The Bush Administration and Wiretaps

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: ric

Originally posted by: link2661



It doesn't appear he followed the laws, unless you have ANY proof whatsoever he did.

Hey, man, what's this game called? Musical ****ing chairs??  Burden of proof is on the accuser

Thats why Rocky wont reply on that.   He can't give us the law Bush broke without ignoring other parts of the law that give him the power.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

BTW, its long been a Liberal belief that government is to be trusted in any aspect of our lives that they see fit.  That Big Brother is allowed to watch us, after all Big Brother is just looking out for the people.  Conservatives have long held that government needs to stay out of our lives, peroid.  I find it striking that the so-called conservatives are defending what is intristically a 'liberal' abuse of power, and the liberals are decrying supposed Conservatives utilizing the power that they themselves have long strived to have(and control).



Liberalism and Conservatism are attitudes, not party labels.  Bush is behaving as I would have expected Clinton to(and in fact Clinton did try for much of this and was stopped by the Republicans in Congress).  Yet the Conservatives are saying nothing about it, because he is 'their guy' and gives lip service to their causes.  He says one thing, but does another and the Republicans march in lockstep because at least he's on their team, right?

Bush and Rove are the worst thing to happen to the Republican party in its history at this point.  They have taken a party of ideals and perverted it into a party of power consolidation at any cost.  I miss the Republican party of the mid-90's, when they stood for something besides winning at all costs.

Impressive.   A whole post dedicated to philosophical nonsense without a single point to address the arguments presented in the thread.

Do you just like to read your own words?   Try addressing the issues raised and try not posting your usual philosophical soapbox ego-trip.

And yes Reflex, we all know that Bush and Rove are evil people.   Jesus.   Get some new material and focus on the subject for once.

[Rocky]

Again Texmaster, Bush couldve at any time gone and got approval for any past action. Time has nothing to do with it.  Yet he didnt, why is the question everyone should be asking?  WHy not go and get approval?  The court is secret and expo facto so WHY?  The only reason is because he thought he may get denied approval, can you think of any other reason?

And yes Reflex, liberals like to trust the government. Like we like to trust the government to follow their own rules. This action by Bush is in no way what liberals are about. Thats why there are laws.

[link2661]

Well shit Texmaster, you better bring this to the attention of the Justice Department since they're starting an investigation and all.  You could save them alot of time!

[Reflex]

Texmaster - By law he has to get warrants for domestic wiretapping.  The law is slick enough to allow him to do so retro-actively(ie: tap now, get a warrant for it later) so that the argument that it could take too much time for a warrant is null and void.  Bush attempted to have the Patriot act amended to grant him the power he is now using and was rebuffed explicitly because they felt it could be abused like it is today.  I don't see an argument here, he simply ignored the law.

You may or may not like my idealism, but at least I believe in something besides 'winning' whatever that may mean.  I, and others, are whats left of the conservative moment.   At the moment the movement has been taken over by what seem to me to be big government liberals with a streak of fascism wrapped in conservative words that comfort themselves that they have not changed after all.

[ric]

Originally posted by: link2661

Well shit Texmaster, you better bring this to the attention of the Justice Department since they're starting an investigation and all.  You could save them alot of time!

Save what time?? It seems you have arrived at a level of culpability in the making just because "an investigation" has been started. Good luck on trying to get the evidence and proof

Investigations are started all the time...it doesn't mean jack squat

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: link2661

Well shit Texmaster, you better bring this to the attention of the Justice Department since they're starting an investigation and all.  You could save them alot of time!

Sarcasm without substance.  The hallmark of any link political post.

Thanks for showing once again your extreme inadequacy for debating actual facts.

Now scream strawman and run away like a good little boy.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

Again Texmaster, Bush couldve at any time gone and got approval for any past action. Time has nothing to do with it.  Yet he didnt, why is the question everyone should be asking?  WHy not go and get approval?  The court is secret and expo facto so WHY?  The only reason is because he thought he may get denied approval, can you think of any other reason?

I know you have a reading problem Rocky so I'll spell it out for you as usual.

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

Now, what part of that DONT you get Rocky?

Just humoring you for the moment that the law is the only law the president has under this subject....

And as far as approval, do you know the time it takes to get a FISA approval Rocky?    

Lets see if you can give a straight answer for once.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Texmaster - By law he has to get warrants for domestic wiretapping.  The law is slick enough to allow him to do so retro-actively(ie: tap now, get a warrant for it later) so that the argument that it could take too much time for a warrant is null and void.  Bush attempted to have the Patriot act amended to grant him the power he is now using and was rebuffed explicitly because they felt it could be abused like it is today.  I don't see an argument here, he simply ignored the law.

Read the ENTIRE law Reflex, not what you just hope it says.....

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

Now this time, since it is the second time its been posted, try reading the part in bold and please explain how you know he didn't go through the AG.   This is of course assuming as you are that this is the only law giving the president any power for wiretapping.

You may or may not like my idealism, but at least I believe in something besides 'winning' whatever that may mean.

And who said that in this thread?  Are we bringing out the soapbox again Reflex?

I, and others, are whats left of the conservative moment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  Thanks for the laugh Reflex.   But I got some news for you.   Defending Clinton's flagrant use of his office for campaign contributions in exchange for allowing US missile technology to fall into Chinese hands and comparing child molestation to the equivelency of a car accident are hardly conservative traits.   And those are just a few examples from your postings.   If you like, I can find more...

I also have you quoted as calling yourself a libertarian.   So which is it?  Conservative or Libertarian?   Having trouble keeping your postings straight?

At the moment the movement has been taken over by what seem to me to be big government liberals with a streak of fascism wrapped in conservative words that comfort themselves that they have not changed after all.

See you started out so well, talking about the real issue of the thread but once again you just have so get on your soapbox and prophesize instead of staying on point.

And just to humor you, exactly what actions has the Bush administration taken that are FASCIST?    And BE SPECFIC.  

Lets see if you can back up your bullshit.

By the way, your accusation of the Bush admin being facist in its nature  is just another example of your liberal bias.   But I have to admit, calling yourself a conservative was quite amusing.   Thanks for the laugh.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: ric

Originally posted by: link2661



Well shit Texmaster, you better bring this to the attention of the Justice Department since they're starting an investigation and all.  You could save them alot of time!

Save what time?? It seems you have arrived at a level of culpability in the making just because "an investigation" has been started. Good luck on trying to get the evidence and proof



Investigations are started all the time...it doesn't mean jack squat

Ric, this guy isn't interested in debate.   He just flies in makes accusations and runs.   Its his way in the politics thread.

[Rocky]

"And as far as approval, do you know the time it takes to get a FISA approval Rocky? "

The answer is that it doesnt matter how long the approval takes, dont you get that?  The approval is expo facto.  It could take months and still wouldnt matter. Bush could still go and get approval, but he hasnt.  


And the part of the law you quoted says "U.S. PERSONS outside the United States" when what we're talking about is domestic communications.  Try at least arguing the topic.

[ric]

Originally posted by: Reflex

I miss the Republican party of the mid-90's, when they stood for something besides winning at all costs.

Just who are you bullsh**ting?? Winning is everything...especially in Politics  

You don't like to win? You don't like a little more money, more responsibilties, promotions, etc. You just do not want to move up in life, but yet you seem frustrated cuz it seems no matter how hard you try you seem not able to win.

Even this thing called "life" is a competition and don't you ever forget it cuz the day you forget it, you have lost. You will lose big time

[Reflex]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for the laugh Reflex. But I got some news for you. Defending Clinton's flagrant use of his office for campaign contributions in exchange for allowing US missile technology to fall into Chinese hands and comparing child molestation to the equivelency of a car accident are hardly conservative traits. And those are just a few examples from your postings. If you like, I can find more...

Strawman strikes.  You have taken my argument out of context in an attempt to make it easier to bash.  By all means, pull the original threads and post them, this is not what I said in either case, and throughout the threads I clarified further in an attempt to get what I was saying across to your closed mind.

I also have you quoted as calling yourself a libertarian. So which is it? Conservative or Libertarian? Having trouble keeping your postings straight?

Are you not aware what a Libertarian is?  The Libertarian party is to the *right* of the Republicans as we generally feel they are far too liberal.  Here, read up on our positions(I am NOT in 100% agreement with all of them, btw): http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

And just to humor you, exactly what actions has the Bush administration taken that are FASCIST? And BE SPECFIC.

1) Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act(for instance forbidding those who are served warrants from contesting them not with a direct order but by prohibiting places such as libraries from making any public notice that they have been served which effectively eliminates their ability to contest such actions without specifically blocking them)
2) Justifying illegal activities with claims of war powers
3) Imprisonment without charges
4) Torture of prisoners
5) Kidnapping by the CIA of supposed enemies
6) Lying to the public to justify multiple actions such as war
7) Attempted prosecution of those who have attempted to be whistleblowers
The treatment of Valarie Plame

I could go on.  Thats my five minute list.  These actions remind me of 1930's Germany, and I do not feel I am exaggerating.  That was a democracy as well, and in the name of security and national pride(those who spoke out against the policies were named as unpatriotic and investigated by the government) became a fascist state with popular support.

But I have to admit, calling yourself a conservative was quite amusing.

Conservatives are about personal responsibility, small government, balanced budgets, defense, and generally letting people do what they want to do with their lives as long as they do not harm others.  These are the principles that this nation was founded on.  You cannot be more 'conservative' than to attempt to maintain the founding principles of the nation.

Just who are you bullsh**ting?? Winning is everything...especially in Politics

You don't like to win? You don't like a little more money, more responsibilties, promotions, etc. You just do not want to move up in life, but yet you seem frustrated cuz it seems no matter how hard you try you seem not able to win.

Even this thing called "life" is a competition and don't you ever forget it cuz the day you forget it, you have lost. You will lose big time

Actually I'd like to think Politics is about doing whats best for the nation and its people.  If not, we may as well allow a military coup and get it over with, after all they are the ones with the most power in this nation.

As for the rest, there is a difference between a desire to 'win' and doing so at others expense.  I do quite well for myself in life, and I am proud to say that I've never stepped on the back of another to get where I am today.  Its the left wing that has traditionally believed that if you earn a dollar you are taking it out of the pocket of another person, right wingers such as myself know better.

[mikevalla]

Originally posted by: Reflex


...These actions remind me of 1930's Germany, and I do not feel I am exaggerating.  That was a democracy as well, and in the name of security and national pride(those who spoke out against the policies were named as unpatriotic and investigated by the government) became a fascist state with popular support.

Interesting, what with the 'situation' in Iran right now.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"And as far as approval, do you know the time it takes to get a FISA approval Rocky? "



The answer is that it doesnt matter how long the approval takes, dont you get that?  The approval is expo facto.  It could take months and still wouldnt matter. Bush could still go and get approval, but he hasnt.  





And the part of the law you quoted says "U.S. PERSONS outside the United States" when what we're talking about is domestic communications.  Try at least arguing the topic.

I know its hard for you to actually read everything Rocky, but at least try a few times.

#1  The point you continue to dodge which is no surprise is that the LAW says specifically that Bush can go directly to the AG for approval and NOT have to go through the court.  Seriously, how many times are you going to dodge this?

#2 The time even expidited is 72 hours.   Don't you think in this day and age thats a little too long to get approval?

#3 Quit dodging the arugement by trying to focus on only one part of the law.  Focus on the entire Law.

#4  Oh and Genius, phone calls usually have at least 2 people on them to make a phone call.  These calls are domestic to international  and that is what was being monitored.

Try pulling your head out of the sand.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for the laugh Reflex. But I got some news for you. Defending Clinton's flagrant use of his office for campaign contributions in exchange for allowing US missile technology to fall into Chinese hands and comparing child molestation to the equivelency of a car accident are hardly conservative traits. And those are just a few examples from your postings. If you like, I can find more...

Strawman strikes.  You have taken my argument out of context in an attempt to make it easier to bash.

HAHAHHA   Every time I nail you this bullshit charge comes out because you can't defend yourself.    Its funny and painfully transparent every time you do it.

By all means, pull the original threads and post them, this is not what I said in either case, and throughout the threads I clarified further in an attempt to get what I was saying across to your closed mind.

So what exactly are you claiming you didn't say just so we don't go round and round with your dodging and redefining your point?

Are you claiming you didn't defend Clinton when I and others accused him of using his office to open up missile technology to China for campaign contributions?

Yes or No?   Very simple.

And, are you claiming you didn't compare the trauma of child molestation to a severe car accident?

Yes or No?   Once again, very simple.

If you deny either of these, the evidence will be extremely clear and you aren't going to be able to skirt what you said and try to reinterpret what you meant.   This is exactly why these questions need answering.

Are you not aware what a Libertarian is?  The Libertarian party is to the *right* of the Republicans as we generally feel they are far too liberal.  Here, read up on our positions(I am NOT in 100% agreement with all of them, btw): http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Wrong again.   And I see you dodged the question again.  Are you a conservative or a libertarian?   Which is it?

BTW, one HUGE difference between the two is the legalization of all drugs.   So please, don't insult everyone here by pretending there are not major differences.

So, which are you?

1) Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act(for instance forbidding those who are served warrants from contesting them not with a direct order but by prohibiting places such as libraries from making any public notice that they have been served which effectively eliminates their ability to contest such actions without specifically blocking them)

Since they were voted on by Republicans AND Democrats, why is your accusation only for the Bush admin?   Where is your charge of fascism for the Democrats that voted yes?

So, its fascist in your opinion, so look into what folks check out if the person is under suspicion of being or having contacts with terrorism.  Even though this does NOT apply to everyone and everything they check out which blows the fascism charge away.   If it applied to all people no matter what the circumstances you would have a point, but it doesn't.

2) Justifying illegal activities with claims of war powers

Never been done by any other president?  Is this what you are claiming?
And what illegal activities?   Obviously you didn't read the entire law again where it says he can bypass the court and go directly to the AG.   Why do you keep dodging this?

3) Imprisonment without charges

Are you claiming this was never done before Bush to anyone?

4) Torture of prisoners

#1  Never been proven.

#2  Torture has to be redefined to fit your accusation

5) Kidnapping by the CIA of supposed enemies

Proof?  

And doesn't fall under any definition of Fascism.

6) Lying to the public to justify multiple actions such as war

Another lie on your end.  Prove it.  Just provide a single quote that Bush knowingly knew was a lie.

And doesn't fall under any definition of Fascism.

7) Attempted prosecution of those who have attempted to be whistleblowers

Proof.  Where is it?

And how is it Fascist?

The treatment of Valarie Plame

HAHAHHA  Exactly how is that fascist?   And please explain how you conveniently look over Clinton's attack dogs when he was in office.   Were they fascist as well?

I could go on.  Thats my five minute list.  These actions remind me of 1930's Germany, and I do not feel I am exaggerating.

Then not only do you not understand what Fascism truly is, you can't even prove half of what you accuse the Bush admin of.   But of course for a liberal, the charge is proof enough.

That was a democracy as well, and in the name of security and national pride(those who spoke out against the policies were named as unpatriotic and investigated by the government) became a fascist state with popular support.

Please provide the EVIDENCE that Bush has used any method to silence a critic that any other president has NOT used.     Produce that evidence or this is just another rant without proof to back it up.

Conservatives are about personal responsibility, small government, balanced budgets, defense, and generally letting people do what they want to do with their lives as long as they do not harm others.  These are the principles that this nation was founded on.  You cannot be more 'conservative' than to attempt to maintain the founding principles of the nation.

You have the definition down, very good.   Now please explain how you fall under this category.

Especially the defense part since you are already convicting Bush of breaking the law even before you have read it in its entirety.

[Rocky]

"#1 The point you continue to dodge which is no surprise is that the LAW says specifically that Bush can go directly to the AG for approval and NOT have to go through the court. Seriously, how many times are you going to dodge this?"

Yes I read your random law, which doesnt apply to this situation.  Your law says "U.S. PERSONS outside the United States".  We are talking about domestic wiretaps

"#2 The time even expidited is 72 hours. Don't you think in this day and age thats a little too long to get approval? "

That doesnt matter. THe courts rulings are expo facto.  You seem to have dodged that fact several times now.  The time it takes isnt relevant.

"#3 Quit dodging the arugement by trying to focus on only one part of the law. Focus on the entire Law. "

Try finding the right law and I will... You posted a law that does not apply, and you have stated your lack of knowledge of FISA rulings.  I think you are the one who needs to research a bit.

"#4 Oh and Genius, phone calls usually have at least 2 people on them to make a phone call. These calls are domestic to international and that is what was being monitored. "

Im glad that you have the classified documents saying who they monitored, because no one else does.  If you can show us who and why every call was monitored go for it.

[Rocky]

"1) Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act(for instance forbidding those who are served warrants from contesting them not with a direct order but by prohibiting places such as libraries from making any public notice that they have been served which effectively eliminates their ability to contest such actions without specifically blocking them)
2) Justifying illegal activities with claims of war powers
3) Imprisonment without charges
4) Torture of prisoners
5) Kidnapping by the CIA of supposed enemies
6) Lying to the public to justify multiple actions such as war
7) Attempted prosecution of those who have attempted to be whistleblowers
The treatment of Valarie Plame "


Texmaster, after a list like that, why do you still defend Bush.  Hes harmful to your party.  Hes at best horribly unethical. You just look hypocritical in these posts.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"#1 The point you continue to dodge which is no surprise is that the LAW says specifically that Bush can go directly to the AG for approval and NOT have to go through the court. Seriously, how many times are you going to dodge this?"



Yes I read your random law, which doesnt apply to this situation.  Your law says "U.S. PERSONS outside the United States".  We are talking about domestic wiretaps

Rocky, how many times do I have to tell you its take 2 people to make a phone call.   Are you even reading the accusations?   It deals with international calls with domestic receivers or senders.

That doesnt matter. THe courts rulings are expo facto.  You seem to have dodged that fact several times now.  The time it takes isnt relevant.

I'm not dodging anything.   Bush went aroud that part of the law by going directly to the AG because of those wait times.   what part of this don't you get?

Try finding the right law and I will... You posted a law that does not apply, and you have stated your lack of knowledge of FISA rulings.  I think you are the one who needs to research a bit.

that is the actual law on FISA and the president Rocky.   If you still deny it, produce the law where it doesn't say the president can go to the AG directly for approval.

Im glad that you have the classified documents saying who they monitored, because no one else does.  If you can show us who and why every call was monitored go for it.

I'm not the one claiming a law was broken.  YOU ARE.    Produce the call lists where the calls were ONLY domestic Rocky.

Back up your Bullshit.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

Texmaster, after a list like that, why do you still defend Bush.  Hes harmful to your party.  Hes at best horribly unethical. You just look hypocritical in these posts.

Yes rocky.  Run away from all challenges I gave Reflex on each of those charges.

Of course in Rocky's world, the charges are proof in themselves and should be accepted blindly without questioning.  lol

[Rocky]

"It deals with international calls with domestic receivers or senders. "

Yes it does.  What we are dealing with and this thread is dealing with is domestic wiretaps.  You are arguing a different topic, one that youd rather argue.

"I'm not dodging anything. Bush went aroud that part of the law by going directly to the AG because of those wait times. what part of this don't you get? "

What wait times?  WAIT TIMES?  There is no wait time, the FISA rulings are expo facto.  


"If you still deny it, produce the law where it doesn't say the president can go to the AG directly for approval. "

Again your law says "U.S. PERSONS outside the United States".  Im not, nor is anyone arguing tapping outside the US callers. Its domestic wiretaps without going for secret approval is where the problem is.  He cannot get AG approval for wiretapping anyone he wants.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"It deals with international calls with domestic receivers or senders. "



Yes it does.  What we are dealing with and this thread is dealing with is domestic wiretaps.  You are arguing a different topic, one that youd rather argue.

Then you have no idea what the situation is.

Please produce the evidence that Bush has monitored domestic calls where BOTH sides are domestic.

What wait times?  WAIT TIMES?  There is no wait time, the FISA rulings are expo facto.  

Wrong again Rocky.  To get approval from a FISA court has a timeframe.   If you don't know even that basic fact you need to read more.

Again your law says "U.S. PERSONS outside the United States".  Im not, nor is anyone arguing tapping outside the US callers. Its domestic wiretaps without going for secret approval is where the problem is.  He cannot get AG approval for wiretapping anyone he wants.

Then you have no idea what he is being accused of if you think these calls are entirely domestic.

[Rocky]

"To get approval from a FISA court has a timeframe. "

Timeframe doesnt matter, their rulings are expo facto.

"Then you have no idea what the situation is. "

You've already shown this.  You keep arguing the legal things he did were legal.  Sure thats fine, no one is debating that.  This thread is about the illegal domestic wiretapping, and the lack of going to FISA to get the apporval after congress told him he had to.  Try arguing the topic, not something youd rather argue against.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Rocky

"To get approval from a FISA court has a timeframe. "



Timeframe doesnt matter, their rulings are expo facto.

You keep saying that.   Where is the law that supports this theory of yours?   I've shown you the actual law.   What are you quoting?

You've already shown this.  You keep arguing the legal things he did were legal.  Sure thats fine, no one is debating that.  This thread is about the illegal domestic wiretapping, and the lack of going to FISA to get the apporval after congress told him he had to.  Try arguing the topic, not something youd rather argue against.

The fact you can't understand that the accusations are about calls from domestic to international numbers or vise versa shows how ignorant you are on the subject.

Do you really believe these calls under scrunity are domestic to domestic?

Yes or No?

Easy question.   Lets see if you answer it or dodge it.

[Rocky]

"You keep saying that. Where is the law that supports this theory of yours? I've shown you the actual law. What are you quoting? "

Now you address it, jeez, took 4-5 times saying it before you realize what you said might be wrong. Thats objective.  Look it up, the reason for it is because, like you said, court approval can take awhile and sometimes the issues are time sensitive.  If I had to look up and cite all my knowledge everytime I talked I wouldnt have any time for life.  Learning is a constant ongoing process, not random research and quotes.

"The fact you can't understand that the accusations are about calls from domestic to international numbers or vise versa shows how ignorant you are on the subject. "

About tapping domestic lines without approval congress said he had to get that he refused to go get.  The issue for me is why did he not go and get approval from the proper sources, the AG is not a legal source for what he was doing in my opinion of readin the law.  You may read the law differently, which you obviously do cause your  golden boy is president.  When Clinton tried to do the same he was backslapped by Congress, now tables have turned and so have the coats of the republican party, no surpise there. Thats the issue.