[TobaccoNUE]

Don't get me wrong here; I understand the wiretaps and why they must be done. HOWEVER, I have serious problems with this whole scenario:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

-George W. Bush
Buffalo, New York
April 2004

I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WHERE HE SAYS SPECIFICALLY HE WILL ABIDE BY THE LAW AND THEN A YEAR LATER ADMITS TO ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING WITHOUT WARRANTS.

NOBODY IS AGAINST THE LAW, AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE IS NOT A KING. HE MUST ABIDE BY THE LAW AND IF HE WANTS TO GET WARRANTS TO WIRETAP, FINE. IT CAN BE DONE IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS. BUT NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND GEORGE W. BUSH NEEDS TO BE PUT IN HIS PLACE.

[GinaIsWild]

Don't get me wrong here; I understand the wiretaps and why they must be done. HOWEVER, I have serious problems with this whole scenario:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

-George W. Bush
Buffalo, New York
April 2004

I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WHERE HE SAYS SPECIFICALLY HE WILL ABIDE BY THE LAW AND THEN A YEAR LATER ADMITS TO ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING WITHOUT WARRANTS.

NOBODY IS AGAINST THE LAW, AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE IS NOT A KING. HE MUST ABIDE BY THE LAW AND IF HE WANTS TO GET WARRANTS TO WIRETAP, FINE. IT CAN BE DONE IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS. BUT NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND GEORGE W. BUSH NEEDS TO BE PUT IN HIS PLACE.

I agree with you, without reservations. But my reason for responding is to ask whether or not you have a bonified link to those statements?? (not doubting you, I have other reasons)

[cindygirl]

Frankly it is you that is taking a partisan road here. Your right there is no concrete proof and how could there be since all the President feels he has to do is wrap himself in the flag assert that national security prevents him from disussing anything pertaining to the issue, expect what he feels will defend his position in a round about way, and then shut down the topic by claiming if you pursue it yu are harmning the nation. What this really boils down to is you choose to believe and trust Bush. I frankly after the past couple of years do not trust him. You, since you do trust him, do not feel any further information is necessary. I since I do not trust him feel it is up to Congress to assert their oversight responsibilities and take action to find out if there has been a violation of the law. THe point here is we are both basing what we feel should be done on relatively uniformed opinion on the matter since it has been so secretive. You do not know he has not violated the law, and I do not know he has. THe difference is I want to find out and I get the feeling you don't.

This is a classified program about national security and it is common sense that details of the program should not be made public. The intelligence committee in congress however is cleared for that informaiton and are investigating it. Everything I stated were the facts as has been made public, whereas the poster had 0 facts. I think my point was made.

[TypeTeasiaDer]

Don't get me wrong here; I understand the wiretaps and why they must be done. HOWEVER, I have serious problems with this whole scenario:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

-George W. Bush
Buffalo, New York
April 2004

I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM WHERE HE SAYS SPECIFICALLY HE WILL ABIDE BY THE LAW AND THEN A YEAR LATER ADMITS TO ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING WITHOUT WARRANTS.

NOBODY IS AGAINST THE LAW, AND THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HE IS NOT A KING. HE MUST ABIDE BY THE LAW AND IF HE WANTS TO GET WARRANTS TO WIRETAP, FINE. IT CAN BE DONE IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS. BUT NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND GEORGE W. BUSH NEEDS TO BE PUT IN HIS PLACE.

And again, you are speaking from a viewpoint of ignorance. You do not know anything about how this program runs. So how can you claim it is illegal? What raitional do you have?

PS - CAPITALZING ENTIRE SENTENCES IS CONSIDERED YELLING AND IS AGAINT THE RULES

[L8fGLM4d]

I agree with you, without reservations. But my reason for responding is to ask whether or not you have a bonified link to those statements?? (not doubting you, I have other reasons)

Is this what you had in mind?

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security, comments made in Buffalo, April 20, 2004:

So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

We had real problems chasing paper -- following paper trails of people. The law was just such that we could run down a problem for a crooked businessman; we couldn't use the same tools necessary to chase down a terrorist. That doesn't make any sense. And sometimes the use of paper trails and paper will lead local first responders and local officials to a potential terrorist. We're going to have every tool, is what I'm telling you, available for our people who I expect to do their job, and you expect to do their jobs.

We had tough penalties for drug traffickers; we didn't have as tough a penalty for terrorists. That didn't make any sense. The true threat to the 21st century is the fact somebody is trying to come back into our country and hurt us. And we ought to be able to at least send a signal through law that says we're going to treat you equally as tough as we do mobsters and drug lords.

There's other things we need to do. We need administrative subpoenas in the law. This was not a part of the recent Patriot Act. By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire, for the security of our country.

Administrative subpoenas mean it is -- speeds up the process whereby people can gain information to go after terrorists. Administrative subpoenas I guess is kind of an ominous sounding word, but it is, to put everybody's mind at ease about administrative subpoenas -- we use them to catch crooked doctors today. It's a tool for people to chase down medical fraud. And it certainly makes sense to me that if we're using it as a tool to chase medical fraud cases, we certainly ought to use it as a tool to chase potential terrorists.

[praboobolbode]

Is this what you had in mind?

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security, comments made in Buffalo, April 20, 2004:

Yes, precisely, and my reason???? I wanted to see of itwas a direct quote, and if he was actually speaking in such broken up sentences, as it appears he was.

Thank you, this goes into my archives.

[MFSSCW2c]

Yes, precisely, and my reason???? I wanted to see of itwas a direct quote, and if he was actually speaking in such broken up sentences, as it appears he was.

Thank you, this goes into my archives.

If you read the rest of that speech I think that Bush explains well what the problem with the law is, which is that it is often not flexible enough for the changing circumstances. Many surviellence laws were designed for catching criminals, which didnt work for catching terrorists. The FISA was designed make it harder for the NSA to be abused against Americans, which is now making it harder to catch terrorists. Maybe it needs to be changed.

[jisee]

If you read the rest of that speech I think that Bush explains well what the problem with the law is, which is that it is often not flexible enough for the changing circumstances. Many surviellence laws were designed for catching criminals, which didnt work for catching terrorists. The FISA was designed make it harder for the NSA to be abused against Americans, which is now making it harder to catch terrorists. Maybe it needs to be changed.

Actually, in keeping with the gist of the post which you are responding to, I don't think he could do a good job of explaining how he got up in the morning.

[objennasweene]

Yes, precisely, and my reason???? I wanted to see of itwas a direct quote, and if he was actually speaking in such broken up sentences, as it appears he was.

Thank you, this goes into my archives.

FWIW, the White House website is an excellent source of material for Bush, Cheney, and others ... but mostly Bush. It's a fairly comprehensive collection of Bush's public statements since taking office.

[Lilji]

This is a classified program about national security and it is common sense that details of the program should not be made public. The intelligence committee in congress however is cleared for that informaiton and are investigating it. Everything I stated were the facts as has been made public, whereas the poster had 0 facts. I think my point was made.

Frankly that was my point you have no facts just as I have no facts. You don't know whether he did or did not violate the law. I also can not be sure. You seem content to let him tell you that you can't know in the interest of national security. For me it seems he has already told us once about some rather questionable intelligence and frankly I am not willing to take his word for anything anymore.

[lE3l6Lgn]

People, warrants are something you get to try and build a criminal case pursuant to our criminal justice system. We are engaged in a WAR with the terrorists, not a criminal investigation. The purpose of the NSA program is first and foremost to PREVENT an attack on U.S. citizens and property. The courts have recognized spying (for which no warrant is required) as an inherent presidential power in the execution of a war or authorized use of force. The Constitution makes NO distinction between foreign and domestic ENEMIES (as opposed to those being CRIMINALLY prosecuted).

The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land, no statute can supercede it.

[foodselfdourileka]

Of course we could all show decisive leadership in the face of supposed criminality like Democratic Standard Bearer John Kerry, who when asked if he supports immediate suspension of the very program he declared to be unquestionably illegal and unconstitutional replied "that would be premature". Kerry thinks it would be "premature" to suspend a program he believes to be unconstitutional and illegal? Go figure!

[Karensmith]

I'm all for fingerprinting every child at birth, putting it on file, and then implanting a monitorering chip of some kind (RFID, GPS, or whatever would work best). That way, in addition to knowing who committed the crime, we can find them quite easily.

I agree that this would be a good idea but people find a way out of everything. Anyone who has any intention of committing a crime will easily be able to remove the chip a few months after it would be put into effect. For every time the government perfects an idea a criminal finds a way around it.

[Tnzxovoz]

Frankly that was my point you have no facts just as I have no facts. You don't know whether he did or did not violate the law. I also can not be sure. You seem content to let him tell you that you can't know in the interest of national security. For me it seems he has already told us once about some rather questionable intelligence and frankly I am not willing to take his word for anything anymore.

actually we DO have some "Facts" to go on.

FACT Bush has stated that he doesn't need permission from the court.
FACT He talks about the program being necessary (agreed) but never gets to the point of disussing the issue of the courts permission. only that the "Program" is necessary On Short,
FACT He evades the real issue.

The only thing we have to find our is whether the Law allows it.

[Abarricoss]

I'll post this. Not that anyone here's interested in it though. Sorry I couldn't dish up some asinine conspiracy theory or some such nonsense.

I'm a "bushbot" and only pay attention to "bushco"


Anyways, I'll let everyone else comment more on it if they care too. Have fun now


Today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the NSA terrorist surveillance operation will utterly fail to address the two most important facts about it. Neither Attorney General Gonzales nor the senators questioning him will distinguish between a wartime intelligence gathering operation, which this is, and a broadly scoped peacetime law enforcement investigation, which this is not. And though it will shape the soundbites on which tonight's newscasts will ride, the tension -- no, the enmity -- that governs the administration's dealings with Congressional Dems will be displayed but not explained.

Howard Dean said, "President Bush's secret program to spy on the American people reminds Americans of the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon..." It is only the most fevered liberal brows and the willfully ignorant -- in both of which categories Dr. Dean consistently fits -- who can make such an irrational and irresponsible comparison.

"Any suggestion that a program designed to track the movement, locations, plans or intentions of our enemy -- particularly those that have infiltrated our borders -- is equivalent to abusive domestic surveillance of the past is ludicrous. When Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson approved the electronic surveillance of Martin Luther King, those Presidents were targeting American citizens based on activities protected by the First Amendment. When President Richard Nixon used warrantless wiretaps, they were not directed at enemies that had attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans." Unlike the Deanocrats, Roberts understands the differences between illegal searches that violate the Fourth Amendment and wartime intelligence gathering.


............... full text here:


http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9375

[tigoCeree]

I can just see it now.........

From the Office of the President:

In the interst of national security and in light of the ongoing war on terror, a national gun registration will be implemented immediatlely. All gun owners must register each gun in thier possession.

3 months will be given for this registration. Failure to register will result in confiscation, along with a $100,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment per violation. In addition to registration, a yearly federal interview of all gun owners will also be implemented to assure thier suitability for gun ownership.

I'm sure all patriotic American gun owners will happy to comply. If they have no criminal intent, this measure will not adversely affect thier lives.

Signed,

President Chelsea Clinton, March 10th, 2025

[Smeaphvalialm]

actually we DO have some "Facts" to go on.

FACT Bush has stated that he doesn't need permission from the court.
FACT He talks about the program being necessary (agreed) but never gets to the point of disussing the issue of the courts permission. only that the "Program" is necessary On Short,
FACT He evades the real issue.

The only thing we have to find our is whether the Law allows it.

No if he used thios program to spy on foreigners then I have absolutely no problem with it. If he used it to spy on AMericans, who amy or may not have worked with those foreigners I would have no problem with it as long as he complied with the FISAct. The issue here isn't do I trust him or not, I don't, but that still doesn't tell me if he used it on AMericans within the boundaries of the US without first getting the required warrants. TO me that is the only issue. If he did he violated the law and as such should face the penalties like any other AMerican who violates the law. If he didn't I have no problem with this program. The problem for me is I do not trust him when he proclaims he did not violate the law. I need proof because he has misled us in the past, or at least his minions have. For me that is the only issue. Once I am comfortable with the fact that he hasn't used the program on AMericans in America in violation of the law then as far as I am concerned he is off the hook on this one.

THe problem conservative Repubs have to face is that they opened a can of worms in 1998. They insisted the President was not above the law, and in that respect they were right. Clinton wasn't nor is this President. So now potentially it is comming home to bite their guy.

[PypeDeft]

I can just see it now.........

From the Office of the President:

In the interst of national security and in light of the ongoing war on terror, a national gun registration will be implemented immediatlely. All gun owners must register each gun in thier possession.

3 months will be given for this registration. Failure to register will result in confiscation, along with a $100,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment per violation. In addition to registration, a yearly federal interview of all gun owners will also be implemented to assure thier suitability for gun ownership.

I'm sure all patriotic American gun owners will happy to comply. If they have no criminal intent, this measure will not adversely affect thier lives.

Signed,

President Chelsea Clinton, March 10th, 2025

Good try, the consitution specifically forbids the govt from taking away guns. On the subject of searchs it only requires reasonableness. This is simply the standard tactic of trying to scare everyone with hypotheticals.

[CorpoRasion]

Gort
If he used it to spy on AMericans, who amy or may not have worked with those foreigners I would have no problem with it as long as he complied with the FISAct. FISA has an exception for spying done pusuant to other statutes. Congress passed a use of force resolution against Al Queda, Courts have ruled that the Constitutional role of Commander and Chief carries inherent authority to spy in the application of the use of force. Ergo, current controlling authority is that the program is perfectly legal under FISA because it falls clearly under the exceptions written into FISA.

[Peptobismol]

FISA has an exception for spying done pusuant to other statutes. Congress passed a use of force resolution against Al Queda, Courts have ruled that the Constitutional role of Commander and Chief carries inherent authority to spy in the application of the use of force. Ergo, current controlling authority is that the program is perfectly legal under FISA because it falls clearly under the exceptions written into FISA.

I suspect that if it were that clear, there wouldn't have been a hearing yesterday.

You've summed up one of the arguments the Administration is making in defending the domestic spy program ... that the AUMF acts as a statute that gives Bush the authority to circumvent FISA. Yet many in Congress - from both sides of the aisle - who voted for the AUMF have said that particular interpretation is wrong, and that if they had intended the President to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on US persons, they would have said so explicitly in the AUMF.