Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<You of course know that the Republicans control these committees, not the dems. You of course know that this program *was* in effect on 9/11 and it didn't stop them.>> The committees are bipartisan and members from both parties KNEW about the wiretap program a long, long time ago. And no bboisvert, this program was not in effect on 9/11.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<And no bboisvert, this program was not in effect on 9/11.>> <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.truthout.org/docs_2 006/011306Z.shtml</a> (refrences a declassified document found here.. <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/nsa25.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N SAEBB/NSAEBB24/nsa25.pdf</a> ) ============= The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document. The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups. In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist." "Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says. However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Sorry for the choice of words, I was kidding. My point is that if STPH is going to make a snippy post saying the program is unconstitutional, I am challenging him to back it up. The program is very legal, and I once again find it amusing that an attorney can't see this after the program has been lawyed to death. Here, from Powerline.. "At least five federal appellate decisions stand for the proposition that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. This means that the NSA program is legal." And no, I didn't have to spend a ton of cash going to law shool to figure this out.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I came across a quote this morning that is appropriate for this topic. "A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations...is the only sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism." Abraham Lincoln.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<..have you ever heard of " the wall "? The wall that was up between the fBI, CIA and other organizations? Pre 9/11 we were NOT doing the same things we are doing now to prevent terrorists attacks.>> But that wasn't the point that you were trying to make. QUOTE: "this program was not in effect on 9/11" I provided you information that the NSA spying program *was* in effect and that Bush was using it before 9/11. I answered your retort. Bush's whole story hinges on the fact that we are in a post 9/11 world. That's LIE #1. I've provided proof that Bush was doing these activities BEFORE 9/11. Now comes the fact that he said in the 2004 campaingn that he wasn't spying without a warrant and now proudly admits that he does spy without warrant is LIE #2. How many lies does it take? Which brings us back to the original point of the AG not asking to be sworn in. With all of this so called "liberal" media accusing them of being less that forthcoming with the facts, why not take the high road and ask to be under oath. It would certainly go a long way to show that they are being as open and transparent as possible, especially to their critics.
Originally Posted By woody "I've provided proof that Bush was doing these activities BEFORE 9/11." Does this mean it was always legal? Either defund NSA or stop this ridiculousness. It is still a post-911 world, but Congress is looking for a way to codify Bush's policies despite the fact that Alberto Gonzales said he always had the authority. Although he makes his case with Post-911 legislation with the AUMF and the Patriot Act, I think the President always had the authority as Commander in Chief. From the way this issue is framed, it is described as a domestic wiretapping, but I think all restraint is lifted when the second party comes from a foreign source. The legal grounds are, at best, murky, but always presumed to be at the President's advantage.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bush's whole story hinges on the fact that we are in a post 9/11 world. That's LIE #1. I've provided proof that Bush was doing these activities BEFORE 9/11.> No, you didn't. You provided a link to a far left website that asserted that, and provided for proof a document that, if it was genuine, was written while President Clinton was in office. <Now comes the fact that he said in the 2004 campaingn that he wasn't spying without a warrant and now proudly admits that he does spy without warrant is LIE #2.> The NSA "wiretapping" is a totally different than the "wiretapping" that can occur under the Patriot Act. The NSA program does not target individuals in the US, in order to gather information for prosecution. If it did, a warrant would be required.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/08/eavesdropping.congress.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/02/08/eavesdropping.congress.ap/index.html</a> Now the GOP chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical and Technical Intelligence wants a full review of the NSA program. Bit by bit, the only people willing to take the White House at their word on this are the usual sycophants.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bit by bit, the only people willing to take the White House at their word on this are the usual sycophants.> Nonsense.
Originally Posted By woody Wilson wants to review it herself to permit it. Now that everyone knows about, they really don't want to stop it. They want legislation to permit it, as if it was ever illegal. The next thing will be a shock... The President will add a signing statement to the legislation that says he can interpret the law as it is compatible with his constitutional powers. In other words, NO DIFFERENCE.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The President will add a signing statement to the legislation that says he can interpret the law as it is compatible with his constitutional powers." No, sorry. The President can't unilateraly expand his executivre powers like that.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<The President will add a signing statement to the legislation that says he can interpret the law as it is compatible with his constitutional powers. In other words...>> I AM KING!!!!
Originally Posted By bboisvert Ah, but King George already knew that because of his ability to use Yahoo search engine data and he will intrepret your posting any way that he sees fit. So you'd better shape up!
