Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 546
  1. #21  
    "The president as far as I can tell has commited a crime..."

    Yes. NRG, a noted constitutional scholar and FISA expert has held forth.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again.
  2. #22  
    I would like a definitive answer on this from daT please
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The president as far as I can tell has commited a crime
    The Attorney General of the United States doesn't agree with you.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "The president as far as I can tell has commited a crime..."

    Yes. NRG, a noted constitutional scholar and FISA expert has held forth.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again.
    Nice. Don't answer the question. Tell me, how did he not commit a crime.
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    The Attorney General of the United States doesn't agree with you.
    The Constitution seems to disagree with him. Plus he is a political appointee AND isn't this the same guy that okayed the Medicare commercials/news/state sponsored news, that was later to be found illegal?
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I would like a definitive answer on this from daT please
    Non-Answer. Next
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    The Attorney General of the United States doesn't agree with you.
    Non-Answer. Next
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "The president as far as I can tell has commited a crime..."

    Yes. NRG, a noted constitutional scholar and FISA expert has held forth.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again.
    Non-Answer. Next
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #29  
    Please folks, cite the legal grounding that the president stands on to do this without court oversight.
  10. #30  
    Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order?

    Yes. In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. 1802.
    Such electronic surveillance must be certified by the Attorney General and then noticed to the Senate and House intelligence committees. 1802(a)(2). A copy of the certification must be filed with the FISC, where it remains sealed unless (a) an application for a warrant with respect to it is filed, or (b) the legality of the surveillance is challenged in another federal district court under 1806(f). 1802(a)(3). Common carriers must assist in the surveillance and maintain its secrecy. 1802(a)(4).

    Is FISA really constitutional?

    Lower courts have found FISA constitutional. See e.g., United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59(2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141 (D.C.Cir 1982); United States v. Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. 588 (E.D. Va. 1997).

    Google and ye shall learn.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  11. #31  
    Does this help?
    The president spoke not long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had given Bush authority to spy on suspected terrorists in this country in legislation passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/
    Harry Reid confirmed this Sunday night in the interview I mentioned above.
  12. #32  
    NRG, since you are demanding answers, answer this: name one time that wiretapping has been done on domestic phone calls, not international calls, without a warrant.

    You can't, because it hasn't happened.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Does this help?

    Harry Reid confirmed this Sunday night in the interview I mentioned above.
    Unfortunatley, this doesn't help. I would like a law cited that contradicts the need to go to a court to get oversight of wiretaps.
  14. #34  
    Congress authority doesn't count? Then congress authorized an illegal activity? Then we need to investigat the whole of congress!

    When does and when doesn't congressional authority count?

    It is often easy to pick only the supporting facts to support ones view.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    NRG, since you are demanding answers, answer this: name one time that wiretapping has been done on domestic phone calls, not international calls, without a warrant.

    You can't, because it hasn't happened.
    No, how bout this, prove it hasn't happened. Imagine if you will a president that can tap any pols phone. Just one whisper in an ear can change a vote(Blackmail). Imagine if you will journalists phones being tapped. So to you, I say prove they have tapped just terrorists or people with terrorist links(This is the b8tch of it, no oversight). If they are in fact tapping just terrorists phones then I would see no reason as to why they could not get a court to okay it.
  16. #36  
    Trying to get my arms around who thinks we have the right to do what...

    Does this seem like an accurate breakdown of the debate?

    According to our laws (not considering any international agreements here), this is how we determine who the NSA can and can't wiretap.
    US Citizen

    Dom to Dom -- FISA '78: Requires warrant; No warrant: violates 4th Amendment; No arguments here
    Int'l to Int'l -- ??? No restrictions/ requires warrant/ covered by Congress mil action approval ???
    Dom to Int'l -- Administration: Because this is SigInt and involves "international enemies", Congressional approval covers it; Critics: Requires warrant just like Dom to Dom


    Non US Citizen

    Dom to Dom -- No restrictions
    Int'l to Int'l -- No restrictions
    Dom to Int'l -- No restrictions
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    No, how bout this, prove it hasn't happened. Imagine if you will a president that can tap any pols phone. Just one whisper in an ear can change a vote(Blackmail). Imagine if you will journalists phones being tapped. So to you, I say prove they have tapped just terrorists or people with terrorist links(This is the b8tch of it, no oversight). If they are in fact tapping just terrorists phones then I would see no reason as to why they could not get a court to okay it.
    NRG....I agree thresholds always need to be in place. Protection against rampant abuse need to be set and adhered to. But let's put this case into perspective. Here is a quote from when were talking about his in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I see it more as an advertisement for the book. Media sensationlism sells. If you read the article the "spying" is tracking limited international e-mail/phone calls in an effort to thwart terrorism. People b*tch if someone is apprehended and interrogated for being suspected of terrorism, they b*itch if the gov't makes it harder for someone to enter the country, they b*tch if a possible terror suspect is tracked through e-mail traffic, and I guarentee they will be the first to b*itch if a terrorist strikes in their town/city/state, complaining on how the administration did not do enough to prevent it.
    Cardio....I tend to side with your post.

    The article said it could have been hundreds or thousands of people. According to the CIA there are 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.) legal citizens in the USA right now. Add on another up to 12-20 million illegal aliens, that makes about nearly 316,000,000 people. Now, if we take the high end of the worst case scenario "thousands" in the article and call it 8,000 people out of 316,000,000 (three hundred and sixteen million people). That is 0.0000253968254% of the population. To me that does not sound excessive.

    I agree that the Partiot Act could use fine tuning, as was promise when it was first approved. But with the fact of how long the NYT times sat on the this story and given the timing of releasing it, there is little doubt that they are trying to play to their own tune for their own purposes. Whether that is promoting a book, selling more papers, or advancing a personal political agenda....who knows. But the fact is if their sole interest was to share news to enlighten the public, this story would have been published a year ago and given time to debate charges in it and to fix it prior to the voting for it again.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    No, how bout this, prove it hasn't happened. Imagine if you will a president that can tap any pols phone. Just one whisper in an ear can change a vote(Blackmail). Imagine if you will journalists phones being tapped. So to you, I say prove they have tapped just terrorists or people with terrorist links(This is the b8tch of it, no oversight). If they are in fact tapping just terrorists phones then I would see no reason as to why they could not get a court to okay it.
    Imagine if you will a president that acquires FBI background investigations on over 900 of his opponents.

    Oh, wait. No need to imagine. The Clintons lifted that many FBI files.

    I really, REALLY hope your side tries to skewer Bush with this. Really, I do.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Congress authority doesn't count? Then congress authorized an illegal activity? Then we need to investigat the whole of congress!

    When does and when doesn't congressional authority count?

    It is often easy to pick only the supporting facts to support ones view.
    On further thought, didn't he cite the Iraq war as the justification/authority for it?
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Imagine if you will a president that acquires FBI background investigations on over 900 of his opponents.

    Oh, wait. No need to imagine. The Clintons lifted that many FBI files.

    I really, REALLY hope your side tries to skewer Bush with this. Really, I do.
    What you bring up Clinton? Great, if that helps you enjoy it.
Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions