Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > NSA spied without warrants on American Citizens
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: NSA spied without warrants on American Citizens Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Dec 22nd, 2005 04:48 PM
kahljorn "I think it was "sexual relations" which does include oral."

Maybe. I didn't really follow the trial that closely because it was kind of stupid, I was just spreading the word of some person.
Dec 22nd, 2005 03:36 PM
Cybernetico
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
3.) The administration assumed no one would mind. After all, 9/11, ya know!


Do you still mind me tapping to your conversations? I didn't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
I don't know if anybody mentioned this, but he actually didn't lie under oath. What he said was that he never had SEX with monica lewinsky... she just gave him a blowjob (not that he mentioned that part)
Smart guy.
I think it was "sexual relations" which does include oral.
Dec 22nd, 2005 02:32 PM
kahljorn "Well, that and he lied under oath"

I don't know if anybody mentioned this, but he actually didn't lie under oath. What he said was that he never had SEX with monica lewinsky... she just gave him a blowjob (not that he mentioned that part)
Smart guy.
Dec 22nd, 2005 01:18 PM
mburbank "From what I understand, this has only been used thus far to monitor international calls to countries that are considered high risk and that this has yielded positive results."

You have no way of knowing that beyond their personal word. It may well be true, but the reason we have oversight and checks and balances is so that we don't have to be ruled by a policy of 'trust me'. That is one of the key aspects of a democracy.



"maybe I'm behind on my information, but why exactly is this a bad thing? "

For exactly the reason Clintons perjury was a bad thing, and though I personally thought it was silly, though I still believe it was a set up and I know it was in no way related to what he was under oath to testify about, PERJURY IS A CRIME. No matter what you think about the reasons for it, even if Clintons reason was just to keep from looking like a total fuck and W's reason was to save the world, PRESIDENTS BREAKING THE LAW IS A VERY, VERY BAD THING. We are a nation of laws, not people. If you want to argue that congress meant for him to have supreme power as long as he promised not to abuse it, do so. If not, we have a president breaking the law and saying he can and he intends to continue doing so. No one should want that or think it's no big deal.
Dec 22nd, 2005 09:27 AM
ziggytrix I can conceive two plausible explainations.

1. They are monitoring someone they believe they might not be allowed to under the law. (Note: this is not to imply they are spying on political enemies. I'm not crying conspiracy, yet.)

or

2. They don't like having to ask permission to do what they think is right, because complicated rules just get in the way. :cowboy


Can anyone dream up any other rationale?
Dec 22nd, 2005 09:09 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype
where I've seen this argument applied is when some overzealous ass starts screeching about the evil Republicans and how they're ruining America blah blah blah and ifDemocrats had won we'd be in a utopia blah.
Well, it's funny you'd put it this way. Apparently there were reports prior to the 2004 election from an "unnamed senior official" that the NSA was very concerned this practice would be stopped were Kerry elected president.

But that aside, I understand your point. Of course the Air Americas types are going to take this too far, but it should go as far as it needs to go regardless. The Senate will decide that, I guess.


Quote:
from what I understand, this has only been used thus far to monitor international calls to countries that are considered high risk and that this has yielded positive results. maybe I'm behind on my information, but why exactly is this a bad thing?
It's not, and call me crazy, but i believe that they have been using this practice to really go after the bad guys. I believe they are genuine when they say that.

However, if that's all they're doing, and the FISA court rarely ever says no, and the patriot act expands upon even those tiny limitations, then why even do it? Why is this practice necessary?
Dec 22nd, 2005 08:57 AM
KevinTheOmnivore Sure thing, sport.

oh, and btw, what Clinton may have done is not the same as what this president clearly did do. When Jamie Gorelick testified that physical searches were okay without warrants, it in fact was under FISA at the time. FISA has since been amended to include the searches.

But hey, you're really balanced here. You hate both parties. I'd say the twisted testimony of a deputy attorney general is exactly the same as words right from Bush's mouth. Not to mention that wire tapping has been banned through FISA for years and years now.

I apologize, you certainly aren't biased like everyone else. Forgive me.
Dec 21st, 2005 10:27 PM
CaptainBubba Who said I was arguing that Kevin? My point is that ya'll are biased as all hell. Unless I'm mistaken you probably didn't pull a WTF about clinton bypassing the law in a simmilar fashion, but when a republican does it you're all up in arms.

The fact that you think I'm trying to justify it only blatantly shows your bias since I hate democrats and republicans, and from my post it should seem apparent that I despise Bush's policies.

I don't even really know what ya'll think I was trying to argue actually. It seems like you think I just really like the status quo even though I hate the government.


Seriously though ya'll are not even fammiliar with Clinton or Carter bypassing court orders so obviously it wasn't a big deal to you then. I hate that corruption can pass by this country one half at a time because you people are so set on believing in a two party system.

But keep on making "oh man, that was stupid" responses to my posts before actually reading them, Kevin. It shows both a great deal of class, and is a mark of a high quality moderator. ;p
Dec 21st, 2005 08:52 PM
ItalianStereotype
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I don't know about Clinton and Carter, but It's on record that Kennedy and Johnson did.
On top of the fact that this isn't entirely relevant, and is a really, really dumb argument.

I mean, clearly, if past administrations did bad things, we should just shrug our shoulders, turn a blind eye to current wrongs, and let it slide.
where I've seen this argument applied is when some overzealous ass starts screeching about the evil Republicans and how they're ruining America blah blah blah and ifDemocrats had won we'd be in a utopia blah.

from what I understand, this has only been used thus far to monitor international calls to countries that are considered high risk and that this has yielded positive results. maybe I'm behind on my information, but why exactly is this a bad thing?

oh, and geggy is officially the new ranxer. RED PILL RED PILL RED PILL BLUE PILL RED PILL!!!11!!!1ONE

and by the way mr. omnivore, I wish you had more to say about empires!
Dec 21st, 2005 08:39 PM
LadyMage
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Look, the point we should take away from this is that if Clinton lied under oath, it would be waaaay too hypocritical to get upset over anything any subsequent presidents might do.

Thanks, Bill.
yeah he lied under oath, thats it, and over what a friggin blow job, he shouldn't have been on trial in the first place
Dec 21st, 2005 03:44 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Look, the point we should take away from this is that if Clinton lied under oath, it would be waaaay too hypocritical to get upset over anything any subsequent presidents might do.

Thanks, Bill.
Dec 21st, 2005 03:31 PM
Cosmo Electrolux
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Don't forget how Clinton got caught having a relation with Monica Lewinsky. ANd no it wasn't the stain on the dress...
Well, that and he lied under oath...probably why Bush and Company refuse to testify under oath. I think that they should have information extracted from them the way they like to extract information.....
Dec 21st, 2005 03:06 PM
Geggy Don't forget how Clinton got caught having a relation with Monica Lewinsky. ANd no it wasn't the stain on the dress...
Dec 21st, 2005 12:51 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I don't know about Clinton and Carter, but It's on record that Kennedy and Johnson did.
On top of the fact that this isn't entirely relevant, and is a really, really dumb argument.

I mean, clearly, if past administrations did bad things, we should just shrug our shoulders, turn a blind eye to current wrongs, and let it slide.
Dec 21st, 2005 12:17 PM
mburbank I don't know about Clinton and Carter, but It's on record that Kennedy and Johnson did. A whole lot pf power is a very bad thing. That's why balance of powers and checks and balances are the best thing about the constitution. It assumes the powerful can't be trusted.
Dec 20th, 2005 10:22 PM
CaptainBubba Crazy Libertarians, the government will never become that corrupt.

Actually most of my friends who I argue with about this stuff would defend this by saying "Yea but they're only going to use these intrusive rights on suspicious middle easterners, not you or me so it doesn't really matter to us". Most people refuse to believe that the government would ever abuse its power in regards to them.

Seriously though ya'll should go buy some shooootguuuuuuns. I give it 4 years till we're either in a nuclear conflict and there is a draft or we are ruled by alien overlords from Battlefield Earth.

Btw Btw Clinton and Carter would never do anything remotely simmilar to this lol am I right guys ? ;p ;p They loved them some court orders.
Dec 20th, 2005 09:08 PM
Geggy I'm interested in knowing who exactly they are spying on...

I'm already convinced they're lying about wire tapping into phone conversations for any suspicious terrorist activities. I've thought about the possiblities of them spying on journalists to keep any dissents in check since 9/11...

Remember in the movie, The Matrix, the agents called Morpheaus, the man who guided neo and crew to the truth, a terrorist? It's kinda like that with agent Bush...

God I love that movie.
Dec 20th, 2005 06:57 PM
kahljorn The ajax makes it pretty colours that dazzle and confound simultaneously :O
Dec 20th, 2005 06:47 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I'm a little bit surprised that this practice doesn't bother you just a little bit. Considering this is coming from the guy who said he'd rather see El Paso get nuked than give up some personal freedoms.
Who says it doesn't? The only possibly effective voice of criticism on issues such as this... issues that bother me greatly... is the Democratic Party, which is doing a terrible job of playing their part. It aggravates the piss out me, and it upsets me to see smart folks such as Max hyping each and every doomed attempt they make to re-take their political glory through trickery and deceit instead of trying to earn it back.
Have any suggestions for them? People are uneasy about the war, and they seem to be at least a bit unsettled by this NSA stuff. Should the Democrats say nothing about it?

Quote:
The only way the Democrats will ever end their downward spiral looks more and more like one of two options: 1. Become something that it's increasingly apparent they are not, or 2. Wait around until the Republicans implode. They have seemingly realized actual leadership and integrity is either beyond their grasp or useless to them, so they've opted to catalyze option
Well, #2 is basically the way every "out" party has regained power throughout the course of our political history. :/ That, and also by offering new ideas and methods of governance. I happen to agree with you that they're not doing enough of the latter, but let's be honest, you wouldn't support those ideas anyway, would you?

Quote:
Why do I always find myself reminding you that I do not like ANYTHING government does? What part of libertarian crank do you find so hard to grasp, man?
Well I get the crank part.....
Dec 20th, 2005 03:26 PM
ziggytrix re: my earlier question - I was thinking of George H.W. Bush's chief of staff, John H. Sununu. This John Sununu is that Sununu's son.

Which is interesting in itself, to me.
Dec 20th, 2005 02:33 PM
mburbank Preech, I was totally wrong about the timetable speech, I admit it, but I think you're wrong that this is going to go away quickly.

Senators seek probe of Bush's spying orders

57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rebuffing assurances from
President George W. Bush, bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate's Intelligence Committee called on Tuesday for an immediate inquiry into his authorization of spying on Americans.
ADVERTISEMENT

But Vice President
Dick Cheney predicted a backlash against critics of the administration's anti-terrorism policies as he forcefully defended a program that critics say may have exceeded Bush's powers.

Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine joined Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees into whether the government eavesdropped "without appropriate legal authority."

Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers have raised questions about whether spying on Americans violates the U.S. Constitution and have already backed a plan for a congressional hearing into the program, first revealed by The New York Times last week.

Bush and senior administration officials have defended as legal the policy of authorizing without court orders eavesdropping on international phone calls by Americans suspected of links to terrorism.

They argue it provided the agility -- beyond a 1978 law allowing court-warranted eavesdropping -- to help defend the country after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

'HELL OF A THREAT'

Cheney, speaking to reporters during a trip to the Middle East and Asia, said: "The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat," adding this obliged them to "do everything in our power to defeat the terrorists."

"And I don't think that there is anything improper or inappropriate in that and my guess is that the vast majority of the American people support that, support what we're doing, believe we ought to be doing it," he said.

"So there's a backlash pending, I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow we shouldn't take these steps in order to defend the country," he said, speaking on a plane to Oman from Pakistan.

Bush said on Monday the program, which he had reauthorized more than 30 times since September 11, had been effective in disrupting terrorist acts, but he gave no details. He noted that congressional leaders have been briefed on it more than a dozen times.

The eavesdropping program is the latest in a series of administration policies in Bush's declared war on terrorism that have prompted questions over whether the line has been crossed between protecting the public and protecting civil rights.

The senators calling for an investigation demanded detailed information on the program, including on its legality.

"It is critical that Congress determine, as quickly as possible, exactly what collection activities were authorized, what were actually undertaken, how many names and numbers were involved over what period, and what was the asserted legal authority for such activities. In sum, we must determine the facts," they said in a joint letter.




This is a bi-partisan call for investigation. If the intelligence commitee had actually been briefed on this, I don't think they'd be calling to investigate. I'm gonna guess W saying they've been briefed is like him saying "Congress saw the same intelligence we did", ie. a lie designed to snow folks who only read headlines or watch Fox News.

It is because this was SO totally uneccesary that even R's in the Senate are flipping out. W is a lame duck and I don't think they'll let him damage the party if they think that's what he's doing. The ONLY reasons to circumvent FISA are to take power away from the other branches simply to do it, or to use eavesdropping in so corrupt fashion that a secret court which has only objected to four wire taps in twenty some odd years would have known was rotten.

Chenney WISHES there would be a backlash. I wonder if anyone in the whitehouse is actively praying for a terrorist strike yet.
Dec 20th, 2005 02:16 PM
Preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
And it's pretty silly to think that's it's only Dems. who are upset about this, or that they're the only ones making a stink about it.
I'm specifically criticizing only the Democrat method of political attack on the Bush administration. I don't like it, mostly because I believe it's a poor effort where something more substantial would be preferred. By me. I am Monday morning quarterbacking here. That is all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I'm a little bit surprised that this practice doesn't bother you just a little bit. Considering this is coming from the guy who said he'd rather see El Paso get nuked than give up some personal freedoms.
Who says it doesn't? The only possibly effective voice of criticism on issues such as this... issues that bother me greatly... is the Democratic Party, which is doing a terrible job of playing their part. It aggravates the piss out me, and it upsets me to see smart folks such as Max hyping each and every doomed attempt they make to re-take their political glory through trickery and deceit instead of trying to earn it back.

The only way the Democrats will ever end their downward spiral looks more and more like one of two options: 1. Become something that it's increasingly apparent they are not, or 2. Wait around until the Republicans implode. They have seemingly realized actual leadership and integrity is either beyond their grasp or useless to them, so they've opted to catalyze option 2.

Why do I always find myself reminding you that I do not like ANYTHING government does? What part of libertarian crank do you find so hard to grasp, man?
Dec 20th, 2005 01:58 PM
KevinTheOmnivore "I'm not misstating the facts. I've read the White House (sic) and they put out a list of actual terror attacks that were prevented because of the Patriot Act that's not going to be re-authorized because of YOU."

All I want for Chrtistmas is one swift kick at his nuts. That's it.
Dec 20th, 2005 01:37 PM
ziggytrix So is Republican Senator John Sununu a loose cannon like Sen. McCain, cuz I seem to recall a Republican politician with a similar name who was pretty far right, politically, but I think maybe I'm getting names mixed up.

anyway -
Quote:
Sununu said the most important problem is that the standard of relevance is too broad and that the target of an investigation should be notified. "I believe you should show a connection to a targeted terrorist or a spy" (i.e. not just "relevant" to an investigation) because that's less prone to abuse. He also expressed concern that there is no review of the Section 215 gag order, no way to take it before a judge, no way to have it overturned. "I think taking your case before a judge is the American way and it doesn't threaten law enforcement's ability to do their job to have their case heard."

That idea bothered Sean Hannity so much, he didn't let Sununu finish his sentence before interrupting. "That's not what law enforcement officers say."

"That is NOT true."

Waving pieces of paper like Joe McCarthy and being just as coy about his sources, Hannity's voice rose as he began his attack. "I've spoken to law enforcement, Senator, and that's what they're telling me and this will greatly hinder - and remember you are one of three Republicans who voted against this. So obviously, the majority..."

Sununu cut him off. "Let's talk substance. Numbers don't matter."

Hannity waved the papers at Sununu again and insisted that numbers DO matter because most of his fellow Republicans disagreed with him.

Sununu cut him off again. "How does having a gag-order request heard before a judge undermine an investigation?"

Hannity, using the bullying tone he normally reserves for Democrats, demanded, "Is there or is there not judicial review in the current Patriot Act?"

"Not of the 215 gag order."

I would have thought that even an egoist like Sean Hannity would recognize that the Chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism would probably be more knowledgable about the provisions of the Patriot Act than himself. But he insisted, without citing any source or section of the Act, "There IS judicial review. There IS. You're acting as if there is none."

Sununu's voice rose with obvious annoyance. "Not of the gag order. That is misleading... You cannot have a serious debate if you're going to misstate the facts."

Rather than cite sources, Hannity tried to change the subject. "I'm not misstating the facts. I've read the White House (sic) and they put out a list of actual terror attacks that were prevented because of the Patriot Act that's not going to be re-authorized because of YOU."
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/17/...ff_hannity.php
Dec 20th, 2005 01:00 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
I believe that was from 11/29/5. The topic was Max's thread about Bush's then upcoming timetable speech that wasn't.
And it's pretty silly to think that's it's only Dems. who are upset about this, or that they're the only ones making a stink about it.


Quote:
So, this'll last about a week. The Republicans quickly countered with calls for Plame-like leak investigations... which is just more political posturing, but that which will effectively silence the Dems that might have pushed this further.
I'm a little bit surprised that this practice doesn't bother you just a little bit. Considering this is coming from the guy who said he'd rather see El Paso get nuked than give up some personal freedoms.

I don't think the investigation cries will hold up. It's his best defense I suppose, and it's right out of politics 101. I know an angel loses his wings every time this is said now, but this new response is certainly the work of karl Rove. It's smart message politics, which is what he does.


Quote:
So... what's next then? While this was brought out to counter good news from Iraq that might have helped Dubya's numbers, it's a defensive measure at best. What's gonna be the next big fiasco utilized to rip the heart out of the GOP?

Care to guess?
A more important question is who cares? Do I have any kind of investment in The Republican Party, or either of these parties for that matter? I can honestly say that if any of these people are up to no good, well then I want it exposed.

I think it's irrational to rally around the team jersey on issues like this. You can sound like a conspiracy theorist all you want, and assume that all of these things MUST be manufactured by the liberal media, and the Dems., and George Soros, and somehow, Barbara Streisand. Or you could take a look at an administration that constantly finds itself in the cross hairs of people on both sides of the aisle, for various reasons, and maybe stop and ask whether or not there's some merit to these complaints.

The Dems. are the minority party in Congress. If investigations come about over this NSA stuff, it'll be Republicans who ultimately be the deciding catalyst behind that.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.