Originally Posted By dshyates Didn't the Bush administration get caught not getting warrents, then they changed the laws to cover their assets? <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p99s04-duts.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/ 0806/p99s04-duts.html</a> And here is a great quote that allows "mission creep": Although the new law potentially allows the government to listen in on conversations of Americans calling from overseas (e.g., an American in Paris calling an American in Chicago), White House officials emphasized that the program is directed at foreign suspects, not Americans
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Don't anti-abortion activists contact non-Americans sometimes? Bingo, you're in.>> <I wouldn't know, but would still be targeting Americans, and require a warrant.> As I understand it, as long as one of the parties is overseas, that's all it takes. You can target a suspected American terrorist that way. I know for sure that there are some US citizen Imams who are being looked at (one came out in the local news lately), and if he calls or emails a relative overseas, bingo. Doesn't matter if he's a US citizen. <And if Clinton herself isn't doing it, why couldn't her agencies at her directive?> <Because it would get out, and be stopped.> Perhaps not for years.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Didn't the Bush administration get caught not getting warrents, then they changed the laws to cover their assets?> Not exactly. The Bush administration did something they felt was authorized by the law, but others did not. The law was clarify to allow it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As I understand it, as long as one of the parties is overseas, that's all it takes.> As I understand it, the targeted number must be overseas. And if Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama end up using the law to stop someone from bombing an abortion clinic, then I would have no problem with that.
Originally Posted By dshyates No, they were engaging in warrentless wiretapping that the Bush Administration was told by the Justice Department they were illegal. They appealed to the Supreme Court who also agreed they were illegal, and then the Bush administration with the help of the Rep. senate and congress changed the law. This is why Bush is still pressing for amunity for the telecoms.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <As I understand it, the targeted number must be overseas.> That's not clear to me. And how would that work for email? <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0921/p99s01-duts.html" target="_blank">http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/ 0921/p99s01-duts.html</a> "They also expressed particular concern about the portion of the law that allows for electronic surveillance of foreign terror suspects that results in warrantless wiretapping of US citizens within the country." It's also pretty clear that the Bush admin. overstates the "onerous" nature of obtaining warrants. (From the same link): "Myth: McConnell said that it takes 200 "man" hours to get a court order to access a telephone number. Reality: The math, courtesy of Wired.com. "In 2006, the government filed 2,181 such applications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. The court approved 2,176 2006 FISA Warrant Applications. That means government employees spent 436,200 hours writing out foreign intelligence wiretaps in 2006. That's 53,275 workdays." The numbers have been greatly exaggerated. Also, in a June 2007 article in the Washington Post, Royce C. Lamberth, the presiding judge of FISC on 9-11 said he approved FISA warrants in minutes with only an oral briefing. " <And if Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama end up using the law to stop someone from bombing an abortion clinic, then I would have no problem with that.> What if that were the justification, but the real reason was just to spy on pro-life groups? And without oversight, how would we find out in any sort of timely manner?
Originally Posted By dshyates And the whole Bush "thought" the warrantless wiretaps were legal. That is total horse sh#t. They were told by their own guys it was illegal. They simply don't care. I have never seen elected officials with less regard for the constitution than the Bush Adminstration. Bush wipes his behind with the constitution. And then they talk about Patriotism. What a freakin' joke.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You know, if I were to make a post like 48, there'd be two posts after it telling me to prove my claims, and another saying I always lie.
Originally Posted By Mr X You mean a similar post railing against some other administration? Aside from the Nixon days, I'd say you really would have to prove such a claim. The current mess is right in front and all around us. You disagree, but I've seen plenty of proof of extreme wrongdoing, at the expense of our prestige as a nation in fact. It's a sad thing to have to say. I've never felt that way before (and I've lived through my share of republican administrations...it's ain't a "libs vs. conservatives" thing at all).
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "You know, if I were to make a post like 48, there'd be two posts after it telling me to prove my claims, and another saying I always lie." You're free to ask dshyates to prove his one claim ("They were told by their own guys it was illegal". The rest is clearly opinion.)
Originally Posted By dshyates "You're free to ask dshyates to prove his one claim ("They were told by their own guys it was illegal". " Remember the whole Acting Attourney General James Comey refused to reauthorize the NSA warrentless wiretapping program because the DOJ had determined it was illegal. So Gonzalas and Card shoot off across town to convince John Ashcroft, who was ill and in intensive care at a local hospital, to sign it. Ashcroft refused. It was never signed and then the "protecting the telecomms" bill became Bush's pet project. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2ba8gd" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2ba8gd</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates And if the Ex-CEO of Qwest Comm. is to be believed, the Bush administration approached Qwest 7 months before 9/11, asking them to start warrantless spying on Americans. Qwest refused saying it was illegal. The Bush administration then cancelled a separate lucrative contract in retribution for not cooperating. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2mu2xp" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2mu2xp</a>
Originally Posted By inlandemporer There you are, DouglasDubh. Someone asked to back up his claim who didn't hem and haw and parse, and then claim he didn't make it. He just provided it. See how it's done?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're free to ask dshyates to prove his one claim ("They were told by their own guys it was illegal". The rest is clearly opinion.)> Doesn't matter. Even if I say something I said was just my opinion, I'm still asked repeatedly to "prove" it. And for the record, I still believe what I said in post 43 is correct, and that dshyates' posts do not refute it.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "Doesn't matter. Even if I say something I said was just my opinion, I'm still asked repeatedly to "prove" it. " In the corporate welfare thread, you made flat assertions that were not presented as opinion. "And for the record, I still believe what I said in post 43 is correct, and that dshyates' posts do not refute it." Dsyhates' posts and backup are more believable than your post without backup.
Originally Posted By dshyates "The Bush administration did something they felt was authorized by the law, but others did not." This is horse sh$t. They were told, even before 9/11, that it was illegal. Told again by the Department of Justice where the Acting Attorney Gen. told them "NO, it's ILEGAL!!!!" And they still had a feeling it was legal so they sought the approval of an extremely narced-up John Ashcroft, who told them "No, It's Ilegal". And because Bush still "felt" it was legal, the warrantless spying continued for several weeks without the Justice approval.
