America... Spying on Americans

Quote:

Your superior logic has conquered, Kuvasz. first damned thing you said that has made any sense. Clinton was never guilty of anything. strawman argument alert He could not(he was only in office a month) have done anything to prevent the Cole attack.

Actually,the attack on the Cole happened when Clinton only had three months left of his second term.
It happened on Oct 12,2000.

Mortkat wrote:

Your superior logic has conquered, Kuvasz. first damned thing you said that has made any sense. Clinton was never guilty of anything. strawman argument alert He could not(he was only in office a month) have done anything to prevent the Cole attack. addressed already by the naval report, sailors on duty failed to follow orders. He hadn't read the CIA reports until he had finished with his bimbos.

Since your logical powers are so stunning, you may be able to dispose of the CIA report given in 1995.

It clearly gave Clinton NOT ONLY THE POSSIBLE LOCATIONS OF A STRIKE BY THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS BUT IT ALSO GAVE THE POSSIBLE MEANS.

So, Clinton set up the following: a triad approach to capturing or killing bin Laden by having on 24 hour alert navy ships in the Gulf with cruise missiles ready to hit al Queada targets where bin Laden was known to be. Air Force bombers stationed in Saudi Arabia also on call 24 hours a day to deliver bombs to foresaid target, US Marine forces again on-ship in the Gulf, on call 24/7 to drop into al Queada camps to capture or kill bin Laden. Whenever the Clinton administration thought bin Laden popped up they fired several cruise missiles missing him by less than an hour at the camp they attacked....and each time it was done it was criticized by republicans.

But in relief to this, consider the resounding thing that within weeks of taking office in January 2001, Bush directed the US military to stand down from this triad of US armed forces intent on killing bin Laden.

Since I am not as proficient as scholar as you are, Kuvasz, You know how I hate to agree with you, but I do here. I have not found evidence that Clinton followed up this report with any airport security measures or more arrangements to protect the key spots in New York and DC.

actually the Millennium threat was the worst terrorist attempt on US soil up to that time and was stopped precisely because of increased air port security, espcially at LAX.

The Hart/Rudman study, released in late 2000 warned about the threat of lax airport security, but the Bush administration never initiated any of that study's recommendations, instead, it's series of recommendations was passed on for evaluation to dick cheney who had exactly zero meetings on it until 911.

If you know about such measures, please inform me.

do your own homework.

Kuvasz, who has already been shown to be extremely erroneous in his time line concerning the Cole(thank you, Mysterman) has told us of all the things that Clinton did to try to prevent terrorism. Kuvasz believes that Clinton was efficacious.

Very well, What does Kuvasz think Clinton was saying when he spoke these words in his December 18th 1998 speech after he had, without Congressional Approval, ordered Iraq to be bombed?

I think he was saying he was doing what was necessary to destroy any site capable of producing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. but he did not invade iraq, did he?

Everything below is an exact quote from Clinton's speech

It can be found( I provide links ) at

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Quote

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forcess. Their mission is to attack IRAQ'S NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMS AND ITS MILITARY CAPACITY TO THREATEN ITS NEIGHBORS.


AND

Other countries possess WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND BALLISTIC MISSLES. WITH SADDAM THERE IS ONE BIG DIFFERENCE. HE HAS USED THEM.

AND

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites

and

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's abiility to obtain necessary evidence

and

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site..."

and

IRAQ HAS FALIED TO TURN OVER VIRTUALLY A L L THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY THE INSPECTORS. INDEED WE KNOW THAT IRAQ HAS ORDERED THE DESTRUCTION OF WEAPONS RELATED DOCUMENTS IN ANTICIPATION OF AN UNSCOM INSPECTION

and

...without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months not years.

and

I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DEGRADE SADDAM'S CAPACITY TO DEVELOP AND DELIVER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."

and

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and work towards the day when IRAQ HAS A GOVERNMENT WORTHY OF ITS PEOPLE.

and

The credible threat to use force, and WHEN NECESSARY, THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, IS THE SUREST WAY TO CONTAIN SDADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM..."

and

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD.

end of quotes----------------

Now, Kuvasz, who seems to have trouble getting his time lines straight, has told us all of the things that Clinton did to prevent terrorist attacks.

ops, that would be you, remember?

If Kuvasz is correct, he must then add the speech above which was immediately preceded by a UNILATERAL ATTACK WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL ON IRAQ as one of Clinton's initiatives.

the US had been bombing iraq for several years over "no-fly" zone encroachments and iraqi land based missle systems painting US/UK fighters. the difference in the '98 desert fox bombing operation was that it was more widespread and was used as punishment for iraq playing games with the UN inspectors, but recall, iraq did not throw out the inspectrors, clinton ordered them out prior to the bombing.

But Clinton did not invade iraq.

HOWEVER, the speech makes it clear that Clinton thought that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction; that Clinton thought that Saddam was a danger to the security of the world and that Clinton thought that Iraq had destroyed a great deal of its documents showing the number of weapons at its disposal.


"security of the world?", your quote from clinton was this:

Quote:

Their mission is to attack IRAQ'S NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMS AND ITS MILITARY CAPACITY TO THREATEN ITS NEIGHBORS"

After all, who would know more about Saddam and WMD's than the most brilliant policy wonk we have ever had in the White House.

true, and he did not invade iraq.

Debra_Law wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

President Bush, his administration, and the DOJ (the president's Department of false JUSTIFICATIONS), have lost credibility with the Country--and the Courts.

President Bush's power grab as the wartime president in the never-ending war on terrorism is is based on LIES. Because LIES cannot be proven or justified, Bush evades accountability. The secret FISA court now knows Bush to be a liar and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals now knows Bush to be a liar.

With his credibility shattered, the self-appointed monarch of our country, KING Bush, is headed for a well-deserved fall from grace. If any president in the history of our nation deserved to be impeached, it is BUSH.

LOL. Because his "lies" can't be proven he avoids accountability? How do these courts "know" him to be a liar if the lies can't be proven?

Ticomaya:

It's elementary law. Why don't you research the concept of "reasonable inferences."

<big snip>

Reasonable inferences, Ticomaya, look it up.

Reasonable inferences? Really? What a weak argument. You'll get blown out of the water if you think that bit of "elementary law" will carry the day for you. You claim he's lied, but his "lies" can't be proven, yet you feel the court will believe he's lied with no proof. In the snipped portion of your above post, you have zero evidence that Bush was lying when he claimed that the targets of his domestic spying program have known ties to international terrorim. You have zero evidence that the allegations regarding Hamdi's detention were untrue. You have zero evidence that the contentions of the government regarding Padilla were untrue. Rather than draw the "reasonable inferences" you suggest, courts instead listen to the evidence and arguments concerning the justiciable issues before them, and then make the appropriate findings, based upon the evidence.

But let's apply your "reasonable inferences" approach to your argument: You have claimed that Bush has lied, yet you acknowledge you cannot prove that Bush has lied. The reasonable inference is that it is you who is lying.

But Ticomaya- She doesn't need evidence/ She is Debra L A W.

Actually, you are dead right, Ticomaya. But since Debra L A W is obviously one of the most brilliant people on these threads, I will pose a question which follows up from Ticomaya's incisive post.

Tell us, O Debra Law, EXACTLY what Crime was committed by the Bush Administration. You are extremely skilled in the law so tell us, EXACTLY WHO WAS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN HIS CONTACT WITH A FOREIGN NATIONAL WAS WIRETAPPED.

If you can't do that( and you can't, )you don't have a case.

Neither Kuvasz nor Setanta have shown that Clinton did not believe that Saddam and Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

oh sweet jesus. setanta hasn't been posting lately here, are you blurring threads again or what? after all your drivel, you have nothing on topic to say now? what does clinton's opinion on iraqi wmds have to do with bush breaking the law by not informing the FISA court on listening to americans in america?

That is what I showed in my post. The rest is just diversion by Kuvasz and Setanta.

the only diversions have been yours. you initiated the spectre of clinton here and as a diversion away from the topic at hand

Again, My quotes of Clinton showed that he was convinced that Saddam had weapons of Mass Destruction.

perhaps, in 1998, before he bombed their capabilties, even then he did not invade iraq

but i note you ignored that your invection about the US Cole was shown to be a remarkably stupid comment and that you failed to apologise for it.

Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit. Die dulci fruere, Morkat.

No name---no violation.

I am very much afraid that Kuvasz has lost his reading skills. Tired, perhaps?

He is again egregiously mistaken. He wrote:

Security of the world? Your quote from Clinton was this--"Their mission is to attack Iraq's NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROGRAMS AND THEIR CAPACITY TO THREATEN ITS NEIGHBORS"

no sir, you are wrong. Perhaps you should read more carefully. I wrote the sentence quoted above as a quote from Clinton AT THE BEGINNING OF MY POST(the beginning of his speech) but I also quoted Clinton JUST BEFORE MY END OF QUOTES. READ IT--IT SAYS---

The hard fact is that so long as he remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, T H E S E C U R I T Y O F T H E W O R L D.

Had you been erudite and used quotation marks as you had for the other "Quotes" I would have seen them. The error, a grammatical one was yours.

Your continual errors would be funny if they did not attempt to denigrate me. It is you who obviously can't read.

I can only see quotation marks when they are present and if you wish to quote someone the fashion is to quote them with quotation marks.

United States Code
TITLE 50—WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 36—FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE


§ 1809. Criminal sanctions


(a) Prohibited activities

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties

An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction

There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.