Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 16th, 2005, 12:02 PM        NSA spied without warrants on American Citizens
When you concider that under the Patriot acts, warrants can be obtained from a secret court, it seems bizarre and curious that the adminsitration felt it neccesary to break the law anyway.

This is so beyond the pale, even Republicans are calling for an investigation.

Report of NSA Spying Prompts Call for Probe

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority."

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 17th, 2005, 02:50 PM       
I find this brazen attitude about all this rather disturbing, and ya would think conservatives would, too. Here you have a "conservative" Republican president citing so-called "executive authority" to spy on his own population, circumventing the already grey and unclear procedures that surround this stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html

December 18, 2005

In Speech, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 - President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists."

In his weekly radio address from the White House, which, in an unusual step, he delivered live, Mr. Bush also lashed out at senators - both Democrats and Republicans - who voted on Friday to block the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which expanded the president's power to conduct surveillance in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The revelation that Mr. Bush had secretly instructed the security agency to intercept the communications of Americans and suspected terrorists inside the United States, without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that oversees intelligence matters, was cited by several senators as a reason for their vote.

"In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," Mr. Bush said from behind a lectern in the Roosevelt Room, next to the Oval Office.

He said the Senate's action "endangers the lives of our citizens," and added that "the terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks," a reference to the approaching deadline of Dec. 31, when critical provisions of the current law will end.

Mr. Bush's public confirmation Saturday morning of the existence of one of the country's most secret intelligence programs, which had been known to only a select number of his aides, was a rare moment in the presidency. But he linked it with a forceful assertion of his own authority to act without court approval, making it clear that he planned to resist any effort to infringe on his powers.

As recently as Friday, when he was interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS, Mr. Bush refused to confirm the report that day in The New York Times that in 2002 he authorized the domestic spying operation by the security agency, which is usually barred from intercepting domestic communications.

But as the clamor over the revelation rose and Vice President Dick Cheney went to Capitol Hill to counter charges that the program was an illegal assumption of presidential powers, even in a time of war, Mr. Bush and his senior aides decided that it was futile to dismiss the report as "speculation," the word he used in his interview.

In his radio address, Mr. Bush sharply criticized the leak of the information, saying that it had been "improperly provided to news organizations." As a result of the report, he said, "our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

But Mr. Bush did not address the main question directed at him by some members of Congress on Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system established under current law, which allows the president to seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law, the administration could have obtained the same information.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Friday that "there is no doubt this is inappropriate" and that he would conduct hearings to determine why Mr. Bush took the action.

The president said on Saturday that he acted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks because the United States had failed to detect communications that might have tipped them off to the plot. He said that two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, "communicated while they were in the United States to other members of Al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."

As a result, "I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations," Mr. Bush said. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security."

Mr. Bush said that every 45 days the program was reviewed, based on "a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland." That review involves the attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, and Mr. Bush's counsel, Harriet E. Miers, whom Mr. Bush unsuccessfully tried to nominate to the Supreme Court this year.

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups," the president said. He said Congressional leaders had been repeatedly briefed on the program, and that intelligence officials "receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization."

The Patriot Act vote in the Senate, coming a day after Mr. Bush was forced to accept an amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that places limits on interrogation techniques that can be used by Central Intelligence Agency officers and other non-military personnel, was a setback to the president's assertion of broad powers. In both cases, he lost a number of Republicans along with almost all Democrats.

"This reflects a complete transformation of the debate in America over torture," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch. "After the attacks, no politician was heard expressing any questions about the executive branch's treatment of captured terrorists." That has now "changed fundamentally," Mr. Malinowski said, a view that even some of Mr. Bush's aides and former aides echoed.

Mr. Bush's unusual radio address is part of a broader effort this weekend to regain the initiative, after weeks in which the political ground has shifted under his feet. On Sunday evening he has scheduled a live television address from the Oval Office to celebrate the success of the elections in Iraq, and to declare that they are evidence that he made the right decision to depose Saddam Hussein.

The last time Mr. Bush delivered such an address, in the formal setting that he usually tries to avoid, was in March 2003, when he informed the world that he had ordered the Iraq invasion.

As part of the planned address, Mr. Bush appears ready to at least hint at reductions in the troop levels in Iraq, which he has said in a series of four recent speeches on Iraq strategy could be the ultimate result if Iraqi security forces are able to begin to perform more security operations currently conducted by American forces.

Currently, there are roughly 160,000 American troops in Iraq, a number that was intended to keep order for Friday's parliamentary elections, which were conducted with little violence and an unexpectedly heavy turnout of Sunnis, the ethnic minority that ruled the country under Mr. Hussein's reign. The American troop level was already scheduled to decline to 138,000 - what the military calls its "baseline" level of troops - after the election.

But on Friday, as the debate in Washington swirled over the president's order to the N.S.A., Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, hinted that further reductions may be on the way. "We're doing our assessment, and I make some recommendations in the coming weeks about whether I think it's prudent to go below the baseline," Gen. Casey told reporters in Baghdad.

In Washington, officials said that could enable Mr. Bush to point to deeper cuts in coming months, assuming that the new government forms and the insurgency is held in check. The Army, for example, has prepared plans to hold back one brigade that was scheduled to enter Iraq and to assign some soldiers from another brigade to train Iraqis and guard utilities and other public infrastructure, Pentagon civilian and military officials say. Under these plans, a Germany-based brigade of the First Armored Division, now in Kuwait, would remain there as a quick-reaction force; all or part of the brigade also could be sent home from Kuwait should the security in Iraq situation settle down in the weeks after the vote, officials said. An Army brigade is 3,000 to 5,000 troops, but can have additional supporting units attached to it.

A brigade of the First Infantry Division based at Fort Riley, Kan., would be sent to Iraq in smaller units, and not all at once, under the proposals. Some soldiers from the brigade could be sent to Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces, while others might be sent to Iraq subsequently to guard utilities, infrastructure and other important locations as required next year, Pentagon civilian and military officials said.

It is unclear how far Mr. Bush may be prepared to go in his Oval Office speech to committing to troop reductions; in his four recent speeches on Iraq he said repeatedly that troop levels would decline only as Iraqi and American forces accomplished several objectives: Breaking the back of the insurgency, protecting the new government, and making sure that terror groups cannot use Iraq as a launching pad for new attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 10:27 AM       
Since he thinks his executive authority rises above the law, I can only believe he wants the Patriot Act so he won't hve his naps and bike rides interupted by contantly having to personally aprove all the horrible shit they're going to do anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 10:29 AM       
Following his logic, why even pass the PATRIOT Act? According to him, he already has the constitutional authority anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 11:54 AM       
And the question is, why??? They have a secret court in the justice department to issue these warrants, and the department is on record as saying the ALMOST NEVER REFUSE A REQUEST!

That, to me, leaves only two possabilities.

1.) The administration finds it simply too much bother to obey the law. Law is seen as an incovenience, an irritation the common folk may need to put up with, but not the administration.

2.) The warrants they are looking for are so without merrit that eeven a totally secret court that almost always gives the administration what it wants would feel obligated to refuse warrants.

Can anybody think of a motivator hwere that doesn't come down to the two I've listed?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 11:57 AM       
3.) The administration assumed no one would mind. After all, 9/11, ya know!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 01:34 PM       
Well, I just got off the phone with Dubya, and he says they need some of these wiretaps quicker than what's afforded by the bureaucratic FISA application.

Now, as I'm typing this, a thought has entered my cranial cavity: I'm wondering if this works like the TV has informed me. Does private information obtained without a warrant in an issue such as this become invalid in a future trial? Wouldn't that alone make the decision to use this loophole by the administration a true option of last resort?

I mean, let's say Dubya's woken from one of his naps... or maybe interrupted while reading an upside down book to children... and informed that a suspected terrorist sympathizer has just picked up the phone and dialed 1-800-AL-QAEDA. We have the option of running down to the secret court building hidden in secret tunnels hollowed out under the Lincoln Memorial, known as Honest Abe's Hidey Hole, but while this is happening, Mohammed's likely pressing "2," selecting the PDX option for "Begin countdown sequence."

So what if we don't get to fully prosecute Mohammed for all the goodies we might find in his apartment because we tapped his phone without a warrant. Lives were saved.

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has phones. And those phones have to be guarded by men with wiretaps. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Mr. Burbank? George Bush has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the ACLU and CAIR and you curse the NSA. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what George Bush knows: that the right to privacy's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And the Patriot Act's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want Dubya on that phone, listening to America's brown people. You need Dubya on that phone.

The administration uses words like honor, code, loyalty...they use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain George W. Bush to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom he provides, then questions the manner in which he provides it! I'd rather you just said thank you Mr. President, voted for the closest Republican, and went on your way, possibly making a sizeable donation to the NRA. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a phone and learn to speak Farsi. Either way, George Dubya Bush doesn't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 05:58 PM       
"My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war," Bush said. "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/

If you question Bush's actions, you are helping THE ENEMY.

He's gone completely powermad.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 06:54 PM       
But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" (emphasis mine).

Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."

But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.

O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."

Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.

Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).

This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.


I hate Big Brother but it doesn't seem like Bush did anything illegal. Fuck you Big Brother
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #10  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 19th, 2005, 07:05 PM       
Actually, FISA still requires you to get a warrant 3-15 days after the wiretap.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 08:53 AM       
Which is partly why the patriot Act was passed in the first place. Guess that was unnecessary. :/
Reply With Quote
  #12  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 10:55 AM       
So, there goes the argument that sometimes they have to leap on these things and thye don't have the time to get a warrant.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 11:32 AM       
The main thing that Congress is bitching about, and this should congeal as the talking point, is that the problem in not that the President is authorizing spying within the country, but that he's doing so without any form of judicial or congressional oversight.

In other words, he is behaving like he's thinks he's the duly elected King of America.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 11:48 AM       
The response to that however will be that certain members of Congress in fact have been briefed on the NSA activity, supposedly in accordance with the law (as Ant pointed out).

That's why Democrats in the Senate and House are now rushing to say that they never were. or that they only saw so much, or that they complained about it in the past (which to me says they still knew about it a while ago, so why no uproar then?).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 12:02 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
What's gonna be the next demand made of the Bush administration every day, all day long to the point that my ears bleed from hearing about it? What will be the next big outrage foisted on us by Shrub and his gang of pirates? I'm sure something big is right around the corner, and I'm equally sure THIS is gonna be THE thing to bring down the Evil House of Dubya... at least the one that will actually live up to the hype, unlike the hundreds of other things that were supposed to be THE thing to do just that.

I believe that was from 11/29/5. The topic was Max's thread about Bush's then upcoming timetable speech that wasn't.

If the NYTimes sat on this story for a year, how am I supposed to accept that it's front page placement had nothing to do with the actual news of the day: the Iraqi elections?

Pardon me if I scoot back a little more towards the middle of my seat.

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.

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?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 01:00 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 01:37 PM       
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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 01:58 PM       
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 02:16 PM       
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?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 02:33 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 03:26 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 06:47 PM       
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.....
Reply With Quote
  #23  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 06:57 PM       
The ajax makes it pretty colours that dazzle and confound simultaneously :O
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Geggy Geggy is offline
say what now?
Geggy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peebody
Geggy is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 09:08 PM       
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.
__________________
enjoy now, regret later
Reply With Quote
  #25  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Dec 20th, 2005, 10:22 PM       
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.


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