America... Spying on Americans

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Those that were supposedly notified had said they were left with the impression that it was only a change in technology and not a change in law.

Untrue, FD. Check your sources. Specifically Rockefeller.

Not only is not "untrue" but you reported it yourself in this thread.

But as for Rockefeller, he had this to say.

Rockefeller wrote:

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, released a letter he wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney on July 17, 2003, the day he learned of the surveillance in a meeting with Cheney, three other lawmakers and the heads of the CIA and NSA. Rockefeller expressed deep misgivings and said the program reminded him of Total Information Awareness, a controversial Pentagon effort to mine credit-card data, cellphone calls and even bank withdrawals to spot terrorist activity.

Tico wrote:

No, can't blame Congress for doing much of anything to fight terrorism.

Well, according to you and the legal scholars that penned the opinion that justifies this latest action, that's not their job.

What is "untrue," FD, is your assertion that those who where "supposedly notified" were left with the impression it was only a change of technology. As far as I know, only Graham has made that assertion ... not all those who were notified ... "supposedly" or otherwise.

Rockefeller is not claiming to not have understood what was going on. He's claiming to have objected in writing at the time.

Well, it certainly appears they take that part of their job seriously.

So according you, McG, if the police search your house while you're gone, and you don't notice anything disturbed, then you have not been a victim of an illegal search?

Sorry McG but your argument cuts both ways. How do you know people will lose the right to own a gun if certain laws are passed? You seem to be willing to argue on COULD on some issues.

Not only that, but if they make you dissappear into a secret prison system you haven't lost any rights either.

Ticomaya wrote:

What is "untrue," FD, is your assertion that those who where "supposedly notified" were left with the impression it was only a change of technology. As far as I know, only Graham has made that assertion ... not all those who were notified ... "supposedly" or otherwise.

I think you understood what I was referring to and are just nitpicking. I didn't say "all those", I said those, which is as accurate as using "them" for unidentified persons. If you are asking me to be exact and accurate to the detail in every post, I will ask the same of you and this will be a very very long thread of nothing but corrections of one another that add nothing to the conversation. Perhaps that's what you're aiming for.

Tico wrote:

Rockefeller is not claiming to not have understood what was going on. He's claiming to have objected in writing at the time.

Actually, he is saying that the the information provided is not sufficient or clear and so he has reservations about the program. Hence the "I am neither a technician nor an attorney" comment. At the very least it shows that the admin did not have the approval of Congress.

Either way, the argument woiyo was making that the Congress was consulted and knew all about it is disproven.

Quote:

Well, it certainly appears they take that part of their job seriously.

Again, not sure what you're getting at. Looks to me like you are defensive because you know your boy has crossed the line. He lashes out at Congress or whoever he can when confronted, hopefully you're not emulating his bad behavior.

The President believes that as a result of the Authorization provided by Congress, he has the authority to authorize the interception of outgoing communications byt he NSA. The NSA already has the authority to intercept INCOMING communications without warrent.

We have a President who stands before the Nation and says exactly what he did, why he is doing it and why he will continue to do it. He is taking responsibility for his actions (unlike other Presidents who would never act as GW with such candor and trying to expalin away actions by asking what the definition of IS , is.)

We have a President who has notified Congressional leaders 13 times of his actions and not one of them spoke up until the stiory was leaked by the media. Both Democratic and Republican leaders were away and obviously agreed since they took no action until now.

You can debate the "legality" of these action. However, you can not deny the fact that this President will do anything and everrything to protect this Nation from enemies who want to kill YOU!

It's hardly nitpicking for me to assume you meant what you said. When you said "those" I was not left with the impression you were only referring to one person: Bob Graham. I honestly believed you meant what you said: "Those that were supposedly notified had said they were left with the impression that it was only a change in technology and not a change in law." Instead of saying "Those that were ... " you meant to say, "One person that was ...." You were not clear, and instead of simply correcting what you meant to say, you act as if I'm the one with the problem for reading your sentence as you had written it, and for not being able to figure out what you meant to say.

I don't care whether you are exact and accurate in your postings or not, FD, but when you aren't, you invite misunderstanding and confusion such as the kind that resulted in this instance.

So who's claiming it did have the approval of Congress?

The President believes that as a result of the Authorization provided by Congress, he has the authority to authorize the interception of outgoing communications byt he NSA. The NSA already has the authority to intercept INCOMING communications without warrent.

We have a President who stands before the Nation and says exactly what he did, why he is doing it and why he will continue to do it. He is taking responsibility for his actions (unlike other Presidents who would never act as GW with such candor and trying to expalin away actions by asking what the definition of IS , is.)

We have a President who has notified Congressional leaders 13 times of his actions and not one of them spoke up until the stiory was leaked by the media. Both Democratic and Republican leaders were away and obviously agreed since they took no action until now.

You can debate the "legality" of these action. However, you can not deny the fact that this President will do anything and everrything to protect this Nation from enemies who want to kill YOU!

Leaders on both sides of the aisle in Congress were notified. Congress was not consulted. Who is claiming they were?

No, I was being jocular. It looks to me like you are the defensive one.

So by your reasoning, Bush didn't do anything wrong, but the senators who knew what he was doing should have stopped him, so this is their fault?

Bush's claim that members of Congress had somehow signed off on the action was exposed as hollow.

"Leaders in the United States Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this program", the President said yesterday.

Link to Rockefeller's handwritten note he sent to Vice President Cheney he sent to Vice President Cheney in 2003 recording his dismay at the program and his inability to endorse it.

Ticomaya wrote:

I don't care whether you are exact and accurate in your postings or not, FD, but when you aren't, you invite misunderstanding and confusion such as the kind that resulted in this instance.

Possibly, but seeing as how you had referred to what Graham said yourself in this very thread, I don't see why you would have been so confused.

Tico wrote:

So who's claiming it did have the approval of Congress?

Before you piped in with your red marker, we were discussing this post.

woiyo wrote:

The President believes that as a result of the Authorization provided by Congress, he has the authority to authorize the interception of outgoing communications byt he NSA. The NSA already has the authority to intercept INCOMING communications without warrent.

We have a President who stands before the Nation and says exactly what he did, why he is doing it and why he will continue to do it. He is taking responsibility for his actions (unlike other Presidents who would never act as GW with such candor and trying to expalin away actions by asking what the definition of IS , is.)

We have a President who has notified Congressional leaders 13 times of his actions and not one of them spoke up until the stiory was leaked by the media. Both Democratic and Republican leaders were away and obviously agreed since they took no action until now.

You can debate the "legality" of these action. However, you can not deny the fact that this President will do anything and everrything to protect this Nation from enemies who want to kill YOU!

Tico wrote:

Leaders on both sides of the aisle in Congress were notified. Congress was not consulted. Who is claiming they were?

See above.

DrewDad wrote:

So according you, McG, if the police search your house while you're gone, and you don't notice anything disturbed, then you have not been a victim of an illegal search?

Not the same at all... You always take it to the extreme...

FreeDuck wrote:

So by your reasoning, Bush didn't do anything wrong, but the senators who knew what he was doing should have stopped him, so this is their fault?

Not sure who your addressing, but it might be me so, if I may.

I am not sure from a legal perspective that GW did anything wrong. I would have rather he had gone to FISA to obtain the broadest possible warrant, which I am sure he would have received. He did not, which makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

That being said, I resent the attitude of the so-called congressional leaders who were notified, in part or whole, and said NOTHING until the Times leaked the story and now they plead "STUPIDITY" and start the BLAME GAME.

GW did not try to hide anything here. He supposedly told the "leaders" what he was doing, why and to who he was going to do it to. He even went before the Nation and siad he has done it and will continue to do it.,

I find that somewhat refreshing. Imagine a LEADER taking responsibility for their actions.

Now, again, with that said, when you have a BOLD CHARACTER like GW at the helm of the ship, you better have just a BOLD A CONGRESS to make sure the check and balance is in place.

Our congress, or half of it anyway, is weak and afraid and the other half are partisen nitwits .

If nothing is disturbed,then nothing was moved.
If nothing was moved,then nothing was taken.
If nothing was taken,then I dont care.

mysteryman wrote:

If nothing is disturbed,then nothing was moved.
If nothing was moved,then nothing was taken.
If nothing was taken,then I dont care.

Really? Pictures made of your financial records, copies made of your rolodex and E-mail contacts, your home invaded?

Apparently you welcome being searched at any time so long as the police do not steal during their visit?????

And I didn't ask if you cared. I asked if your rights were violated.