|
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
OT Our Fuhrer has done it again
|
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"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. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"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? |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
We have people who want a law against torture because they assure us it
could be violated in extraordinary circumstance (the a-bomb and terrorist example) yet when some laws are violated in extraordinary circumstances they want to criticize. They seem to strive to be consistently inconsistent. It would seem more logical to me that those who want a law against torture, expecting it to be violated in extraordinary circumstance would have few problems with a violation of another law in a very similar extraordinary circumstance. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
wrote in message ups.com... We have people who want a law against torture because they assure us it could be violated in extraordinary circumstance (the a-bomb and terrorist example) yet when some laws are violated in extraordinary circumstances they want to criticize. They seem to strive to be consistently inconsistent. It would seem more logical to me that those who want a law against torture, expecting it to be violated in extraordinary circumstance would have few problems with a violation of another law in a very similar extraordinary circumstance. Perhaps if your president was honest about it, it wouldn't be such an issue. Actually, he *will* be honest about it, as soon as Uncle Karl tells him to. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
I am so envious of Karl Rove being called "Evil Genius". I thought
that people had titles like that only in Power Puff Girl episodes. I am going to demand that my employees make me a sign for my office door saying "Evil Genius" and address me that way. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
And he admits violating the law 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 |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"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. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"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. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
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!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"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. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"JohnH" wrote in message
... 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? Oh. Now you're saying it was planted? I thought you believed the article originated via editorial decision, but only the timing was odd. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote:
"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. Perhaps *some* of the *liberals*. Not fair to generalize that to all of them. -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "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. I stopped watching the politcal shows for the most part, got tired of the inane questions, asking questions that were answered in the previous question (don't they ever listen to the answers) and then the obvious softball interviews...on both the left and right. In the mean time, you don't see the liebrals whining about this information being kept secret http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/120002.shtml |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"JohnH" wrote in message ... 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? And the Democrats had visions of impeachment in their heads until Pelosi talked. Why couldn't she have deflected the quesiton like Sen. Reid did? |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote: "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. Perhaps *some* of the *liberals*. Not fair to generalize that to all of them. Just watch the frenzy over the next few days between the talking heads of the DNC and the MSM............wouldn't be surprised to see Dean Scream III -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:41:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . 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? Oh. Now you're saying it was planted? I thought you believed the article originated via editorial decision, but only the timing was odd. So the editor planted it! -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:00:03 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message .. . 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? And the Democrats had visions of impeachment in their heads until Pelosi talked. Why couldn't she have deflected the quesiton like Sen. Reid did? Good question. I think the Sunday talk show's should all be under oath. Maybe that would stop some of the crap. -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"Tamaroak" wrote in message And he admits violating the law He did not. Learn to read. Learn to listen. Words mean something. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "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. I stopped watching the politcal shows for the most part, got tired of the inane questions, asking questions that were answered in the previous question (don't they ever listen to the answers) and then the obvious softball interviews...on both the left and right. In the mean time, you don't see the liebrals whining about this information being kept secret http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/120002.shtml Open your curtains. You'll see that NOBODY likes this type of information being kept secret. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:36:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:45:30 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: It is illegal for the government to eavesdrop on a citizen without a court order. Exactly - Green Cards and visa holders aren't citizens. Period. End of discussion. I wasn't aware you had a list of those on whom the government eavesdropped. All you have to do is file a request under the Freedom of Information Act to the NSA. I'm sure that's what the NYT did, right? Surely no Congressman spilled the classified beans. -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"Tamaroak" wrote in message . .. And he admits violating the law and says he will do it again. Good! And I'd vote for Bush again and again and again and... |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"JohnH" wrote in message .......Surely no Congressman spilled the classified beans. -- It has been recognized for decades in Washington that the briefing you give to Congressmen this morning will be in the paper this afternoon. It is Congress itself that creates the atmosphere of distrust between it and the intelligence community. Probably the least trustworthy of any branch or department in the entire US government. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "JohnH" wrote in message .......Surely no Congressman spilled the classified beans. -- It has been recognized for decades in Washington that the briefing you give to Congressmen this morning will be in the paper this afternoon. It is Congress itself that creates the atmosphere of distrust between it and the intelligence community. Probably the least trustworthy of any branch or department in the entire US government. Sen. Leheay of Vermont has the distinction of being thrown off the Senate Selecte Committee for disclosing calssified information to the press. |
Our Fuhrer has done it again
"JohnH" wrote in message ... 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. "The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed. The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.) The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them. Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007703 -- John H **** May your Christmas be Spectacular!**** *****...and your New Year even Better!***** |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com