Tell me this is bull-shit

[eyez0nme]

Polling Shows Americans Support President Bush's Decision On Wire Tapping:

"(A Rasmussen Reports Survey Found) Sixty-Four Percent (64 percent) Of Americans Believe The National Security Agency (NSA) Should Be Allowed To Intercept Telephone Conversations Between Terrorism Suspects In Other Countries And People Living In The United States … Just 23 percent Disagree." (Rasmussen Reports' Web site, http://www.rasmussenreports.com, Accessed 1/6/06)

Eighty-One Percent (81 percent) Of Republicans Believe The NSA Should Be Allowed To Listen In On Conversations Between Terror Suspects And People Living In The United States. That View Is Shared By 51 percent Of Democrats ..." (Rasmussen Reports' Web site, http://www.rasmussenreports.com, Accessed 1/6/06)

The FISA Court Does Not Provide Flexibility Needed To Fight The War On Terrorism:

President Bush: "(T)he (9/11) Commission Criticized Our Nation's Inability To Uncover Links Between Terrorists Here At Home And Terrorists Abroad. Two Of The Terrorist Hijackers Who Flew A Jet Into The Pentagon, Nawaf Al Hamzi And Khalid Al Mihdhar, Communicated While They Were In The United States To Other Members Of Al Qaeda Who Were Overseas." (President Bush, Radio Address, Washington, D.C., 12/17/05)

9/11 Commission Report: "On January 15, (2000) Hazmi And Mihdhar Arrived In Los Angeles. ... After The Pair Cleared Immigration And Customs At Los Angeles International Airport, We Do Not Know Where They Went. ... We Do Not Pick Up Their Trail Until February 1, 2000 ..." ("Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States," The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "The Operators Out At NSA Tell Me That We Don't Have The Speed And The Agility That We Need, In All Circumstances, To Deal With This New Kind Of Enemy. You Have To Remember That FISA Was Passed By The Congress In 1978. There Have Been Tremendous Advances In Technology ... Since Then." (Attorney General Gonzales, Press Conference, 12/19/05)

The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol: "Remember Moussaoui? Remember August 2001? The FBI Wanted To Go To The FISA Court To Get Surveillance Capabilities Based On What They Found On His Computer, And The Justice Department Decided No. Now, The Patriot Act Did Not Change That Standard Of FISA ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 12/18/05)

Kristol: "I Wish Bill Clinton Had Done This. I Wish We Had Tapped The Phones Of The People Of Mohammed Atta Here Into The United States If We Discovered Phone Calls From Afghanistan To Him. That Was Why 9/11 Happened. That's What Connecting The Dots Is." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 12/18/05)

9/11 Commission Report: "The Agents In Minnesota Were Concerned That The U.S. Attorney's Office In Minneapolis Would Find Insufficient Probable Cause Of A Crime To Obtain A Criminal Warrant To Search Moussaoui's Laptop Computer. Agents At FBI Headquarters Believed There Was Insufficient Probable Cause. Minneapolis Therefore Sought A Special Warrant Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act To Conduct The Search ... FBI Headquarters Did Not Believe This Was Good Enough, And Its National Security Law Unit Declined To Submit A FISA Application." ("Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States," The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

Bush Administration's Wiretapping Authorization Has Been Successful:
"Officials Have Privately Credited The Eavesdropping With The Apprehension Of Lyman Faris, A Truck Driver Who Pleaded Guilty In 2003 To Planning To Blow Up The Brooklyn Bridge." (Peter Baker, "President Says He Ordered NSA Domestic Spying," The Washington Post, 12/18/05)

And who could've known fucking Clinton did the same exact thing Bush did.

Clinton/Gore Administration Used Warrantless Searches:
Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick: "(T)he Department Of Justice Believes, And The Case Law Supports, That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Physical Searches For Foreign Intelligence Purposes And That The President May, As Has Been Done, Delegate This Authority To The Attorney General." (Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 7/14/94)

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." (Charles Hurt, "'Warrantless' Searches Not Unprecedented," The Washington Times, 12/22/05)

"One Of The Most Famous Examples Of Warrantless Searches In Recent Years Was The Investigation Of CIA Official Aldrich H. Ames, Who Ultimately Pleaded Guilty To Spying For The Former Soviet Union. That Case Was Largely Built Upon Secret Searches Of Ames' Home And Office In 1993, Conducted Without Federal Warrants." (Charles Hurt, "'Warrantless' Searches Not Unprecedented," The Washington Times, 12/22/05)

President Bill Clinton: "(T)he Attorney General Is Authorized To Approve Physical Searches, Without A Court Order, To Acquire Foreign Intelligence Information For Periods Of Up To One Year ..." (President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 12949, "Foreign Intelligence Physical Searches," 2/9/95)

I want America to be destroyed.

[kyaa the catlord]

Holy crap, capitalization is NOT your friend.

[Crowley]

Land of the free! Land of the brave! Fuck yea!

[kyaa the catlord]

Hell, even Carter pulled this sort of BS. This isn't NEWS, its propaganda...

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.”

[Trump]

Tell you what? Why? You never respond to threads you start so what is the point?

[Zonehunter1]

He's like a news ticker!
all title's no substance!

[Crowley]

Hey, he's the forum equivalent of the teacher who loves his own voice. Give that man a megaphone.

[MFDub]

Take all polls with a grain of salt. Especially polls with a politcal agenda. Some things you need to know about the poll before they can be considered valid:

Question ordering.
Question phrasing.
Types of questions.
The questions themselves.
Sampling methods.
Sample make-up.
Results without analysis.
How those conclusions were drawn from the analysis.


It's very possible the poll had leading questions such as "Would you support the government tapping the phone lines of known terrorists for the sake of National security?" which skirts the issue and heavily pushes a positive response. Or, the results of the poll could have been analyzed in one way to get that response, but could also be analyzed in a different way. Perhaps people support the interception of phone calls between terrorists, but not the interception of phone calls in general. So, yes, it's entirely possible that that is bull-shit. We need more info on the polls themselves to find out.

[Zonehunter1]

Wouldn't that most likely mean a new poll?

[MFDub]

Wouldn't that most likely mean a new poll?

No, we just should receive as much information about the poll as possible. A good report of a poll would tell you, at least, the sample size, how they drew the sample, how they conducted the poll and the amount of error. Some even go so far as to give you a link to the full text of the poll, which I feel should be standard.

[Renter]

Two Of The Terrorist Hijackers Who Flew A Jet Into The Pentagon, Nawaf Al Hamzi And Khalid Al Mihdhar

Correction, supposedly flew a jet into etc.

Kristol: "I Wish Bill Clinton Had Done This. I Wish We Had Tapped The Phones Of The People Of Mohammed Atta Here Into The United States If We Discovered Phone Calls From Afghanistan To Him. That Was Why 9/11 Happened. That's What Connecting The Dots Is." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 12/18/05)

Ah, got to love idiots. 9/11 happened because the US government allowed it to happen -- I'm not making comments about how deep they were involved, however. No way to know.

*yawn* also, I just love the polls, "X% of Y think Z". Show me one poll that includes more than ten million people in America - which would still be about 4% of them. *sigh*

[Matt W]

MFDUB is right, its just the way the question is worded. Its a bullshit poll.

[MNJetter]

Too many capital letters.....head hurting.....

[FireWolf238]

there is onlyone thing you need to know about a poll: who pays/owns for it.

[Collapse]

Don't tell me I'll be seeing people commenting about the capitals. Come on, ignoring the all too obvious fact that 95% of the letters are capitals, I have to say that Bush steps up idiocy. I wonder the same people who agreed on this hubaloo will be smiling in a next couple of months if their conversations are tapped to hell and back.

Way to go, Bush. What, does the word "privacy" mean nothing nowadays? Again, I'm also speculating the double-sided issue of this one since it may help. Then again, I don't want someone wiretapping my conversation with a good friend for some bullshit.

[NERD]

I say it's time for eyez0nme to go, especially in the light of Bob and General Admission getting the boot recently.

[FireWolf238]

Don't tell me I'll be seeing people commenting about the capitals. Come on, ignoring the all too obvious fact that 95% of the letters are capitals, I have to say that Bush steps up idiocy. I wonder the same people who agreed on this hubaloo will be smiling in a next couple of months if their conversations are tapped to hell and back.

Way to go, Bush. What, does the word "privacy" mean nothing nowadays? Again, I'm also speculating the double-sided issue of this one since it may help. Then again, I don't want someone wiretapping my conversation with a good friend for some bullshit.

do you have any idea just how easy it is to tap your conversations if i suddenly decided to do so? for me it might be hard because i don't have any conections so i'll have to create make shift equipemt. phone lines can be tapped by almost anyone and everywhere, wireless calls are even simpler, and for all i care with enough money spent i can record every sound you make by recondring the vibrations of your window caused by sound waves.

[MrQ]

Wow, this is not rocket science people.

Imagine this scenerio for a moment.

Imagine your country was attacked by some fanatical muslims. These maniacs want to kill women, children, dogs, and even cats. They want your total destruction if you do not believe in what they believe.

Imagine your country knows the general hiding spots of these maniacs. Now imagine your country institutes a program that allows them to monitor phone calls to these places.

Now stop imagining. Its not a marvel that most people in this country would not mind this program if it will prevent further attacks. Seriously, get a grip.

[Bob]

Wow, this is not rocket science people.

Imagine this scenerio for a moment.

Imagine your country was attacked by some fanatical muslims. These maniacs want to kill women, children, dogs, and even cats. They want your total destruction if you do not believe in what they believe.

Imagine your country knows the general hiding spots of these maniacs. Now imagine your country institutes a program that allows them to monitor phone calls to these places.

Now stop imagining. Its not a marvel that most people in this country would not mind this program if it will prevent further attacks. Seriously, get a grip.

Its funny cause you're stupid.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible

[FireWolf238]

why? he is actually quite right. nicely said too MrQ

[ruaidhri]

MrQ
Like most Americans, I do not have any problems with our government protecting its citizens from any form of attack. I do not have a problem with our government tapping the phones or otherwise eavesdropping on people, including American citizens, that they believe might commit a terrorist act.

However, I do have a problem with our President illegally authorizing wiretaps on his own authority. Legally, only the courts can authorize wiretaps. I do not believe the courts would impede the executive from eavesdropping on anyone that presented a serious threat to our security. Our President chose to ignore that. That, to me, is wrong. I don’t believe anyone, including the President, should be above the law.

The way it looks to me the terrorist have accomplished their goal of changing America. They aren’t taking our freedoms and equal and fair protection away, President Bush, unless we stop him, will accomplish that goal for them.

[NERD]

Nice one ruaidhri.

[Kusoyaro]

It's the old privacy versus freedoms argument. I don`t care about tapping, since I hardly ever use the phone, net logging is slightly different, or would be if I were stupid enough to talk about my plans of world domination over MSN. The thing that bugs me is that America was supposed to protect the citizens from the government, that the small people were allowed to go about their business without direct intrference, which is why the Amendment to allow weapons was decreed, and put into the Constitution, so people could protect themselves. Now, of course, it is different in the sense that a gun or sword will not save your family against a nuclear bomb or jetplane. So, the government interevenes on behalf of the people and taps their wires and creates wars and spends billions on weapons research so that another 9/11 doesn't happen, though in comparison more people die in the US per day of violence and preventable causes (murder, drunk-driving, abuse, etc) than 9/11 (about 3000?, I can't remember).


Wow, this is not rocket science people.

Imagine this scenerio for a moment.

Imagine your country was attacked by some fanatical muslims. These maniacs want to kill women, children, dogs, and even cats. They want your total destruction if you do not believe in what they believe.

Imagine your country knows the general hiding spots of these maniacs. Now imagine your country institutes a program that allows them to monitor phone calls to these places.

Now stop imagining. Its not a marvel that most people in this country would not mind this program if it will prevent further attacks. Seriously, get a grip.

"I believe that all people in America are fat and stupid, they think evolution is evil, and believe that all the world must convert to Christianity."
That's what basically you sound like to me, only about Islamic fundementalist.

A problem with our society which hasn't been talked about too much is that people (not in general) tend to view things as a or b. While the fact that fundementalists are motivated by certain things (that can be deemed justifiable) is common knowledge, however these people tend to rely on the principle of self-destiny, saying that evil is still evil. That a (in this case muslim) nation that has been fucked over again and again by the West should still remain stoic and "good (in the purely subjective New Testament Christian notion)," with not a vengeful bone in their bodies. I hate what they did to all those people (a friend of mines' sister was one of the ones who jumped out) and it pisses me off that they use general terrorism (as opposed to Guerrilla warfare) to achieve their goals and spread their message, but it pisses me off also (much less, mind you, but still) that people who aren't ignorant force themselves to believe that such people are inhuman (so they an justify their rage and hatred in a world where such feelings are strictly monitored and frowned upon?).

I don't know, I just got really mad when I read that, dude. Sorry if I sound like a bastard.

PS - In case you're wondering, I'm not middle-eastern, nor am I Muslim, and for sure I'm not a (bleeding-heart) hippie liberal doss...

[MrQ]

Its funny cause you're stupid.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible


Nice one. Your intelligence truly shines. Nothing to add to the topic, just a dumb post directed towards me. How old are you, 13?

To ruadhi, kusoharo, and nerd, Ive been honestly trying to reply yet it keeps locking up on me. Very soon you will get your response.

[ams]

I do not support it. If this article is true, its probably because they dont know what the hell it is. Legal action against the president WOO!

[MrQ]

"I believe that all people in America are fat and stupid, they think evolution is evil, and believe that all the world must convert to Christianity."
That's what basically you sound like to me, only about Islamic fundementalist.

A problem with our society which hasn't been talked about too much is that people (not in general) tend to view things as a or b. While the fact that fundementalists are motivated by certain things (that can be deemed justifiable) is common knowledge, however these people tend to rely on the principle of self-destiny, saying that evil is still evil. That a (in this case muslim) nation that has been fucked over again and again by the West should still remain stoic and "good (in the purely subjective New Testament Christian notion)," with not a vengeful bone in their bodies. I hate what they did to all those people (a friend of mines' sister was one of the ones who jumped out) and it pisses me off that they use general terrorism (as opposed to Guerrilla warfare) to achieve their goals and spread their message, but it pisses me off also (much less, mind you, but still) that people who aren't ignorant force themselves to believe that such people are inhuman (so they an justify their rage and hatred in a world where such feelings are strictly monitored and frowned upon?).

I don't know, I just got really mad when I read that, dude. Sorry if I sound like a bastard.

PS - In case you're wondering, I'm not middle-eastern, nor am I Muslim, and for sure I'm not a (bleeding-heart) hippie liberal doss...

What the hell are you talking about? How does a discussion about wiretapping equate to this stuff here. Im confused about what you are saying.

[MrQ]

However, I do have a problem with our President illegally authorizing wiretaps on his own authority. Legally, only the courts can authorize wiretaps. I do not believe the courts would impede the executive from eavesdropping on anyone that presented a serious threat to our security. Our President chose to ignore that. That, to me, is wrong. I don’t believe anyone, including the President, should be above the law.

Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. It would be a very crazy interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap or, more likely these days, electronically intercept their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century. To be 100% sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of "unreasonable" searches and seizures limits the president's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, "The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

And lets not forget this "In the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: "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."

The way it looks to me the terrorist have accomplished their goal of changing America. They aren’t taking our freedoms and equal and fair protection away, President Bush, unless we stop him, will accomplish that goal for them.

About your last statement, I have a story for you. I was sitting in class the other day when the professor was talking about 9/11 and the "domestic spying program" and how we are losing our freedoms. I asked her what freedom have you given up, cause I have given up nothing since 9/11. She couldnt answer. All this nonsense about losing freedoms is a bunch of garbage. More security in the airport doesnt equate to losing our rights.

People. President Bush is not your enemy(unless you are a fanatical muslim). When he screws up lets give him some honest criticism. All this hate mongering and crazy accusations every 5 minutes for the past 5 years needs to stop. Im getting tired of refuting all these untruths.

[Kusoyaro]

huh? no, no, i talked about wiretaping above this quotation, but then i qouted what u said and then want on some crazy rant. im sorry!
ps - your so hot

[MrQ]

huh? no, no, i talked about wiretaping above this quotation, but then i qouted what u said and then want on some crazy rant. im sorry!
ps - your so hot


Rant ok.. but I still have no idea what you are talking about? Its late here, so I am a bit tired. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

[Matt W]

[QUOTE=MrQ]Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. It would be a very crazy interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap or, more likely these days, electronically intercept their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century. To be 100% sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of "unreasonable" searches and seizures limits the president's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, "The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

I think your interpretation of the Constitution is very off, as does the Congressional Research Service, many members of Congress and many constitutional scholars. As you say, the Supreme Court has never ruled the President has a right to warrantless searches on American citizens, which is what is happening, so your foreign powers argument does not make sense to me. It is very dangerous to say that the President can just break the law because he says it is for national security. The FISA law is clear, you need a warrant within three days. The law came after Nixon's warrantless wiretaps against political enemies and others, which he justified for national security reasons. Nowhere in the Constitution does the president have the authority to break the law and take action against Americans because its war time. There are checks and balances, Congress writes the laws, the President cant just break them cause he thinks he has the right to.

[NERD]

People. President Bush is not your enemy(unless you are a fanatical muslim). When he screws up lets give him some honest criticism. All this hate mongering and crazy accusations every 5 minutes for the past 5 years needs to stop. Im getting tired of refuting all these "untruths."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Reasons

You mean these? Untruth, ha- so you already started speaking the doublespeak! Not so hard to see which side of the fence you come from.

The Prez is not our enemy, but I can also say that he is not representing his constituents accurately, especially since
a) his approval rate is in the gutters, but we know approval rates hardly matter in terms of dictating the presidents actions
b) and his lack of response to many charges that were drawn against him.

[Collapse]

do you have any idea just how easy it is to tap your conversations if i suddenly decided to do so? for me it might be hard because i don't have any conections so i'll have to create make shift equipemt. phone lines can be tapped by almost anyone and everywhere, wireless calls are even simpler, and for all i care with enough money spent i can record every sound you make by recondring the vibrations of your window caused by sound waves.


Well, don't you think I know? Christ, hell, sure, I don't know that such would be simple given with the proper materials!

[MrQ]

Matt W,

Good gosh man. How much more do I have to give you before you accept the ignorance of your position?

First, warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powesr were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jaimie Gorelick, testified to Congress, "The department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Also, in the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, said this: "President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to NSA to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and emails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents." Let me not forget what Justice Robert Jackson wrote as well. The Constitution, should not be interpreted in a way that makes it "a suicide pact." The notion that terrorists privacy must be respected when they place a cell-phone call to someone in the United States is in the nature of a suicide pact. The 4th Amendement ban on unreasonable searches and seizures in the US should not be stretched into a ban on intercpetions of communications from America's enemies abroad."

If this is STILL not enough for you, heres a link to Alberto Gonzales take on this (current Attorney General). Is my interpretation still wrong?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012926.php

[MrQ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Reasons

You mean these? Untruth, ha- so you already started speaking the doublespeak! Not so hard to see which side of the fence you come from.

The Prez is not our enemy, but I can also say that he is not representing his constituents accurately, especially since
a) his approval rate is in the gutters, but we know approval rates hardly matter in terms of dictating the presidents actions
b) and his lack of response to many charges that were drawn against him.


I didnt look at your link, but I was specifically referring to the nonsense constistently posted on the boards by various people. Like this one.

The thing I have found interesting over the past 6 years about Bush's presidency is that no matter what he says or does, he gets accused of lying, cheating, stealing, or killing. So what do I do as a rational, thinking man? I research and I THINK about it. Hard to find thinking people these days. Many people love to hop on the emotional bandwagon of foolishness.

[Matt W]

Matt W,

Good gosh man. How much more do I have to give you before you accept the ignorance of your position?

First, warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powesr were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jaimie Gorelick, testified to Congress, "The department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Also, in the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, said this: "President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to NSA to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and emails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents." Let me not forget what Justice Robert Jackson wrote as well. The Constitution, should not be interpreted in a way that makes it "a suicide pact." The notion that terrorists privacy must be respected when they place a cell-phone call to someone in the United States is in the nature of a suicide pact. The 4th Amendement ban on unreasonable searches and seizures in the US should not be stretched into a ban on intercpetions of communications from America's enemies abroad."

If this is STILL not enough for you, heres a link to Alberto Gonzales take on this (current Attorney General). Is my interpretation still wrong?

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012926.php

Of course Bush's Attorney General and former counsel agrees with Bush. He probably helped form the policy. Also, anyone can find lawyers who agree with one side or the other, those quotes are dont prove anything. I am not anti spying on terrorists, of course we should be doing that. I am anti warrantless spying on American citizens where we just have to trust in Bush and his people. Courts will give warrants if they are justified. THe FISA court approved more than 10000 warrants, and only denied like 4 or 5. If there are no checks it will be abused. Again, the Congressional Research Service, a non partisan arm of Congress, concluded that the Constitutional argument that Bush has this power is nonexistent, and many members of Congress, on both sides, dont think the President has the power, whether or not past Presidents have done it on certain occasions in the past. It is against the law. Also, nothing I am saying shows my ignorance of the facts, you just dont agree with me.

[MrQ]

Of course Bush's Attorney General and former counsel agrees with Bush. He probably helped form the policy. Also, anyone can find lawyers who agree with one side or the other, those quotes are dont prove anything. I am not anti spying on terrorists, of course we should be doing that. I am anti warrantless spying on American citizens where we just have to trust in Bush and his people. Courts will give warrants if they are justified. THe FISA court approved more than 10000 warrants, and only denied like 4 or 5. If there are no checks it will be abused. Again, the Congressional Research Service, a non partisan arm of Congress, concluded that the Constitutional argument that Bush has this power is nonexistent, and many members of Congress, on both sides, dont think the President has the power, whether or not past Presidents have done it on certain occasions in the past. It is against the law. Also, nothing I am saying shows my ignorance of the facts, you just dont agree with me.


You are proving your ignorance. Its clear you have not read anything I have posted. I listed democrats, experts in the law, various attorney generals doing and approving of this for the past 27 years and you still hell bent on saying he broke the law. Heres the last thing I am going to post in it. Its from the Senate Intelligence Chairman. Dont respond anymore to this, its obvious you dont care about the truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/espionage_and_intelligence

[MNJetter]

You know, Mr. Q, whether you're right or wrong, telling someone that they're ignorant or stupid is not going to make them more receptive to your arguments. And as a relatively impartial bystander, I can tell you that it makes you look less intelligent than him, regardless of the rest of the contents of your arguments. He's not taking any personal jabs, but is trying to keep the argument purely intellectual. Knock it off, will you?

[Bob]

Nice one. Your intelligence truly shines.

Thanks .

[MrQ]

You know, Mr. Q, whether you're right or wrong, telling someone that they're ignorant or stupid is not going to make them more receptive to your arguments. And as a relatively impartial bystander, I can tell you that it makes you look less intelligent than him, regardless of the rest of the contents of your arguments. He's not taking any personal jabs, but is trying to keep the argument purely intellectual. Knock it off, will you?

Uh.. I didnt call anyone stupid, its not a word I use much. Let me teach you something young buck, there is quite a difference in the language I use "remaining in your ignorance" and calling someone stupid. Let me break it down for you.

Lets say you know we landed on the moon some 45 years ago. You have proof of this. Yet, I tell you, "we have not landed on the moon, I do not believe it." You then proceed to give me proof of this, since I am quite ignorant of this truth. After receiving said proof, you tell me to either accept this evidence, or remain in my ignorance. Do you understand what this means? I believe it to be quite different than your response.

Why are you addressing me at all and not Bob? Hrmmm....

[Matt W]

You are proving your ignorance. Its clear you have not read anything I have posted. I listed democrats, experts in the law, various attorney generals doing and approving of this for the past 27 years and you still hell bent on saying he broke the law. Heres the last thing I am going to post in it. Its from the Senate Intelligence Chairman. Dont respond anymore to this, its obvious you dont care about the truth.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/espionage_and_intelligence

You seem to not understand that you are not giving me the "truth". You are giving me one side of the argument, which is fine its your opinion and its legitimate. You say you've listed all these people, so what? I could just as easily list Democrats, the vast majority of which disagree with you. I could just as easily find Republicans that disagree with you. I could just as easily find experts in the law, and various attorney generals of both parties that agree with my interpretation. There is no clear consensus yet about the legality of what Bush is doing. I think its illegal, many experts and lawmakers agree with me. You think its legal, the Presindent and some experts and lawmakers agree with you. The Republican controlled Congress is soon to have hearings on it, they obviously dont feel its as cut and dry as you. That's all I will say on this subject

[chgu]

Anyone else get the feeling that there's a propaganda machine within the ranks? I mean, this reminds me of "guerilla marketing", except with politics.

And I don't mean the eyezonme. ;)

[MNJetter]

Good gosh man. How much more do I have to give you before you accept the ignorance of your position?

You are proving your ignorance.

Dont respond anymore to this, its obvious you dont care about the truth.

I wasn't refering to the contents of your arguments, or of Matt's (Bob had nothing to do with what I was talking about. If anything, my hackles were raised because you snuck insults into what would otherwise be perfectly reasonable arguments, whereas Bob obviously had no intention of sounding intelligent). You could be right, he could be right, you could both be right. He could be the most ignorant person on the face of the earth.

My point was that when you call people names (founded or unfounded), or make otherwise insulting comments like the ones I quoted above, it doesn't help your argument any. It's bad debating ethics. And ignorance and stupidity are viewed in almost the same negative light. You might not have used both of them, but using either one is equally lowbrow in my book.

...and I am confused by the "young buck" comment. As for "young," I can't tell for sure, but judging from the average age of readers on this site, I'm pretty sure I'm probably either about the same age or older than you. And as for "buck," that's inappropriate, since I'm a girl. If you want to call me "possibly-about-the-same-age-as-me doe," that's fine with me, but it doesn't have quite the same ring.

Your posts for the most part were fine. It just sounded from the increasing insults like this thread was going to devolve into a flame war, and I didn't want to see that.

[MrQ]

I wasn't refering to the contents of your arguments, or of Matt's (Bob had nothing to do with what I was talking about. If anything, my hackles were raised because you snuck insults into what would otherwise be perfectly reasonable arguments, whereas Bob obviously had no intention of sounding intelligent). You could be right, he could be right, you could both be right. He could be the most ignorant person on the face of the earth.

My point was that when you call people names (founded or unfounded), or make otherwise insulting comments like the ones I quoted above, it doesn't help your argument any. It's bad debating ethics. And ignorance and stupidity are viewed in almost the same negative light. You might not have used both of them, but using either one is equally lowbrow in my book.

...and I am confused by the "young buck" comment. As for "young," I can't tell for sure, but judging from the average age of readers on this site, I'm pretty sure I'm probably either about the same age or older than you. And as for "buck," that's inappropriate, since I'm a girl. If you want to call me "possibly-about-the-same-age-as-me doe," that's fine with me, but it doesn't have quite the same ring.

Your posts for the most part were fine. It just sounded from the increasing insults like this thread was going to devolve into a flame war, and I didn't want to see that.

Thank you for your concern young lady. I assure you, I am fully aware of the ethics of debating. Unfortunately, you take the phrase I use negatively when its intended to mean much more than that. You are more then welcome to police my other forums.

BTW, I am almost 30. You are 23, which is why I used the term "young"

[c-rex]

Totally agree with Bush here, strange! Notice the key words "wiretapping of terror suspects". As in not random people or the local phone sex hotline, but people the CIA likely saw hanging out in Afghanistan, people how have large sums of money moving around electronically from accounts liked to al-Qaeda and so on and so forth. As for the NSA spying domestically I really doubt the NSA is such a pawn of the adminstration that it sits around and wiretaps Dean and dems for shits and giggles (notice Nixon had to hire his own people to do Watergate, a few washed up former CIA and FBI agents and Cuban exiles). Remember how 9-11 happened guys. The CIA had files inches thick on these dudes, but by law the CIA can't spy on people domestically. So when these guys cruised into the country and the FBI was too lazy to watch them the CIA couldn't do shit. If the NSA wants to listen to their cellphones to figure out where Osama is let them.

Should Mr. bush happen to read this thread, hey man you promised not to rest until we had Osama and it is going on five years. What the hell man?

[Lea]

Bush! LISTEN TO MY PHONE CONVOS! I'm talking about you... tehee!

Honestly though, I find it kind of annoying that Bush authorized this action himself. But if he really wants to shove his stupid monkey ass into my personal life, go ahead. I don't use the phone very much and when I do, it's not that interesting at all. If the government is really dying to listen to me call my friends about homework and such, fine. Just wasted time on their part.

....ugh... Bush is annoying.... :whoops: