Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[Pookie]

Do you spend a LOT of time talking to terrorists? If you do I can see your problem.

If you'd read this thread, you'd know what I posted on that earlier. I'm not going to hold the class up anymore just because you can't keep up.

 

[Slowlane]

Here is what Clinton signed:



Clinton allowed warrantless searches only if the Attoney General followed section 302(a)(1). And what does section 1822(a) require?

- the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."
- and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."

Bush's rules are not "basically the same rules" as Clinton's were, not even if you put a pretty xmas bow on it either. Bush's order allowed for warrantless searches of American citizens. Again, maybe you should do some reading, even if it isn't this thread.

Agreed, It’s not EXACTLY the same. However the idea and the result are virtually the same. Ditto for Carter, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. The point is things have been done without warrants, and without congressional ok, in other administrations and have always been upheld in court. The Clinton and Carter points are that they invoked the same statute. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed several CONGRESSMEN for undetermined amounts of time. He arrested, and had deported, a gubernatorial candidate. It was upheld in court.

I said before there is a 72hr window to apply and a 12day window to obtain a warrant. If it has been decided within the first 72 hrs that the call has no value, no warrant app. is required.

When a call is made if it can’t be connected to in seconds, the rest is meaningless.

 

[zipman]

Do you really think that anyone on US soil should be allowed to talk offshore with known terrorists? That's the only right that is in question.

No it isn't. Bush and his administration have made it clear that it is "suspected" terrorists, not "known" terrorists that can be spied on which is a huge difference.

And I haven't seen one link where there is any proof that Clinton didn't follow the law.

 

[Pookie]

Agreed, It’s not EXACTLY the same. However the idea and the result are virtually the same.

They are not virtually the same at all. Clinton and Carter's orders didn't allow warrantless searches of American citizens. Bush's order does, and is illegal. Again, it's sad that you can't grasp how dangerous this is. You can rationalize it all you want, and it still doesn't look the same. So far, you've stretched things quite a bit to be "the same thing", when it obviously wasn't. I don't plan to waste my time figuring out just how dramatically different the rest of what you claim is "the same". You're obviously not even informed on even the discussions going on in this thread. I have no reason to believe you're any more informed about what you claim to be "the same."

 

[Slowlane]

Since you haven't read the thread, how would you know what anyone's point was?

Rephrase – my point.

 

[Pookie]

Rephrase – my point.

Your point was that they were the same thing, same rules. Obviously, they weren't. So, no.

 

[Slowlane]

No it isn't. Bush and his administration have made it clear that it is "suspected" terrorists, not "known" terrorists that can be spied on which is a huge difference.

And I haven't seen one link where there is any proof that Clinton didn't follow the law.

I have not said that Clinton broke the law. My point has been quite the contrary. Clinton was well within his legal rights, and in fact that was held up in court.

My point is that noone has been able to show where Bush broke the law.

It’s simply another Bush bashing thread. Unsubstantiated and pointless. There are simply no facts to support the views of the left.

 

[Slowlane]

Your point was that they were the same thing, same rules. Obviously, they weren't. So, no.

That wasn’t my point at the time. You won’t repost for me so I won’t for you, Go re-read.

 

[cjh]

I have not said that Clinton broke the law. My point has been quite the contrary. Clinton was well within his legal rights, and in fact that was held up in court.

My point is that noone has been able to show where Bush broke the law.

It’s simply another Bush bashing thread. Unsubstantiated and pointless. There are simply no facts to support the views of the left.

too many people closer to both the facts and law are concerned about this for it to be so easily dismissed. you tag yourself as an apologist by trying to do so.

it may be that bush is vindicated. he may indeed have the authority as a war-time executive power under the constitution, or by reading expansively the authority delegated to him when war was declared.

too many legal scholars and too many legislators, though, are concerned about the president having created a constitutional crisis for the phrase "unsubstantiated and pointless" to be credible.

 

[Pookie]

I have not said that Clinton broke the law. My point has been quite the contrary. Clinton was well within his legal rights, and in fact that was held up in court.

My point is that noone has been able to show where Bush broke the law.

Sure some of us have. But your partisan motivation is quite clear.

It’s simply another Bush bashing thread. Unsubstantiated and pointless. There are simply no facts to support the views of the left.

This is cute coming from someone who admittedly hasn't even read the thread. Heh.

Depending on patisan rhetoric and blustering is no way to go through life. It makes you look pitiful when you have to resort to such a defense for your position. But do what you must.

 

[Pookie]

That wasn’t my point at the time. You won’t repost for me so I won’t for you, Go re-read.

Your first post was about how what Bush was doing was the same thing as Clinton and Carter's orders. Again, it obviously wasn't. Even a partisan hack like yourself can't deny that with a straight face. Then you went on about asking what our opinion was about Bush doing what he thought he could do. That's not a point at all. Then you wanted to insist that Clinton did warrantless searches of American citizens, being as how you mistakenly believed his orders were the same as Bush's. Clinton didn't. You then proceeded to ask what freedom was infringed, which is again not a point, and I pointed out just how sad you really are that you couldn't figure that out. Out of all of that, the only thing left is your point that Clinton allowed warrantless searches of American citizens. So, I was spot on. Maybe you should try at least reading your own posts, if not the whole thread.

 

[busybody..]

I have a post in this thread where the Deputy sec of the DOJ, Jamie Gorelick said CLEARLY in 1998 that WARRANTS were NOT gotten

and that is is LEGAL

so when Pookie says that WARRANTS were gotten, Im sure she knows more then the DOJ!


Here is a question

What did Clinton/Carter investigate?

What did Bush?

Which was more important tp the safety of America?

 

[busybody..]

once again.

POOKIE Lies

The ClitMan did have WARRANTLESS searches

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm


'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005


Read this

 

[busybody..]

Your first post was about how what Bush was doing was the same thing as Clinton and Carter's orders. Again, it obviously wasn't. Even a partisan hack like yourself can't deny that with a straight face. Then you went on about asking what our opinion was about Bush doing what he thought he could do. That's not a point at all. Then you wanted to insist that Clinton did warrantless searches of American citizens, being as how you mistakenly believed his orders were the same as Bush's. Clinton didn't. You then proceeded to ask what freedom was infringed, which is again not a point, and I pointed out just how sad you really are that you couldn't figure that out. Out of all of that, the only thing left is your point that Clinton allowed warrantless searches of American citizens. So, I was spot on. Maybe you should try at least reading your own posts, if not the whole thread.

Yes, POOKIE, warrantless searches. I have many links on this thread that show you keep lying, yet you continue to do so

once again.

POOKIE Lies

The ClitMan did have WARRANTLESS searches

http://www.washtimes.com/national/2...22610-7772r.htm


'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005


Read this

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your first post was about how what Bush was doing was the same thing as Clinton and Carter's orders. Again, it obviously wasn't. Even a partisan hack like yourself can't deny that with a straight face. Then you went on about asking what our opinion was about Bush doing what he thought he could do. That's not a point at all. Then you wanted to insist that Clinton did warrantless searches of American citizens, being as how you mistakenly believed his orders were the same as Bush's. Clinton didn't. You then proceeded to ask what freedom was infringed, which is again not a point, and I pointed out just how sad you really are that you couldn't figure that out. Out of all of that, the only thing left is your point that Clinton allowed warrantless searches of American citizens. So, I was spot on. Maybe you should try at least reading your own posts, if not the whole thread.

Slowbrain is merely parroting yesterday's Republican Talking Points on Drudge, i.e. "Clinton and Carter did it too, Mom!"

The inevitable rebuttal came today:
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The next original thought to come from Slowbrain will be his first.

 

[busybody..]

Rob

LIES AGAIN!

See article above ^^^^

 

[busybody..]

typical lying LIBassholes

LYING BASTARDS

in the face of facts they FUCKING LIE

In the face of ClitMans Deputy in the DOJ saying they did warrantless searches

These lying bastards say OTHERWISE!

 

[zipman]

typical lying LIBassholes

LYING BASTARDS

in the face of facts they FUCKING LIE

In the face of ClitMans Deputy in the DOJ saying they did warrantless searches

These lying bastards say OTHERWISE!

You neo-nazi, hitler loving bastard,

 

[busybody..]

You neo-nazi, hitler loving bastard,

lets assume for a moment that I am

that doesnt ABSOLVE what YOU people are saying

IN OBVIOUS CONTARY TO THE EVIDENCE AS I HAVE LAID OUT!

 

[busybody..]

big brother is here get used to it

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece

 

[The Mutt]

" All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. So long as there's money in it. I mean, let's be real."
~George W. Bush

 

[woody54]

Originally Posted by zipman
You neo-nazi, hitler loving bastard,

lets assume for a moment that I am

that doesnt ABSOLVE what YOU people are saying

IN OBVIOUS CONTARY TO THE EVIDENCE AS I HAVE LAID OUT!

Oink, Oink, Oink...... Busybody's Animal Farmesque demolition of his critics.

 

[woody54]

" All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. So long as there's money in it. I mean, let's be real."
~George W. Bush

(censored background details)

..... Just like my Daddy called Iraqis to arms to overthrow Saddam , then made a cowardly withdrawal to allow Saddam an open chequebook to eliminate the forces that opposed him.
CIA Daddy Bush and Saddam were co-warmongering buddies.

 

[busybody..]

" All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. So long as there's money in it. I mean, let's be real."
~George W. Bush

there you go again

making stuff up

 

[busybody..]

" All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. So long as there's money in it. I mean, let's be real."
~George W. Bush

thats why Bush is sending $15 billion to Africa for helping the NEGROZ with AIDS, more then even the GREAT HUMANITARION ClitMan

thats why we sent a billion for the tsunami "victims" and the Pakistani earthquake "victims"

Geez, Woofy, you can do better


































maybe