9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 01:38 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
okie wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I do have faith in any American of any party to come round to the job of leading America. I can't say the same for partisan politicians i.e. no one can tell me that Democrats do not wish for harm to befall our nation so that they may rise to power.


More love for power than principle, dangerous indeed, and its plain as day, staring us in the face. Its called the Democratic Party of today. They will say or do anything to regain their power. And if they do, look out. Button down the hatches. We've not seen anything yet.


But you think the Republican party is somehow more principled? If you believe that Democrats wish for harm to befall our nation so that they may rise to power, then you must also believe that Republicans wish for harm to befall our nation so that they may retain power. No one can tell me that one political party is more principled than the other. That, quite frankly, is bullshit.


No, I'm quite confident Republicans wish for everything to go well in America.

It's not a matter of principle though, just political logic. The Republicans are in power. If everything goes well, prosperity is associated with their being in power. This is why the Democrats and there friends in the media work so hard to paint the good as bad. It's simple logic that without bad things in America, there is no reason to change the government, and if one aspires to changing the government, one requires bad things to happen in America.

I appreciate that there is a school of thought that believes another al-Qaeda attack favors the Republicans' elections chances. First of all I don't think that's the case and secondly I don't think members of either party hope that sort of harm will befall us. When I speak of "harm," I mean far less catastrophic injury: economic downturns, military setbacks, governmental scandals etc.

Of course were the Republicans out of power, then I agree that they would wish for harm to befall the nation so that they might return to power.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 01:41 pm
Gonzales is really getting grilled today. He is having to dismiss his past statements as 'answers to hypothetical' questions, which were clearly not hypothetical; he is using various methods to claim the Spying is legal, and when one is attacked he circles back to the others; and then claims that the President didn't circumvent FISA because there is a interpretation of FISA (interpreted by the Admin's lawyers, of course) that states the Prez isn't held by FISA, even though that is the PURPOSE of FISA!

This really isn't going well for Gonzales. He looks like a damn fool up there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 01:45 pm
Half of that was for you, the other half for okie. Thanks for responding. I think you could look at it in terms of two sort of generalized rationales for re-electing them. One is, things are going great so keep us in power (didn't work so well for the Democrats in 2000) and the other is, things are still going badly, so don't change horses in the middle of the race. So there is just as much reason to believe that Republicans wish for things to go badly as do Democrats. In the sense that things would have to go really badly to inspire the lack of confidence of the electorate in the elected officials, it's possible that Democrats wish for that to happen. Or they might just wish that the ones with power would make some better decisions.

But it's all sort of a wasted and incomplete thought as none of us knows what people wish.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 01:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Gonzales is really getting grilled today. He is having to dismiss his past statements as 'answers to hypothetical' questions, which were clearly not hypothetical; he is using various methods to claim the Spying is legal, and when one is attacked he circles back to the others; and then claims that the President didn't circumvent FISA because there is a interpretation of FISA (interpreted by the Admin's lawyers, of course) that states the Prez isn't held by FISA, even though that is the PURPOSE of FISA!

This really isn't going well for Gonzales. He looks like a damn fool up there.

Cycloptichorn


Bottom Line ...

Lots of noise
Nothing happens
Spying on citizens who have nothing to do with terrorism continues.


Anon
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 01:50 pm
Also, that the same logic implies that Repubs wish for harm to befall the country any time they're out of power.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 02:04 pm
Wow, Leahy just said,

Quote:
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzales, I forgot that you aren't allowed to actually answer any questions relevant to this matter.


He also said,

Quote:
Seems like some CYA from you, doesn't it?


Very nice

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 02:27 pm
On Eve of Hearing, Split on Spying
By Charlie Savage
The Boston Globe

Sunday 05 February 2006

Some prominent conservatives break with Bush.
Washington - As hearings begin tomorrow on President Bush's domestic spying program, increasing numbers of prominent conservatives are breaking with the administration to say the program is probably illegal and to sharply criticize Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's legal theory that a wartime president can override a law.

The skeptics include leaders of conservative activist groups, well-known law professors, veterans of Republican administrations, former GOP members of Congress, and think tank analysts. The conservatives said they are speaking out because they object to the White House's attempt to portray criticism of the program as partisan attacks.

"My criteria for judging this stuff is what would a President Hillary do with these same powers," said Paul M. Weyrich, the influential writer and leader of the Free Congress Foundation, a think tank. "And if I'm troubled by what she would do, then I have to be troubled by what Bush could do, even though I have more trust in Bush than I do in Hillary."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020606J.shtml
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Reviewed a bunch of the testimony; and you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger bunch of lies from a single person than AG Gonzales just told.


I've not seen/heard any of his testimony, but I'm aware of the yardstick you've applied in the past to conclude whether a statement from the Bush Administration is a lie, so you must understand why my default position is to be skeptical of your assessment.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wow, Leahy just said,

Quote:
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzales, I forgot that you aren't allowed to actually answer any questions relevant to this matter.


He also said,

Quote:
Seems like some CYA from you, doesn't it?


Very nice

Cycloptichorn

Help out an ignorant on acronyms, will ya? What does CYA mean?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
Cover Yer Arse
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:24 pm
Thanks for interjecting with that extremely useful and relevant comment!

Here's a few Bush lies; I guess you will say they actually were 'hypotheticals' or some such, but Lies they remain:

Quote:
President Bush -- April 19, 2004:

For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.

President Bush -- April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

President Bush -- June 9, 2005:

One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.

White House fact sheet - June 9, 2005:

The Patriot Act extended the use of roving wiretaps, which were already permitted against drug kingpins and mob bosses, to international terrorism investigations. They must be approved by a judge. Without roving wiretaps, terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone.

President Bush -- July 20, 2005:

The Patriot Act helps us defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're talking about. And they are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

White House fact sheet -- July 20, 2005:

The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse.

President Bush -- December 10, 2005:

The Patriot Act is helping America defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all our people. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Under the act, law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone or search his property. Congress also oversees our use of the Patriot Act. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate.


All lies. Bush was under no compulsion to talk about these issues; he directly lied to the American people on this subject on many occasions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:25 pm
thx.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:28 pm
It's too bad Bush couldn't have said "For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example. Except for the secret NSA program I have been running that allows us to spy on terrorists through secret methods of communication monitoring and surveillance. We know the terrorists never watch c-span, so we feel confident telling you that on national TV."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:31 pm
As I said earlier, the president was under no compunction to discuss the issue in any way. He could have easily said, 'we can't talk about it for national security reasons,' the same way his AG is doing under questioning.

It doesn't matter if the president is lying to protect a secret program; he is still lying about the subject. Do you deny that he was lying?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:36 pm
Cycloptichorn, well that's a useful list of Bushie lying to us again and again on this issue. His lies have compounded his crime. And he's really spitting this all in our faces.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 03:47 pm
Of course, McG can't deny that Bush was lying, because he obviously was lying. Instead, he attempts to excuse the lies by Bush by claiming they were 'neccessary' to protect the secrecy of this illegal spying program. Weak.

Of course, he wasn't under oath; Bushbots don't get put under oath these days (witness the current AG!), so it's okay for him to lie, nothing morally wrong with it at all. Right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 04:57 pm
Quote:
Newsweek

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek/
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 04:59 pm
Reporter hits McClellan on taps: 'You know what happened to Nixon when he broke the law'
RAW STORY

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan got in a heated row with a White House correspondent at Monday's press briefing over President Bush's warantless domestic spying program, RAW STORY has learned.

The questioner, believed to be outspoken liberal columnist Helen Thomas, who has been covering the White House since President John F. Kennedy, asks McClellan if Bush should obey the law.

The relevant part of transcript follows. RAW STORY is trying to confirm the questioner, but is currently unable to view C-SPAN's coverage of the exchange.

#
Q: Does the president think he should obey the law? He put his hand on the Bible twice to uphold the Constitution. Wiretapping is not legal under the circumstances without a warrant.

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I guess you didn't pay attention to the attorney general's hearing earlier today, because he walked through very clearly the rationale behind this program.

Q There is no rationale --

MR. MCCLELLAN: And Helen, I think you have to ask --

Q -- (inaudible) -- the law.

MR. MCCLELLAN: I think you have ask are we -- well, he's not -- are we a nation at war.

Q That's not the question.

MR. MCCLELLAN: No, that is the issue here.

Q The question is, the point is, there are means for him to go to -- get a warrant to spy on people.

MR. MCCLELLAN: Enemy surveillance is critical to waging and winning war. It's one of the traditional tools of war.

Q But he says he doesn't have running room --

MR. MCCLELLAN: The attorney general outlined very clearly today how previous administrations have used the same authority --

Q That doesn't make it legal.

MR. MCCLELLAN: -- and cited the same -- and cited the very same authority.

Q (Inaudible) -- they broke the law, that's too bad.

MR. MCCLELLAN: And we're going to continue doing everything we can --

Q You know what happened to Nixon when he broke the law.

MR. MCCLELLAN: -- within our power to protect the American people.

This is a very different circumstance, and you know that.

Q No, I don't.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 05:17 pm
It was indeed the rabid Helen Thomas.

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/rnc/intel_thomas_175.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Feb, 2006 05:42 pm
Yeah, rabid. Why else has she been allowed in the WH for over 40 years? She obviously has been a traitor and carrying rabies. Quick, maybe you can accuse her of killing babies with a pitchfork.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 05:01:20