Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 546
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Those members involved could not say anything to anyone. One congressman wrote a note of concern to Cheney (I think it was Cheney) and also wrote a copy for himself and placed it in a sealed envelope and saved it for when this came out so he had proof of his concern.
    Do you really believe that a investigations can take place without being made public? Do you really believe that such a hole exists in our government? If that was the case every top secret program is subject to total abuse with no consequences or oversight. If that is true then there not only needs to be an investigation, but a reorganization of our top secret protocols.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So you believe that the senators and members of congress could not ask for investigation into intelligence areas without being specific to the public. I have a hard time believing that the president had that much sway over them. Especially with the outrage they are on the talk circuits with now.

    "In his 2003 letter, Rockefeller said the administration's restrictions prevented him from being able to judge the legality or potentially intrusive technical aspects of the eavesdropping program.

    "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney," Rockefeller wrote. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities."

    Rockefeller's letter is dated July 17, 2003, which he said in a written statement Monday was the day he was briefed on the program. He pointed out in the 2003 letter that he intended to place a copy in a "sealed envelope in the secure spaces" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's offices to record his objections."
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "In his 2003 letter, Rockefeller said the administration's restrictions prevented him from being able to judge the legality or potentially intrusive technical aspects of the eavesdropping program.

    "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney," Rockefeller wrote. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities."

    Rockefeller's letter is dated July 17, 2003, which he said in a written statement Monday was the day he was briefed on the program. He pointed out in the 2003 letter that he intended to place a copy in a "sealed envelope in the secure spaces" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's offices to record his objections."
    As an elected representative he has the responsibility to do more than write a letter and hide it under his desk if he feels the law is being broken. I am sure there are procedures to follow if you feel that something you are aware of is a crime, if you do not follow the procedure you become an accomplise to the crime.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #124  
    What is everyone's feelings about other countries listening in on phone calls here in the US?
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    As an elected representative he has the responsibility to do more than write a letter and hide it under his desk if he feels the law is being broken. I am sure there are procedures to follow if you feel that something you are aware of is a crime, if you do not follow the procedure you become an accomplise to the crime.
    Aren't you the one usually screaming for whistle blowers to be tried for treason?

    He didn't write the letter and hide it in his desk. He kept a written COPY and sent the other to Cheney. As he stated he couldn't be certain with his knowledge if it was legal or not and could not consult with experts.

    But, that's all beside the point. Why are you focusing on this single man and not on the Bush Admin for the domestic spying program without a court check?
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    What is everyone's feelings about other countries listening in on phone calls here in the US?
    I don't like it but I am not sure if we can do anything about it.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Aren't you the one usually screaming for whistle blowers to be tried for treason?

    He didn't write the letter and hide it in his desk. He kept a written COPY and sent the other to Cheney. As he stated he couldn't be certain with his knowledge if it was legal or not and could not consult with experts.

    But, that's all beside the point. Why are you focusing on this single man and not on the Bush Admin for the domestic spying program without a court check?
    The same reason you are focusing only on Bush when by their own admittance others knew this was going on. If it is a crime now, it was a crime then.

    If it was so secret that Rockerfeller could not talk to experts, how did the NYT find out?

    I have said numerous times, if someone is guilty hold them accountable. I do not care what party they belong to, but all should be held to the same standard. IF this action is not legal, then all who had knowledge of the actions are accomplises, right?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The same reason you are focusing only on Bush when by their own admittance others knew this was going on. If it is a crime now, it was a crime then.

    If it was so secret that Rockerfeller could not talk to experts, how did the NYT find out?

    I have said numerous times, if someone is guilty hold them accountable. I do not care what party they belong to, but all should be held to the same standard. IF this action is not legal, then all who had knowledge of the actions are accomplises, right?
    If they had enough knowledge to know within reason there is a question. Rockerfellar stated to Cheney he did not but that he had a bad feeling about it.
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If they had enough knowledge to know within reason there is a question. Rockerfellar stated to Cheney he did not but that he had a bad feeling about it.
    Why do they know more now? Smells fishy to me.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why do they know more now? Smells fishy to me.

    It's public knowledge now. Newspaper story.
  11. #131  
    Thats a good point....if it was so secret that Rockerfellar couldn't even consult with his staff....how did the NYT know more than he did?
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Thats a good point....if it was so secret that Rockerfellar couldn't even consult with his staff....how did the NYT know more than he did?
    Isn't the implication here either:

    1) Rockefeller knew more than what he has revealed or
    2) NYT was informed by someone who had more information than the committee that Rockefeller is a part of
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The same reason you are focusing only on Bush when by their own admittance others knew this was going on. If it is a crime now, it was a crime then.

    If it was so secret that Rockerfeller could not talk to experts, how did the NYT find out?

    I have said numerous times, if someone is guilty hold them accountable. I do not care what party they belong to, but all should be held to the same standard. IF this action is not legal, then all who had knowledge of the actions are accomplises, right?
    Rockefeller has been leaking like a sieve.
  14. #134  
    This has been a lively debate today, and I've had a chance read over most of the posts. I think there's one major point that everyone seems to be overlooking. The government is doing this domestic intelligence gathering in order to prevent terrorist attacks - not to gather evidence for use in a criminal proceeding. It is an intelligence operation, not a law enforcement operation. Nothing gathered within the program under discussion will ever be used against a criminal defendant and the Bush administration knows it. The whole point is to uncover and disrupt plots before they happen. This is the same thing the Clinton administration wanted to do (as in a quote I posted earlier).

    The exposure of this operation has compromised it, probably beyond recovery. Less sophisticated terrorists who might have assumed their communications were secure because they were in the US will no longer be as careless.

    Our civil liberties are vital - but as has become a cliche, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think it would be totally irresposible for the government to NOT be monitoring the international communications of suspected terrorists. Bush would be savaged (rightfully) by the same critics if this surveillance were not being done and a new attack happened that might otherwise have been prevented. Search your hearts, TC liberals, you know this is true.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with what is being done - assuming that what is publicly known is the extent of the program. Since the Congress has been informed all along as has the Justice Department, I have no reason to believe otherwise. If this is the extent of the program, the congressmen who have been briefed have a duty to stand up and say this is all there is and nothing more. Pointless investigations that distract from the war effort are not helpful to our collective security. If these congressmen have knowledge that this program extends beyond what we now know, they have a duty to first tell us why they said nothing until now (thus violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution), and second to call for investigations of specific allegations - not fishing expeditions.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #135  
    If it is wrong now, was it wrong then? As I stated earlier, the precedent has been set before.

    CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

    CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

    Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

    Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

    WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

    Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

    Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

    Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If it is wrong now, was it wrong then? As I stated earlier, the precedent has been set before.

    CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

    CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

    Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

    Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

    WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

    Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

    Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

    Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

    So two+ wrongs make a right?
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So two+ wrongs make a right?
    YES!
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So two+ wrongs make a right?
    Certainly not. But it does establish precedence, which is relevant if questioning if Bush went rogue and abused his power. If it is wrong (but legal by precedence, congressional approval, via the Patriot Act, due to laws gov international communications, etc....) is a great question and would have to be looked at how to change in the future.

    It is also a factor in saying if Bush is a criminal for doing it, then all should be held the same standard and accountability to the law.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is also a factor in saying if Bush is a criminal for doing it, then all should be held the same standard and accountability to the law.
    I am not personally interested in criminalizing any President for something like this...but ever since the Steel Seizure case (YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), Presidents have been trying to expand their power. And all the while, Congress continues to acquiesce more and more of it's power to the Executive branch.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am not personally interested in criminalizing any President for something like this...
    Neither am I. That was a just a statement for those who are selective in their prosecution.
Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions