the whole domestic spying without a FISA warrant.
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
Kerad said:
Oh great...this is where this goes into the "talking in circles" phase, is it? :bigwhoop: Okay. I'm just going to copy and paste my earlier comments from this thread if that's what you want to do.



The "legality" of the program isn't primarily about brieifing Congress...it's about the whole domestic spying without a FISA warrant.

Bushie has special powers, don't you know. He can do whatever he wants, kind of like the Supreme Chancellor in Star Wars. :killingme
 

Kerad

New Member
AndyMarquisLIVE said:
Bushie has special powers, don't you know. He can do whatever he wants, kind of like the Supreme Chancellor in Star Wars. :killingme

Silly me...I forgot. :doh:
 

Kerad

New Member
Severa said:
Of course, NO other administration has had monitoring of domestic calls....
Right?

Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

and another source for those on the board that are so quick to dismiss Newsmax...

Ex-Snoop confirms Echelon Network

Oh geez...this again. Gotta let those already debunked talking points of desperation go.

As members of Congress from both parties continued to criticize the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping yesterday, the Republican National Committee issued a news release portraying the critics as Democrats seeking to "play politics again with national security."

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

Once again, if Bush's domestic spying program was/is legal, why did he he flip-flop on this?
 

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
Kerad said:
Oh geez...this again. Gotta let those already debunked talking points of desperation go.



Once again, if Bush's domestic spying program was/is legal, why did he he flip-flop on this?

Kerad, don't you know? The Washington Post is a liberal newspaper. Anything reported by The Washington Post isn't true. :rolleyes:
 

Kerad

New Member
Severa said:
No I am not kidding. You've asked for proof in matters before. Let's see what you can show me.

I asked if you are kidding because this newly announced acceptance of FISA oversight is directly against the position the Bushies have maintained ever since news of his program first broke.

Y'know...the reason there was controversy to begin with.

There is nothing for me to prove.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Kerad said:
I asked if you are kidding because this newly announced acceptance of FISA oversight is directly against the position the Bushies have maintained ever since news of his program first broke.

Y'know...the reason there was controversy to begin with.

There is nothing for me to prove.
This isn't about flip-flopping as if Bush realized the error of his ways. He caved under pressure. Perhaps this will be better now the naysayers can shut up about it. Bush will go on getting his taps, it will only take hours - perhaps days - as apposed to on the spot. The target may get caught, then again they may not. And if they do and some attack on the US is committed, guess who will get blamed by you?
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
This isn't about flip-flopping as if Bush realized the error of his ways. He caved under pressure. Perhaps this will be better now the naysayers can shut up about it. Bush will go on getting his taps, it will only take hours - perhaps days - as apposed to on the spot. The target may get caught, then again they may not. And if they do and some attack on the US is committed, guess who will get blamed by you?

FISA allows for retroactive warrants....always have. Surveillance can be initiated immediately, and you can get the warrants after you're already tracking the bad guys. This is why the "time is of the essence" argument is utterly rediculous.
 

Kerad

New Member
PsyOps said:
This isn't about flip-flopping as if Bush realized the error of his ways. He caved under pressure.

The pressure of knowing he was doing something illegal, and wasn't going to get away with it anymore.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Kerad said:
The pressure of knowing he was doing something illegal, and wasn't going to get away with it anymore.
That's ridiculous and you know it. But it sure does make him look like a putz, doesn't it? :lol:
 

Kerad

New Member
vraiblonde said:
That's ridiculous and you know it. But it sure does make him look like a putz, doesn't it? :lol:

I respecfully disagree with you on the first part. If anything, his "sudden" change in attitude dispels any doubt I may have had about the illegality of it.
 
Top