On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:42:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JohnH wrote:
He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:


And he admits violating the law


He did not.


and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Is the 4th Amendment where Bush admits violating the law? If not, then of what pertinence is your
question?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:42:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JohnH wrote:

He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:



And he admits violating the law


He did not.



and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****


Is the 4th Amendment where Bush admits violating the law? If not, then of what pertinence is your
question?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th amendment is the law violated, on orders of the president.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:01:42 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:55:45 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:46:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

He didn't deny doing what's been claimed. His best answer so far has been "I
can't discuss it", or "I'll do whatever's necessary to protect blah blah
blah". You wouldn't let your kids get away with crap like that.


The statement was, "And he admits violating the law." That was a false statement.

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security
Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications
of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept
these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these
terrorist networks." (From the President's Radio Address, 17 Dec.)

You guys are arguing around the issue. The NSA's charter includes
this type of intelligence and is prohibited from gathering
intelligence on any LAWFULL CITIZEN of the US. Meaning that if you
are here on a green card or a visa, you are subject to surveillance in
international calls.

By the way, France, Germany and Italy have similar laws and
surveillance in people in their countries.

I wasn't arguing the issue. I was arguing the statement made by the original poster, to wit: "And he
admits violating the law."

Bush made no such admission.

Regarding your comment, even the NYT (buried deeply in the article) states:

"Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail
messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States.
Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by
first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its
closed sessions at the Justice Department."

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:44:47 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:42:35 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JohnH wrote:

He did not.


Ever read the 4th amendment to the Constitution?


On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:



And he admits violating the law


He did not.



and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff


--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****


Is the 4th Amendment where Bush admits violating the law? If not, then of what pertinence is your
question?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th amendment is the law violated, on orders of the president.

Tamaroak said that Bush admitted violating the law. I said that Bush made no such admission.

Your insertion of the 4th Amendment has no bearing on my statement.

Furthermore, you have no proof that a law was broken.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:45:30 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:55:45 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:46:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:

And he admits violating the law
He did not.
He didn't deny doing what's been claimed. His best answer so far has been "I
can't discuss it", or "I'll do whatever's necessary to protect blah blah
blah". You wouldn't let your kids get away with crap like that.

The statement was, "And he admits violating the law." That was a false statement.

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security
Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications
of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept
these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these
terrorist networks." (From the President's Radio Address, 17 Dec.)

You guys are arguing around the issue. The NSA's charter includes
this type of intelligence and is prohibited from gathering
intelligence on any LAWFULL CITIZEN of the US. Meaning that if you
are here on a green card or a visa, you are subject to surveillance in
international calls.

By the way, France, Germany and Italy have similar laws and
surveillance in people in their countries.

Tom:

It is illegal for the government to eavesdrop on a citizen without a
court order.
You know there is a special court set up to obtain permission for these
"national security" eavesdropping cases.
You also know that you can get permission from the special court weeks
after the eavesdropping took place.
You also know that in several decades of the special court being in
place, it has turned down the government only once.
You also should know that a number of NSA lawyers turned down the
administration's request for secret eavesdropping because of the illegal
procedures Bush wanted to follow.

This is a serious issue. It shows that the Bush Administration has
nothing but comtempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Read the NYTimes article closely:

""Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or
e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United
States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United
States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which
holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department."
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about this
and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
.. etc.

And we don't see the liebrals clamouring for an investigation of the
leaker either........their hypocrisy is certainly a one way street.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:46:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

He didn't deny doing what's been claimed. His best answer so far has
been "I
can't discuss it", or "I'll do whatever's necessary to protect blah blah
blah". You wouldn't let your kids get away with crap like that.


The statement was, "And he admits violating the law." That was a false
statement.

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I
authorized the National Security
Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the
international communications
of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist
organizations. Before we intercept
these communications, the government must have information that
establishes a clear link to these
terrorist networks." (From the President's Radio Address, 17 Dec.)
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:15:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

The more I think about it, the more I believe the entire article was
written and published to
provide some Democrat Senators a couple lines to quote while arguing
against the Patriot Act on 16
Dec.
--
John H

So? Before the article was published, there were issues in the Patriot Act
which needed revision or removal, and this was going to happen either way.
There were even some Republicans demanding changes, and Rove knew a veto
would've been quickly overridden. He told Bush to roll over.


Doug, you whine about the planting of articles in Iraqi newspapers, but see nothing wrong with the
planting of articles in our own?

At least we're at war in Iraq!

Here's Nancy Pelosi's comment from today's NYT:

"In a statement, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said she was
advised of the president's decision shortly after he made it and had "been provided with updates on
several occasions."

"The Bush administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval,"
Ms. Pelosi said. "As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I
expressed my strong concerns during these briefings."

Both 'advised' and 'updated', but did nothing. Must have been too legal to raise a stink about,
wouldn't you say?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about
this and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves, just
like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc .
etc.

Did you see Sen. Reid dodging Chris Wallace's direct question about whether
he was briefed on the this issue. Reid never did answer the question asked.
Reid was briefed but, he won't admit it.

Also, when Reid asked about disgorging contributions form Abramoff and
friends Reid said that he, Reid, didn't do anything wrong and wasn't going
to disgorge the contributions.

Reid should be brought up on ethics charges for failing to be honest with
his constituents and colleagues.