Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[LadyDay]

They were phoning home to wish their moms "Happy Mother's Day"!

The president has had nothing to personally gain from surveilling the enemy. It doesn't make his poll numbers go up. It doesn't win him reelection. He isn't trying to hide from a "Lewinsky" scandal. He is trying to protect the country. That's what we are paying him to do.

So it appears you have 2 sources of information about the surveillance.............Bush and your rear end.

 

[LadyDay]

Which just goes to show that I don't read Vanity Faire since I had no idea that Valerie Plame was even on the cover of it.

Dawn, there are laws set up to protect US citizens from this sort of action. Why the hell would you be okay with your government going around these laws? Does that not then indicate that I don't need to let the IRS about the $10,000 I made on the side this year because it shouldn't involve them? This action by the constitution is illegal - as illegal as lying under oath and if you are to blind to see that then I feel sorry for you.

~Amanda

I don't believe Valery Plame was on the cover of Vanity Fair, but there was a story about her and Joe Wilson and there was a photo............inside the mag.

 

[LadyDay]

Since when does the "Attorney General" and the NSA attorneys have the right to "trump" the Constitution? If the alleged terrorists are US citizens, they have as much right to the protection of the 4th amendment as anyone else. Nothing...NOTHING in the FISA act over rides the 4th amendment.

Especially given the fact that the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president and Gonzalez is a Bush appointee and in Bush's back pocket.

 

[DawnCt1]

So it appears you have 2 sources of information about the surveillance.............Bush and your rear end.

Actually LadyDay, you are incredibly rude. There are plenty of sources if you can get your nose out of the left wing blogs. Do your own homework.

 

[Independent]

Regarding the NYT holding the story for a year. It was held for a year because the White House asked them to not print it. The NYT met with the White House to discuss the article over a year ago. So, over a year ago, Bush knew that the NYT had this info. This gave him a year to cover his behind, such as briefing Reid or other members of Congress just a few months ago. Consequently, any briefings of Congress within the last year should be looked at with a degree of suspect, as the White House knew this info could be published at anytime.

From the Washington Post:

In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

 

[CapeCodTenor]

So it appears you have 2 sources of information about the surveillance.............Bush and your rear end.

That was rude. If you want to debate, then debate, but don't resort to this type of nonsense.

 

[LadyDay]

Actually LadyDay, you are incredibly rude. There are plenty of sources if you can get your nose out of the left wing blogs. Do your own homework.

Other than your rightwing mouthpieces and Bush, you have absolutely nothing to back up your assertions.

So, do your own homework and provide a link other than to the "freepers", Bush's press conference, and his appointees.

And unless you can do that , yes, you might as well be pulling the info out of your back passage.

As far as rudeness, rude is being called a terrorist sympathizer because someone refuses to go along with your assertions.

Pot, kettle, black.

Obviously, since you have yet to back up anything you say with anything remotely resembling a reliable source, this conversation is over.

 

[M:SteveO]

So the sole source of your information is what Bush said. You really don't have any idea whether or not he's telling the truth, but you'll accept his word. Fine by me.

However, I say given the history of the Bush administration, someone crossed the line.

So, now we have a difference of opinion and one of us is right. That's why we need an investigation. And that's why we have the checks and balances of requiring a warrant.

No, I'm not a member of Al-Qaeda and yes I am worried whenever any politician of whatever party or philosophy starts performing gyrations a gymnast would be proud of to justify their actions. I'm also worried when people blindly accept what a politician tells them and then expects everyone else to follow in lockstep.

You can believe Bush...........Let me know when he finds the WMD's.

Well, yes, you're right, the only source I get my information is from my nightly phone calls with the president. Every night around 7 I look at my caller ID and there's the White House calling again, you're right. Maybe I would be more a little more outraged at this if every president since Jimmy Carter used and petitioned for this power. Maybe I'm not so biased in my opinion, I just look at the facts before I aimlessly try to attack those that oppose me. The facts are that this president and previous presidents have claimed this power, but I completely understand why you would attack Bush and not Clinton or Carter, because it's convenient and fits your viewpoint. But the facts don't back you up. Funny how the former CIA director, John McLaughlin, says that this program has been used to foil several attacks in the country (including blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge). Funny how liberals find that fact troubling.

 

[richiebaseball]

Obviously, since you have yet to back up anything you say with anything remotely resembling a reliable source, this conversation is over.

Christmas did come early!!!!

 

[Mom2be]

Well, yes, you're right, the only source I get my information is from my nightly phone calls with the president. Every night around 7 I look at my caller ID and there's the White House calling again, you're right. Maybe I would be more a little more outraged at this if every president since Jimmy Carter used and petitioned for this power. Maybe I'm not so biased in my opinion, I just look at the facts before I aimlessly try to attack those that oppose me. The facts are that this president and previous presidents have claimed this power, but I completely understand why you would attack Bush and not Clinton or Carter, because it's convenient and fits your viewpoint. But the facts don't back you up. Funny how the former CIA director, John McLaughlin, says that this program has been used to foil several attacks in the country (including blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge). Funny how liberals find that fact troubling.

I don't find that fact troubling. What I find troubling is the fact that the White House illegally tapped US citizens which is against the law. While I'm happy that is supposively worked - I still believe that they should have pursued this through legal channels. Especially since there was a legal way to do it. I'm not sure what is so hard about that.

~Amanda

 

[M:SteveO]

I don't find that fact troubling. What I find troubling is the fact that the White House illegally tapped US citizens which is against the law. While I'm happy that is supposively worked - I still believe that they should have pursued this through legal channels. Especially since there was a legal way to do it. I'm not sure what is so hard about that.

~Amanda

So when Clinton did it, it was fine. Or are you willing to overlook that fact? I think people forget that this program is for international terrorists making phone calls to domestic citizens or vice versa. So let's say Osama makes a phone call to Paris - we can pick that up without a warrant, but if Osama makes a phone call to New York - we have to have a warrant to pick that up. The argument I don't understand for opponents of this is: oh, well there is a 72-hour window where the gov't can go back and get a warrant for a previous wiretap. Well, what's the purpose of that? If your so concerned about civil liberties, aren't one's civil liberties being violated by wiretapping without having a warrant? So if the gov't gets a warrant afterwards, isn't the damage (referring to civil liberties) already done? The gov't doens't need to use this information in a court of law, they need it to protect the country, which they've done a pretty darn good job of doing.

 

[Independent]

I've got a pitcher of Cosmos made. Anybody want one? This looks like it is going to get interesting.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

• UN: won the Nobel prize for peace
• Bush: fail.



Rich::

UN -- Billions to Saddam under food for oil bribery program.
Iraq -- 0

Iraqi's give their thank you's to the US not the UN.

UN wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Arafat wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

What do people want when barbaric dictators are killing their families and fellow countrymen -- a UN resolution or the US Marines?

 

[dcentity2000]

UN -- Billions to Saddam under food for oil bribery program.
Iraq -- 0

Iraqi's give their thank you's to the US not the UN.

UN wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Arafat wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

What do people want when barbaric dictators are killing their families and fellow countrymen -- a UN resolution or the US Marines?

Nobel peace prize: sore point
Joe: fail

[EDIT] I found a picture for you!

Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

Again, the above statement says more about you than about me. Are you always this crude?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Nobel peace prize: sore point
Joe: fail

[EDIT] I found a picture for you!

Rich::

The US and its allies will succeed where the bribe-taking, emasculated UN has failed.

 

[JimB.]

Rich -

I'm curious as to the point you are trying to make with your picture.

If you are trying to be cute or funny, your British since of humour has failed you badly this time.

What is it? That American armoured vehicle accidents are rightly the source of satire or ridicule? Hopefully no one was injured, otherwise you are waaaaay out of line.

 

[Chuck S]

I'm sorry, all I could think of when I saw that picture was that someone else hates parallel parking as much as I do. I hope no one was injured.

It doesn't look like it was an attack in the photo, more like someone drove it over the sand dune, thinking it was just a hill, and not expecting the hill to drop away onto a roadway. One of those "oops" type accidents.

 

[Mom2be]

So when Clinton did it, it was fine. Or are you willing to overlook that fact? I think people forget that this program is for international terrorists making phone calls to domestic citizens or vice versa. So let's say Osama makes a phone call to Paris - we can pick that up without a warrant, but if Osama makes a phone call to New York - we have to have a warrant to pick that up. The argument I don't understand for opponents of this is: oh, well there is a 72-hour window where the gov't can go back and get a warrant for a previous wiretap. Well, what's the purpose of that? If your so concerned about civil liberties, aren't one's civil liberties being violated by wiretapping without having a warrant? So if the gov't gets a warrant afterwards, isn't the damage (referring to civil liberties) already done? The gov't doens't need to use this information in a court of law, they need it to protect the country, which they've done a pretty darn good job of doing.

If you can show me what Clinton did was illegal I will be more then happy to hold him to the same standards as Bush. See I'm one of those pesky lefties that is actually reasonable and can see fault even when I like a guy. Hence how even though Clinton lying under oath had nothing to do with his Presidency I understood that it was still a felony.

Seeing how Sodaseller has already washed away the word twisting to make it sound like Clinton did something illegal I doubt you'll be able to prove anything. Sodaseller is a smart guy and one who understands legal mumbo jumbo that most people can't.

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html

Why do they give the government a 72 hour time period - because there are times when time is short. However please look at what FISA protects:

Thus, the Court outlined seven constitutional requirements: (1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted; (3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time); (4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date; (5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized; (6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and (7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations.

Section 1805 of the Act covers emergency situations where a court order cannot be obtained in advance. Such surveillance can only last 72 hours before an Order is applied for.

Quite simply the 72 hour time period is for when time is of the esscense however you still have to go through legal channels to make sure it is done within the law. A law that was established after Nixon was found to be spying on US citizens. In fact according to what I've been reading it was a 24 hour time period but the Patriot Act extended that to 72 hours. So you should really be asking good old boy George why the 72 hours?

Either way it shouldn't matter - if George didn't like the law why not move to change it? Why go about doing what he did illegally when there was a law in place to do it legally. For instance just because a lesbien couple doens't like the anti-gay marriage laws doesn't mean that when they go and a commitment cermoney mean they are legally married. The law still stands. In this instance it does as well. There is law whether pratical or not, Bush took an oath to uphold the nations laws and consitution and he didn't.

So my question to you is - Why did the President order domestic surveillance operations without obtaining constitutionally-required warrants?"

~Amanda

 

[LadyDay]

So my question to you is - Why did the President order domestic surveillance operations without obtaining constitutionally-required warrants?"

~Amanda

Because Bush could and he could find enough house shills to justify it.