Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

The Los Angeles Times reports today, that the New York Times was aware that President Bush was listening into the United States Citizens phone calls, without the appropriate warrants before the election of 2004.

What do you think knowing the President was spying on you without oversight would have done to the vote?

Thanks New York Times - Liberal Bias in the Media - My ***.

 

[mrhnau]

New York Times was aware that President Bush was listening into the United States Citizens phone calls.

Yes, I'm sure Bush himself was sitting down every evening and listening to my phone calls. He's got loads of time

So, who was he listening to? Why would he listen in to our conversations? There are only a few billion calls a day. So, who does Bush decide needs to be spied on? Surely you don't suggest the government is listening to all calls.

Personally, I would prefer warrents, however, I can understand that these things take time to acquire (barring an emergency warrent). So, if there is a dire circumstance, would it be reasonable to keep tabs on at potentially dangerous people?

BTW, its currenty appropriate for the topic. Check my signature.

 

[michaeledward]

Personally, I would prefer warrents, however, I can understand that these things take time to acquire (barring an emergency warrent). So, if there is a dire circumstance, would it be reasonable to keep tabs on at potentially dangerous people?

BTW, its currenty appropriate for the topic. Check my signature.

You 'prefer' the fourth Amendment be followed. Well, isn't that special.

Dire Circumstances were discussed and built into the FISA law. The government could instigate a wire-tap, and petition the court up to 24 hours after survaillance has begun.

The Patriot Act extended that time window to 72 hours to petition the FISA court for a warrant.

The best reason put forth for not seeking such a warrant is that 'probable cause' standard could not be met. A low standard indeed for a court that has declined on a handful of requests in more than two decades. A handful of petitions out of more than nineteen thousand.




It seems that even the second amendment isn't doing its job here ... I thought it was the amendment that was supposed to guarantee all the others. Huh!

 

[mrhnau]

You 'prefer' the fourth Amendment be followed. Well, isn't that special.

Why yes, it is. I'm not an enforcement agent, and I'd assume you are not either. I'd prefer people not to be killed. I'd prefer them to get arrested if they do kill. I'd prefer the constitution to be followed. If not, I'd prefer they be called on it. HOWEVER, cases like what happened in the civil war brought up circumstances in which certain aspects became secondary to national security. This has happened before, with one of the lefts favorite presidents.

So, whats your point? Unless you are an enforcement agent, you don't enforce laws.

Dire Circumstances were discussed and built into the FISA law. The government could instigate a wire-tap, and petition the court up to 24 hours after survaillance has begun.

The Patriot Act extended that time window to 72 hours to petition the FISA court for a warrant.

The best reason put forth for not seeking such a warrant is that 'probable cause' standard could not be met. A low standard indeed for a court that has declined on a handful of requests in more than two decades. A handful of petitions out of more than nineteen thousand.

It was my impression that the constitution applied to Citizens. Most of those being targeted are not citizens from my understanding. Thats one of my problems with the McCain bill recently passed, extending rights to enemy combatants.

Now, to the specifics. Is Bush taking extra liberties with wire taps? Perhaps. As stated before, its not unprecedented (well, overstepping constitution, not wire taps to my knowledge, don't think Lincoln had alot of phones in his day). We are at a time of war.

The odd thing is that if we had surveillence on the agents that brought about 9/11, would you have complained about wire taps that kept them from murdering? How many 9/11's have we prevented or at least postponed? If it were to happen again, would the dems jump on our intellegence gathering business again? you bet! You would say wonderful things like "Bush is not doing enough to protect us", "our intellegence gathering is flawed", "the patriot act is not working", ect.. How many 9/11's must happen before we start allowing intellegence gathering to do its job? Do I suggest unlimited wiretaps on the entirety of the US? No, and as I stated before, thats not practical.

So, what is your alternative. Do you suggest we stop searching for terror suspects and allow them free communication? Does the infrastructure even exist to supports thousands of wiretaps and the judges to sign and investigate such wiretaps? How many more judges are needed to answer the requests for more wiretaps? *cough cough* filibuster *cough cough*

I'd also like to know exactly how they determine who they surveil. Lets get that information and see if its all that unreasonable. Are they wasting time listening to me discuss grocery lists with my wife? Or are they listening to immigrants from Syria with suspected terror links? Who exactly is having their rights impinged? (Yes, if citizens they have rights *points to lincoln*)
Is it even illegal to listen in on illegal immigrants? (I'm asking because I honestly don't know)

I also seem to recall some intellgence gathering going on in Afghanistan. They were able to trace cell calls and used that to track the location of Al Qaeda agents in the area. are you frowning on that too? Irrelevent since its over there?

It seems that even the second amendment isn't doing its job here ... I thought it was the amendment that was supposed to guarantee all the others. Huh!

Right to bear arms? Careful, you might come off as defending one of the rights favorite amendments LOL. I fail to see how the second amendment comes into this conversation. Guns on the ground would not bring down the 9/11 jets (doubt anyone endorses bringing guns on airplanes, though marshals would be nice). I also tend to doubt that guns would disarm a suicide bomber, though it might prevent him from triggering.

 

[michaeledward]

That's a whole lot of argument that says:

"Hey, I really don't care about the Bill of Rights."

 

[mrhnau]

That's a whole lot of argument that says:

"Hey, I really don't care about the Bill of Rights."

I do care about the bill of rights, but:

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" ~ Lincoln

 

[Jeff Boler]

That's a whole lot of argument that says:

"Hey, I really don't care about the Bill of Rights."

Apparently, none of the democrat presidents do either.

Signed by Bill Clinton:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Signed by Jimmy Carter:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

 

[mrhnau]

That's a whole lot of argument that says:

"Hey, I really don't care about the Bill of Rights."

Rosevelt sends Japanese to Internment camps
Democrat

Lincoln suspends Haebeus Corpus during Civil War
Republican

 

[michaeledward]

Apparently, none of the democrat presidents do either.

Signed by Bill Clinton:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Signed by Jimmy Carter:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Jeff Boler ....

Just in case you haven't heard .... There is only ONE PRESIDENT at a time in this country. Currently, that is George W. Bush.

 

[michaeledward]

Rosevelt sends Japanese to Internment camps
Democrat

Lincoln suspends Haebeus Corpus during Civil War
Republican

Cain Killed Able, too ... what party was he from? Republican, I think.

 

[mrhnau]

Jeff Boler ....

Just in case you haven't heard .... There is only ONE PRESIDENT at a time in this country. Currently, that is George W. Bush.

Then why do you have a lincoln quote in your profile

What would Lincoln think?

From your first post here. Why is this relevant? He would have agreed obviously, since he did the SAME THING! Ignoring history/precedent does not make it go away. Great way to try to divert the conversation though.

Cain Killed Able, too ... what party was he from? Republican, I think.

Thats funny LOL. I note again you did not respond to history/precedent.

If I may steal from a previous post of yours:

That's a whole lot of argument that says:

"Hey, I really don't care about History/precedent."

 

[Ray]

Cain Killed Able, too ... what party was he from? Republican, I think.

I always assumed that since Cain was a tiller of the ground, that he was a vegetarian...I then reasoned that since Abel was a keeper of sheep he was obviously a meat eater. And after much careful thought and consideration, I conclude that Cain was a democrat and a member of the outlaw organization PETA; and he killed the peaceful Republican named Abel.

 

[mrhnau]

I always assumed that since Cain was a tiller of the ground, that he was a vegetarian...I then reasoned that since Abel was a keeper of sheep he was obviously a meat eater. And after much careful thought and consideration, I conclude that Cain was a democrat and a member of the outlaw organization PETA; and he killed the peaceful Republican named Abel.

LOL! A member of the Animal Liberation Front perhaps?

 

[Jeff Boler]

Jeff Boler ....

Just in case you haven't heard .... There is only ONE PRESIDENT at a time in this country. Currently, that is George W. Bush.

I'm glad you said that, because it's exactly my point. Had this been a Democrat in office. you would not say a single thing about it. You'd have no problem with it whatsoever.

But because it's George Bush, it's wrong. The idea itself only bothers you when someone you do not like is in office.

That's why the Democrat party CONTINUES TO LOSE.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm glad you said that, because it's exactly my point. Had this been a Democrat in office. you would not say a single thing about it. You'd have no problem with it whatsoever.

Please validate the claim, or withdraw it.

 

[mrhnau]

Please validate the claim, or withdraw it.

I'm not Jeff, but here are your responses in just the past day

Just in case you haven't heard .... There is only ONE PRESIDENT at a time in this country. Currently, that is George W. Bush.

Cain Killed Able, too ... what party was he from? Republican, I think.

You refuse to discuss past democrats illegal activities. How can we hope you would do any different now? There are past analogies for what Bush is doing. Were you speaking up when Clinton purjured himself to a court? Were you proud to have a felon in office? You would jump all over Bush if he did anything similar. Just wish MT was online back then so there could be a record LOL

 

[Jeff Boler]

That's all the validation I need. I withdrawl nothing.

And this is where we are at in this country now. People like you are ok with certain actions, but are against them if they help satisfy your political cause. I'm am certain that if it were John Kerry in the White House now, you would have no problem with wire taps, war in Iraq etc.

No offense, but you're a fraud. You disguise these arguements as right vs wrong issues, but in reality, it's just a republican vs democrat issue.

But because it's Bush....we must throw stones. Who cares what happened back then...they were democrats anyway. Do what I say, and not what I do. And as I stated earlier, that's why you continue to lose.

Quite frankly...I have no problems with him wiretapping whoever he deems appropriate. What I do have a problem with is knowing that I can no longer send my five year old daughter on school trips (New York, for example), without having to worry about terrorism. And people like you who attempt to make it even more difficult to protect the country.

Get your priorities straight.

 

[Don Roley]

The best reason put forth for not seeking such a warrant is that 'probable cause' standard could not be met.

I have learned to take everything someone as partisan as you say with a grain of salt. But even so, I am surprised by the above statement.

If a terrorist cell is found in Afghanistan and their phone records indicate they talk every week with a person in America, are you saying that the chances of a judge giving authorization are very low? If you are correct, then I think that a lot of people will think that the system is so broken that they will not be sad to hear of someone going around it. I don't like anything about that scenario at all. But the idea of a judge not giving the goverment the authority even in that case scares the hell out of me. I can't be the only one.

 

[Ray]

IIf a terrorist cell is found in Afghanistan and their phone records indicate they talk every week with a person in America, are you saying that the chances of a judge giving authorization are very low?

I have read that terrorists watch the habits of people when planning to kidnap them; and/or when making plans to commit terroristic acts. Surely they would know that keeping a habitual time with a repeated phone number would be the reverse of what they would want to do?

 

[Don Roley]

I have read that terrorists watch the habits of people when planning to kidnap them; and/or when making plans to commit terroristic acts. Surely they would know that keeping a habitual time with a repeated phone number would be the reverse of what they would want to do?

And if criminals did everything they could to stay safe, we probably would never catch them. Some of the stuff that soldiers have pulled off of computers, etc they have picked up violate every rule of operational security. But people are people and they do the easy rather than the safe, correct method more often than not. People do have to communicate and they tend to fall into habits and ruts. You know how often people write down their computer passwords or make them out of things that are easy to guess. Same principle of laziness overcoming caution here.