A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 3 of 56 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1103

Thread: Bush's "Snoopgate"

  1. #41
    curmudgeon swampy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    [wakey]
    Posts
    2,775
    The baby was obviously wearing a thick jacket with wires hanging out of it and vaulting over subway barriers screaming "death to the infedel"
    "They're very much like scruffy pigs to look at, and they've got big, knobbly warts and lumps all over their long, hairy faces. They are very, very ugly indeed..."

  2. #42
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347

  3. #43
    Spartan Mop Warrior Loyal Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Pit of Despair
    Posts
    513
    One of the judges on the FISA court has now resigned in protest of Bush's illegal domestic wiretapping.
    The action by U.S. District Judge James Robertson stemmed from deep concern that the surveillance program that the president authorized was legally questionable and may have tainted the work of the court that Robertson resigned from,
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1150626.shtml
    ::
    "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN

    "Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick

  4. #44
    Spartan Mop Warrior Loyal Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The Pit of Despair
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    so what?
    I expected nothing less from you.
    Thanks for proving my point.

    Bush could burn the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, declare himself king and turn the USA into a theocratic police state and some people would continue to say "so what?" because the dirtbag has an R next to his name...
    ::
    "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN

    "Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick

  5. #45
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347
    The whole point is everyone screaming this is unprecidented at the top of their lungs.

    When it's not.

    Do you believe this is unprecidented?

  6. #46
    the Super B
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    The whole point is everyone screaming this is unprecidented at the top of their lungs.

    When it's not.

    Do you believe this is unprecidented?
    Why do you think Bush himself did not make the claim that this is not unprecedented?

    When he answered questions about this, he claimed that it was legal and constitutional, but he never argued that it was a routine action that has been undertaken by prior presidents.

    You do realize that not all warrantless searches are the same, right?

    There may be times in the law when such a thing is allowed. Just because at some point in the past another president authorized warrantless searches does not mean that what Bush has done is legal or constitutional.

  7. #47
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by haikumania
    Just because at some point in the past another president authorized warrantless searches does not mean that what Bush has done is legal or constitutional.
    I agree. I don't give the president a pass for doing what he did if it is illegal. It should be investigated and corrected if it was in fact illegal. There are definitely grey areas in what power the president has in a time of war.

    Just saying what would be unprecidented is impeaching him outright for doing so... not the fact that he did it. This is not the smoking gun the dems keep looking for that is going to 'bring the administration down'.... time after time and again.
    Last edited by admedia; 12-21-2005 at 11:25 AM.

  8. #48
    the Super B
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    I agree. I don't give the president a pass for doing what he did if it is illegal. It should be investigated and corrected if it was in fact illegal. There are definitely grey areas in what power the president has in a time of war.

    Just saying what would be unprecidented is impeaching him outright for doing so... not the fact that he did it. This is not the smoking gun the dems keep looking for that is going to 'bring the administration down'.... time after time and again.
    Well I agree that it should be investigated and if it turns out that it is illegal/unconstitutional then I would like to see him impeached.

    If it turns out that he acted within the law then we can turn the debate to whether we think that sort of spying is okay.

  9. #49
    the Super B
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    I agree. I don't give the president a pass for doing what he did if it is illegal. It should be investigated and corrected if it was in fact illegal. There are definitely grey areas in what power the president has in a time of war.
    I also have some concerns about the phrase "time of war".

    What exactly constitutes a time of war? Only hot wars? Did the Cold War count?

    If we use that phrase too loosely we wind up in a constant state of war and these "grey areas" of power for the President become undending.

  10. #50
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
    I expected nothing less from you.
    Just to clarify, the 'so what?' comment was directed at the fact my link was to Drudge, not the subject of this thread.

  11. #51
    Didn't do it. japangreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    \o/ |o| |o_ /o\
    Posts
    784
    (Gerbs, I posted about this in the 'Happy Xmas Mr. Bush' thread... glad to see someone else thought it was noteworthy...)

    My god. Just, really... my god. What the hell? Deflect, deny, and when that doesn't work, shoot the messenger. How many times do we have to see this until it gets old?

    Deflect: Clinton did it.
    Deny: It wasn't really illegal.
    Kill: What motive does the NY Times have to slander the Pres?

    It really makes me sick - and Indi, why the hell did you whip out Conyer's talking point? As Frets points out, no idea could be further from where our country was born. How in the hell can you say that with a straight face?

    The issue isn't that Bush authorized international wiretaps between 'Afghanistan to Georgia' as someone said on page one, these were domestic communications, either originating or terminating in the States. And, as we find out today, not always going outside our borders.

    And the standard deflection that 'Clinton did it too' is a crock: Clinton's Executive Order. For those of you getting your info from Drudge or other right-wing sites, this is probably what you've read:
    "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
    The part that they don't show you, and the full quote:
    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
    Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
    court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
    up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
    required by that section.
    FISA allows warrant-less spying for up to 3 days, provided that the proper channels are followed before that window closes. As has been pointed out, such request are very rarely turned down, and the system is constructed in such a way to allow rapid movements against targets.

    So then why, if the system lets you move immediately and does not present a significant obstacle to tapping in the first place, would you go around it? There's more to this story...
    Last edited by japangreg; 12-21-2005 at 11:53 AM.
    Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
    That was Zen - this is Tao.

  12. #52
    I Mastered Dead Technology TallGuyLittleCar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    looking for my lighter
    Posts
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
    The fact that the NSA does wiretaps either foreign or domestic isn't the issue here.
    The whole problem with this situation is that Bush decided to ignore the laws we have in place for wiretapping.
    the laws have never applied to the NSA as the NSA taps foreign communications. The question isn't wether this broke FISA, it is wether FISA was applicable to this situation. I know you and other don't much care fo the bush admin, i'm not a huge fan myself, but I think they are intelligent enough to cover their asses.
    ONLY RON PAUL AND ALUMINUM FOIL CAN SAVE YOU NOW!
    annoy your politician fairtax.org, a political forum

    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

  13. #53
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    And the standard deflection that 'Clinton did it too' is a crock: Clinton's Executive Order. For those of you getting your info from Drudge or other right-wing sites, this is probably what you've read:The part that they don't show you, and the full quote:
    That same link is posted on Drudge, it includes your bolded statement...
    I paid the most attention to Sec. 3.

    It's not just Clinton either.

  14. #54
    Didn't do it. japangreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    \o/ |o| |o_ /o\
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    That same link is posted on Drudge, it includes your bolded statement...
    The text on the page from Drudge:
    FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER

    Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

    Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
    Without going to the link, that's all you get.
    It's not just Clinton either.
    What, Carter? Again, what Drudge has:
    Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
    From the order:
    1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to prove electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
    And what does 1802(a) say?
    ...(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
    (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and...
    Source (you may have a donate screen, just click no - or donate, if you're so inclined...)
    Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
    That was Zen - this is Tao.

  15. #55
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    The text on the page from Drudge:Without going to the link, that's all you get.
    LOL, the headline links to the SAME COURT ORDER PAGE!!! Yea, if you just read one phrase under the LINKED HEADLINE, that's all your gonna get... my god...

    ok what about FDR and internment camps, what authority did that fall under?

  16. #56
    Didn't do it. japangreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    \o/ |o| |o_ /o\
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    LOL, the headline links to the SAME COURT ORDER PAGE!!! Yea, if you just read one phrase under the LINKED HEADLINE, that's all your gonna get... my god...
    And that's what most people end up taking away from it.

    Tell me honestly, did you click the link and read the order when you first say the headline, before my post?

    The point is the headline claims something that the real document doesn't support - then people end up arguing that point (as has happened in this thread). Can you deny that this has happened?
    ok what about FDR and internment camps, what authority did that fall under?
    ALERT!! ALERT!! DEFLECT!! DEFLECT!!



    Please (pretty, pretty please?) stay on subject here. FDR didn't do this. Carter didn't do this. Clinton didn't do this.

    Bush did. He's admitted it.

    Now, if you can, answer one simple question: why? FISA has been a historical push-over for these requests, and the Patriot act made it even more so. Why side-step a system you have already evicerated?
    Last edited by japangreg; 12-21-2005 at 01:14 PM.
    Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
    That was Zen - this is Tao.

  17. #57
    associate admedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    is
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    And that's what most people end up taking away from it.

    Tell me honestly, did you click the link and read the order when you first say the headline, before my post?
    Yes, of course I did.
    Then when I read your post, I went back to that link and re-checked because I couldn't believe that they would leave that out the document. It actually took me a couple clicks to find the part where they left it out. Generally I read the headline, click the link... ignore the bullet.

    Haha.. you can't answer my question can you? My point is it's not unprecidented. Not saying what he did was right, just saying it's not unprecidented.

  18. #58
    the Super B
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    Haha.. you can't answer my question can you? My point is it's not unprecidented. Not saying what he did was right, just saying it's not unprecidented.
    Yes it is. What Clinton did and what Carter did are not the same thing. What Bush is doing is unprecedented.

    Bush has allowed spying on U.S. citizens without oversight of the FISA court...that is unprecedented.

  19. #59
    Didn't do it. japangreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    \o/ |o| |o_ /o\
    Posts
    784
    Yes, of course I did.
    And yet, you still came here making false claims. Funny how that works, then, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by admedia
    Haha.. you can't answer my question can you? My point is it's not unprecidented. Not saying what he did was right, just saying it's not unprecidented.
    Um, Bush hasn't interned anyone. How's that for an answer? You can't claim sonething in not unprecedented by saying something different happened in the past.

    You do know what a precedent is, right? (resisting urge to link to definition... look it up yourselves, kiddos, if you're unsure).

    You're not the type to juice his apples and core his oranges, are you?

    Now, can you answer mine?
    Last edited by japangreg; 12-21-2005 at 01:39 PM.
    Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
    That was Zen - this is Tao.

  20. #60
    curmudgeon swampy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    [wakey]
    Posts
    2,775
    WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE BABY!!
    "They're very much like scruffy pigs to look at, and they've got big, knobbly warts and lumps all over their long, hairy faces. They are very, very ugly indeed..."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center