PDA

View Full Version : Impeachment-time


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
12-21-2005, 07:17 PM
OK, please: someone try and tell me now that Bush isn't a liar.

Bush just admitted, for the first time in history: to an impeachable offence. He admitted to authorizing wiretaps without FISA review. A FISA judge has resigned in protest.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that unwarranted wiretaps are OK? Step on up...if you're out there.

In the meantime: let's take up the call...

IMPEACH!

giriasis
12-21-2005, 07:48 PM
One word: Bushpatine

Joe Bowen
12-21-2005, 11:53 PM
One word: Bushpatine

What does this word mean?

Joe Bowen
12-21-2005, 11:56 PM
Never mind, I think I get it....

Don_Modesto
12-22-2005, 12:13 AM
OK, please: someone try and tell me now that Bush isn't a liar.

Bush just admitted, for the first time in history: to an impeachable offence. He admitted to authorizing wiretaps without FISA review. A FISA judge has resigned in protest.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that unwarranted wiretaps are OK? Step on up...if you're out there.

In the meantime: let's take up the call...

IMPEACH!

Man, the warning flags have been up with this guy since he was in college. If the nation has been ignoring them this long, I don't see him going down anytime soon. Domestic spying, torture, malfeasance, incompetence corrution, lying...but no semen stains. We have to adhere to family values, after all.

Mussolini wasn't dragged through the streets until Italy lost the war.

Yann Golanski
12-22-2005, 02:37 AM
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_18-2005_12_24.shtml#1135152318

In case anyone wants real information and not propaganda from either side... Oh wait, that'll just be me.
/cynicism

Hogan
12-22-2005, 09:28 AM
Impeachable ? Don't think so....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179318,00.html
"Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush is not the first to assert the executive power to authorize warrantless searches. The National Review notes that President Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1994 that an executive order signed by President Reagan provided for warrantless searches against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power," saying, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179435,00.html
"We told you earlier that President Clinton had defended his executive authority to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant and in fact, in February of 1995, authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information."

Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

_______________________
Impeachable offense is lying under oath, which Clinton was impeached for.

Neil Mick
12-22-2005, 11:45 AM
Impeachable ? Don't think so....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179318,00.html
"Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush is not the first to assert the executive power to authorize warrantless searches. The National Review notes that President Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1994 that an executive order signed by President Reagan provided for warrantless searches against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power," saying, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Sorry, Jamie Gorelick was contending that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches: not admitting that he did it. Apples and oranges.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179435,00.html
"We told you earlier that President Clinton had defended his executive authority to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant and in fact, in February of 1995, authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information."

He's defending his authority to conduct these searches: not admitting to conducting them.

Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

And you think that simply because others did it in the past, this makes it OK??? :confused: I know: attempting to make permanent the Patriot Act; indefinite jailings and demands for increased, kinglike powers to the President means nothing to you...BushCo isn't trying to consolidate power and dramatically transform this democracy into something else....it's all just the latest act in the "war on terror!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Impeachable offense is lying under oath, which Clinton was impeached for.

Impeachable offences are "high crimes and misdemeanors," which includes felonious offences. Bush committed a felony: ergo, he's impeachable. Matters not, how many felonious Presidents preceeded him (if your source is true, which: considering its record, is debatable).

Sad, that I find you here, erroneously defending the lawbreaking Bush, to the end.

Sad: but not unsurprising.

Hogan
12-22-2005, 12:03 PM
Sorry, but even IF your questionable source is true: BushCo has been spying on American's in this country. Apples and oranges.

...who happens to be talking to foreign suspects / terrorists. Too bad we didn't do this when Atta and his crew called Pakistan one last time before 9/11 - maybe that couldv'e been avoided.



And if this is true: he ought to have been impeached. A previous wrong, doth not a right, make.

Not illegal = not impeachable



And you think that simply because others did it in the past, this makes it OK???

Not OK in your mind does not = illegal.

Impeachable offences are "high crimes and misdemeanors," which includes felonious offences. Bush committed a felony: ..

No, sorry. LEGAL. And if you don't believe the sourse, go look at the docs. Prove them wrong.

...Sad, that I find you here, erroneously defending the lawbreaking Bush, to the end.

No law has been broken.

Neil Mick
12-22-2005, 12:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179435,00.html
Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

Darn these timeouts, anyway!

So, here we have another trick of miswording, courtesy of Fox (who, of course: caught the whiff of the echo-chamber, from Drudge).

What Drudge says:

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.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again: the difference btw Carter's order and Bush's confession is the restriction from bugging US citizens.

Gotta love these Conservative double-talking blogger's: they'll twist everything.

Also, regarding Gorelick: in 1995 the law was amended to include physical searches. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA.

The difference btw Clinton and Bush? Clinton wasn't arguing that he could ignore the law, and FISA: Bush is.

So, once again: FoxNews attempts to twist the facts out of context to reflect favorably on W.

Neil Mick
12-22-2005, 12:20 PM
...who happens to be talking to foreign suspects / terrorists. Too bad we didn't do this when Atta and his crew called Pakistan one last time before 9/11 - maybe that couldv'e been avoided.

And you know whom, exactly: BushCo is tapping, how?? I know, I know: Bush is Our Last, Best Hope for Democracy. :rolleyes:

We have nothing to worry about: because W wouldn't DARE violate the right to privacy of an innocent!

Sami al Arian just might disagree with you...

Sorry, but the law is quite specific. No domestic spying of American's. See my post above.

Not illegal = not impeachable

But, illegal IS impeachable, which W did.

No, sorry. LEGAL. And if you don't believe the sourse, go look at the docs. Prove them wrong.

Oh, I just did. At least, I disproved the doubletalking and out of context quotes you provided.

No law has been broken.

Wanna bet?

makuchg
12-22-2005, 01:07 PM
Really the EO that you should be examining is EO 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. This order outlines intelligence activities and what is permitted and what is not.

<quote>2.4 COLLECTION TECHNIQUES

Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least
intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States
or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not
authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance,
unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical
surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance
with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and
approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect
constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such
information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures
shall not authorize:

(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the
United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or
conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;

(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by
agencies other than the FBI, except for:

(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military
services directed against military personnel within the United
States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a
military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law
enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to
believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers;
and

(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States
persons lawfully in its possession.

(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United
States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:

(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present
or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or
former employees, or applicants for any such employment or
contracting; and

(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a
nonintelligence element of a military service.

(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to
collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant
information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
</quote>

I believe if you look at this EO (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12333.htm) you will find that the surveillance of US persons is so highly regulated that the wiretapping of a US person by any agency other than the FBI is expressly prohibited. Even if the wiretap was authorized, the use of any agency other than the FBI within the confines of the US (unless it was a military member then the DoD can investigate), especially the NSA justifies a breach of EO 12333. Further more, EO 12333 expressly prohibits any action which would violate existing US laws and the Constitution:

<quote> 2.8 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any
activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United
States.
</quote>

How can we now say his actions were even remotely legal?

Hogan
12-22-2005, 01:11 PM
"The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

"...the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."


Means the same thing, dude. Authorization by the AG = certification by the AG.

No trick at all. See even the 1st part of the sentence is word for word.

I see you like to find the section with my words, then accuse it of misquoting when they just leave the end of the sentence off, then say something else without providing source.

What the act ACTUALLY says is, is that the AG has to certify that:

"...(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party..."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

That means that the AG simply has to say the there is "no substantial likelihood". Now, if some US "citizens" were listend in on (and that is up for debate), it wasn't INTENDED; that what they did will NOT in all likelihood catch US "citizens", but is intedned to listent o others, but some US folks may be. See how simple that is ? They follow the law - simple as that.

Whew ! Talk about leaving words out, Neil - those were the best part.. seems like "[you']ll twist everything"...


"So, once again [Neil Mick] attempts to twist the facts out of context to reflect [horribly] on W."

Hogan
12-22-2005, 01:20 PM
....<quote>2.4 COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least
intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States
or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not
authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance,
unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical
surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance
with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and
approved by the Attorney General...

Hmmm...OK, seems so far so good for the AG. He can approve it or the head of an agency. Nothing that Bush did was wrong so far...

"...shall not authorize (a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the
United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or
conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;

OK.... Who said Bush used CIA ?

(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military
services directed against military personnel within the United
States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a
military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers;
and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States
persons lawfully in its possession.
(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United
States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or
former employees, or applicants for any such employment or
contracting; and
(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a
nonintelligence element of a military service.
(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to
collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant
information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
</quote>

OK ! Listening in on the phone or net is NOT 'physical' surveillance. Thanks Greg ! You made the case... And if it WAS physical, everyone of the ones listed above provide an exception.

makuchg
12-22-2005, 02:47 PM
John,

Bush used the NSA for the wire taps which EO 12333 expressly disapproves of. If you read the entire EO, not just the points I quoted you'll see the use of the NSA for domestic surveillence requires coordination with the FBI who holds investigative authority in the US. The NSA cannot tap US lines simply because the President says so.

Neil Mick
12-22-2005, 03:03 PM
Means the same thing, dude. Authorization by the AG = certification by the AG.

No trick at all. See even the 1st part of the sentence is word for word.

You're right: it's not a trick, if we all see under the curtain.

YOU see the first part of the sentence, "word for word:"

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again: the difference btw Carter's order and Bush's confession is the restriction from bugging US citizens.

The emphasis is on WHOM the Pres chooses to bug; NOT who certifies it.


I see you like to find the section with my words, then accuse it of misquoting when they just leave the end of the sentence off, then say something else without providing source.

Yes, it's called "quoting out of context." Mayhap you've heard of it?

What the act ACTUALLY says is, is that the AG has to certify that:

"...(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party..."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

That means that the AG simply has to say the there is "no substantial likelihood". Now, if some US "citizens" were listend in on (and that is up for debate), it wasn't INTENDED; that what they did will NOT in all likelihood catch US "citizens", but is intedned to listent o others, but some US folks may be. See how simple that is ? They follow the law - simple as that.

Right. It IS simple. But that's not relevant to the argument. Bush is claiming that he IS allowed to bug US citizens, WHETHER HE "INTENDS" TO BUG US CITIZENS, or not. And, he just lied about not bugging US citizens, last week.

Totally predictable, that you choose to ignore his near-daily lies, and tortures of the truth.

Whew ! Talk about leaving words out, Neil - those were the best part.. seems like "[you']ll twist everything"...

Whew! Talk about dropping the concept, ball, John...you'll attempt ANYTHING to misdirect the topic...what next? Seals juggling on beach-balls?

"So, once again [Neil Mick] attempts to twist the facts out of context to reflect [horribly] on W."

"So, once again [John Hogan] attempts misdirection, and fails in mid-dance-step, like a Republican attempting a smile for his big mug-shot." :p

Hogan
12-22-2005, 03:20 PM
John,

Bush used the NSA for the wire taps which EO 12333 expressly disapproves of. If you read the entire EO, not just the points I quoted you'll see the use of the NSA for domestic surveillence requires coordination with the FBI who holds investigative authority in the US. The NSA cannot tap US lines simply because the President says so.

Crap... now I got to read things in their entirety !?

Hogan
12-22-2005, 03:31 PM
You're right: it's not a trick, if we all see under the curtain.

YOU see the first part of the sentence, "word for word:"


Ahahha.... c'mon dude - it's like comparing these sentences:

1) Neil Mick walks forward.

2) Neil Mick walks forward, by placing one foot in front of the other...


See ? Same thing !


Say after me...

"BUSH is MY PRESIDENT. There aren't many like it, but this one is mine.

My president is my best friend. He is my life.

My country, without Bush, is useless. Without my President, I am useless.

My President and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count.

My President is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its mind. I will ever guard it against the ravages of terrorism and criticism as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my President clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before God, I swear this creed. My President and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We
are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace".

p.s. (Bush gets to appoint even more supreme court justices).

aikigirl10
12-22-2005, 04:18 PM
One word: Bushpatine

I still dont get it .. whats it mean?

James Davis
12-22-2005, 04:24 PM
I still dont get it .. whats it mean?
Play on the name of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.

James Davis
12-22-2005, 04:26 PM
p.s. (Bush gets to appoint even more supreme court justices).
Whoa, John. Way to twist the knife! :p What a mean guy you are! :rolleyes:

aikigirl10
12-22-2005, 08:26 PM
Play on the name of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.

Ah i see... not a huge star wars fan.. thats the problem...

But thanks for filling me in

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 03:30 AM
Say after me...

"BUSH is MY PRESIDENT. There aren't many like it, but this one is mine.

My president is my best friend. He is my life.

My country, without Bush, is useless. Without my President, I am useless.

whoah. :eek: :eek:

After this: what subtle barbs and snide asides could I possibly pull?

Thank you, John: I am humbled by your honesty. It is certainly rare that an ideologue (no insult intended, really) should convey himself so clearly. Good for you.

But for the rest of us: Bush is an elected leader. He is not our best friend; he is NOT our life.

Please! ANYONE out there, reading my post!! PLEASE pipe in if I'm wrong (no, not you: John).

DOES ANYONE HERE THINK OF THE PRESIDENT AS THEIR LIFE?

How about...The country is "useless" without the President??

No takers??? Aww....come onnnnn...

My President and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count.

Yes...Bush sure hit a "home-run" with Katrina. didn't he?

And, he's wow'in' 'em over in Congress with his snake-oil Samedi-dance of "we don't DO torture;" while pushing for greater and greater Presidential powers; indefinite detentions; and extroadinary rendition...yeah, this guy is puuure gold, all right...yepper, no scandals from THIS administration...nope, it's all clean as a whistle....

My President is human, even as I, because it is my life.

Gosh, is Bush human? Hmmm.....

Is this a trick question? :crazy:

Thus, I will learn it as a brother.

I bet you're one of those Promis-Keeper types, aren't you? :p

I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its mind. I will ever guard it against the ravages of terrorism and criticism as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my President clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Is this some kind of pseudo-Freudian fantasy wierdness?? :hypno: :hypno:

ooooh....scary...... :dead:

Before God, I swear this creed. My President and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We
are the saviors of my life.

Please....come on...tell me that you're just havin' me on, and this is some attempt to psyche me out.....

I worry about you, John....are you OK?? :uch:

Please, just because you are shown up for your sources, doesn't mean that you have to go all ideological on me.... :hypno:

p.s. (Bush gets to appoint even more supreme court justices).

Yeah, well...you got me there... :dead:

Hogan
12-23-2005, 08:55 AM
ahaha.... I guess the spoof went over your head...

And bested on sources ? AAAAAAAAAHAHAH !!! Thanks for the laugh this christmas...

bkedelen
12-23-2005, 11:30 AM
It is kinda fun to watch the pro bush squad drown in slow motion. International laws are often broken by presidents acting as the commander and chief of the US Armed Forces. There are often no repercussions for these indiscretions because the United States does not choose to follow the rulings of the world court, which has convicted the US multiple times, and has ruled to apply sanctions against the US which were not enforceable (since we provide the world court's enforcement). Enforcing sanctions against known instances of presidents breaking US law is a different matter. The difference between Clinton breaking the law (which he did), and Bush breaking the law (which he did), is that when Clinton was president, he had a Republican congress gunning for him at all times, whereas Bush has a Republican congress trying to cover his ass. This does not mean that what Clinton did is right. Of course if Bush had a Democratic congress to contend with, he would have been impeached multiple times. The only argument that Bush supporters can think of to defend Bush's actions is that other presidents may have done something similar and gotten away with it at some time in the past. Any student of logic understands that that is not a cogent argument, and has no defensive value. Until a better argument is put forth to defend Bush's failure to abide by US law, he is certainly impeachable. Hopefully at least one of the numerous parallel investigations into almost every aspect of his presidency will yield a direct link between his decision making and the terrible and at times illegal mismanagement of this nation.

Hogan
12-23-2005, 11:44 AM
It is kinda fun to watch the pro bush squad drown in slow motion. International laws are often broken by presidents acting as the commander and chief of the US Armed Forces. There are often no repercussions for these indiscretions because the United States does not choose to follow the rulings of the world court, which has convicted the US multiple times, and has ruled to apply sanctions against the US which were not enforceable (since we provide the world court's enforcement). Enforcing sanctions against known instances of presidents breaking US law is a different matter. The difference between Clinton breaking the law (which he did), and Bush breaking the law (which he did), is that when Clinton was president, he had a Republican congress gunning for him at all times, whereas Bush has a Republican congress trying to cover his ass. This does not mean that what Clinton did is right. Of course if Bush had a Democratic congress to contend with, he would have been impeached multiple times. The only argument that Bush supporters can think of to defend Bush's actions is that other presidents may have done something similar and gotten away with it at some time in the past. Any student of logic understands that that is not a cogent argument, and has no defensive value. Until a better argument is put forth to defend Bush's failure to abide by US law, he is certainly impeachable. Hopefully at least one of the numerous parallel investigations into almost every aspect of his presidency will yield a direct link between his decision making and the terrible and at times illegal mismanagement of this nation.


Where do people get this fantasy of drowning ? No US laws were broken, Bush will not be impeached and his plans will continue. Deal with it, smile and have a great day - it is wonderful outside.

bkedelen
12-23-2005, 12:17 PM
John, here in the US we have laws which state that communications where one part is a US citizen cannot be intercepted for law enforcement purposes without a warrant. Congress has changed that law so that warrants could be retroactively pursued up to 36 hours after the actual communication interception. Before and after that law was changed, the NSA has been executively directed to intercept communications without pursuing a warrant at all. That is what is known to lay people as breaking the law. Here is another example: A president tells a lie to congress, informing them that the leader of a country is developing weapons of mass destruction even though he is informed by multiple trusted resources that such weapons do not exist. Again lay people refer to this as breaking the law. In addition, manufacturing a war is a crime against humanity. Another crime against humanity is the way prisoner of war camp officials have been executively directed to treat their captives. If, unlike president Bush, you remember those silly old Nuremberg trials, overseen by an international military tribunal representing all of humanity, you will remember that crimes against humanity are punishable by death. It is pretty clear to me that if you perpetrate an act which was at one point in the past agreed by a group represting all of humanity to be punishable by death, there is a high likelihood that you are a criminal. Any of this sinking in? Seriously though, I am sure no crimes have been committed. What would even give me that idea?

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 12:19 PM
ahaha.... I guess the spoof went over your head...

And bested on sources ? AAAAAAAAAHAHAH !!! Thanks for the laugh this christmas...

Oh, the honor is mine.

I have great respect for the man who can laugh at himself.

But, you DID get skunked on your sources, before you attempted to change the subject with that long-winded spoof.

(and yeah, I GOT that it was a spoof. But in the heart of every joke, lies the truth.

Guess THAT one went over YOUR head... :p )

mj
12-23-2005, 12:19 PM
It's a great day for the anti-war brigade anyway.

Spying on US citizens is illegal. There are already systems in place if it is necessary or justifiable - Bush bypassed these because they were neither.

Bush won't be impeached for this though - but he's a lamer duck than he was last week so that's cool.

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 12:32 PM
Any of this sinking in? Seriously though, I am sure no crimes have been committed. What would even give me that idea?

From someone who has travelled this road with John before, Benjamin: I can tell you that you have a hard road to hoe.

John is one of the last "true believers."
To John, "Freedom," and "US foreign occupation," are synonymous (he's said as much, in past threads).

I am willing to bet that John believes Bush hasn't lied. Even now.

Such stubborn refusal to accept the truth in light of all the facts is an amazing testament of will, to say the least.

All the dead don't matter.
All the lies don't matter.
All the imprisoned without any legal process don't matter.
All the allegations of torture; corruption; distortion of scientific peer review; mishandling of Katrina; juicy sole-source contracting, and domestic spying of American's, doesn't matter.

All that matters (to John) is that we do not "fall into the enemy's plans." Did I miss anything, John? :hypno: :p

P.S. Benjamin: Say hi to Steven Katz, for me. ;)

Mashu
12-23-2005, 12:35 PM
Like the Black Knight in Monty Python's The Holy Grail?

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 12:37 PM
Like the Black Knight in Monty Python's The Holy Grail?


Gosh, I think you hit on something there, Matthew: that's it, exactly. Ooh, I'm gettin' flashbacks.... :crazy:

Hogan
12-23-2005, 12:56 PM
John, here in the US we have laws which state that communications where one part is a US citizen cannot be intercepted for law enforcement purposes without a warrant. Congress has changed that law so that warrants could be retroactively pursued up to 36 hours after the actual communication interception. Before and after that law was changed, the NSA has been executively directed to intercept communications without pursuing a warrant at all. That is what is known to lay people as breaking the law. Here is another example: A president tells a lie to congress, informing them that the leader of a country is developing weapons of mass destruction even though he is informed by multiple trusted resources that such weapons do not exist. Again lay people refer to this as breaking the law. In addition, manufacturing a war is a crime against humanity. Another crime against humanity is the way prisoner of war camp officials have been executively directed to treat their captives. If, unlike president Bush, you remember those silly old Nuremberg trials, overseen by an international military tribunal representing all of humanity, you will remember that crimes against humanity are punishable by death. It is pretty clear to me that if you perpetrate an act which was at one point in the past agreed by a group represting all of humanity to be punishable by death, there is a high likelihood that you are a criminal. Any of this sinking in? Seriously though, I am sure no crimes have been committed. What would even give me that idea?

Uh, yeahhhhhh, it'll still continue.

bkedelen
12-23-2005, 12:57 PM
I will say hi to Steven for you, he is a buddy of mine as well. I need to remember not to attack John, and stick with attacking his ridiculous beliefs.

Hogan
12-23-2005, 01:01 PM
Oh, the honor is mine.

I have great respect for the man who can laugh at himself.

But, you DID get skunked on your sources, before you attempted to change the subject with that long-winded spoof.

(and yeah, I GOT that it was a spoof. But in the heart of every joke, lies the truth.

Guess THAT one went over YOUR head... :p )

*snoooooore*...

p.s. (it'll not stop...)

Hogan
12-23-2005, 01:05 PM
...
To John, "Freedom," and "US foreign occupation," are synonymous (he's said as much, in past threads).

No, no, Neil, baby. Get it right. Freedom exists because of the US, Becuase of her domination. Without US, no freedom. But if you want to say I meant that Iraq is now free because we overthrew a dictator you love, then yes, you are right. Same as when we occupied Germany & Japan, etc...

Hogan
12-23-2005, 01:08 PM
I will say hi to Steven for you, he is a buddy of mine as well. I need to remember not to attack John, and stick with attacking his ridiculous beliefs.

Well, to each his own - isn't that what this country all about ?

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 01:15 PM
No, no, Neil, baby. Get it right. Freedom exists because of the US, Becuase of her domination. Without US, no freedom.

Ah, my mistake. I am sure that the Iraqi's make the same mistake, according to the latest polls.

But if you want to say I meant that Iraq is now free because we overthrew a dictator you love, then yes, you are right. Same as when we occupied Germany & Japan, etc...

And Cuba, and Russia, and Wounded Knee, and Panama, and the Philippines, and Nicaragua, and...

James Davis
12-23-2005, 04:14 PM
I need to remember not to attack John, and stick with attacking his ridiculous beliefs.
Debate is fun and good. If we can get more people who want to argue facts and not just cut people down, it'll improve things considerably. Don't think that other people will adhere to your moral code, though... ;)

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 06:19 PM
I need to remember not to attack John, and stick with attacking his ridiculous beliefs.

Yes, this is a good rule of thumb to remember, when debating politics.

Mashu
12-23-2005, 06:32 PM
You don't really believe that they are anywhere near impeaching Bush. Things have turned bad and there's blood in the water but I don't think the administration will be sending Condi to ask Pope Benedict to start up another ratline any time soon.


:)

Neil Mick
12-23-2005, 11:15 PM
You don't really believe that they are anywhere near impeaching Bush.

Personally, I think that that's up to us. The only reason the otherwise cowed Congress has been standing up to Bush at ALL is because We The People have been lobbying them, to do so.

If the American citizens step up to the plate and massively contact their pol's: yeah, I think impeachment's possible. Not ALL Repub's take John's view...I've read quite a few posts (in other political fora) where former Bush-supporters are having a change of heart.

American's just don't LIKE it, when their gov't invades their privacy...go figure. :rolleyes:

Hogan
12-24-2005, 10:28 AM
....And Cuba, and Russia, and Wounded Knee, and Panama, and the Philippines, and Nicaragua, and...

Hmmm, let's see...

Cuba - won by the US, set free, and then Castro bacame dictator...
Cuba was free when dominated by US - check...

Russia - now free due to US domination - check...

Wounded Knee - well, since that is IN the US, and the US is free....

Panama - Won by US, became terroritory, and then let free - check...

Philippines - See Panama...

Nicaraqua - US battles contras - they lost, now country is free - check...

Hey thanks Neil...

mj
12-24-2005, 12:56 PM
There's really no point, Neil :)

You can't argue history with a man who condones the current goings on. He's the one we were fighting against in history.

Neil Mick
12-24-2005, 02:00 PM
There's really no point, Neil :)

You can't argue history with a man who condones the current goings on. He's the one we were fighting against in history.

Yeah, you're right. I was all set to counter back with a rebuttal to John's sad little revionism...but what's the point?

He'll NEVER see the other side (or, at least: admit to it); and everyone else surely knows that that list of countries and places is more of a list of shame in US history, than anything else.

Let him swing from his own ideological rope, lol. :p It's just probably another attempt to divert the topic, again.

Neil Mick
12-24-2005, 03:35 PM
But, back to the topic:

Now, the NYT reveals that the internal spying is much more extensive than Our Protector of Liberty has let on.

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?hp&ex=1135486800&en=7e76956223502390&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/domestic_spying

Big brother only has your best interest at heart. He's as competent on this as he was on the WMDs. From the NYT:

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

How long before this is privatized? Can you imagine the profit potential? Will Haliburton get another sole-source cut? ;)

Mato-san
01-16-2006, 07:40 AM
Ok, I am going to tred lightly, around,on or whatever, the first post requested.
Warranted wire taps. No don`t agree.
But we are talking about a man that can justify acts of war on countries, for what ever the reason.
Not only can he justify them, but he can get global support. In doing so he can gains power.
And even if the purpose is justice, my opinion is you need a conviction, before you justify anything.
But my point is, if he can justify acts of war, he can manipulate the system enough to tap anyone he likes. Anyone
No (I don`t agree with it).
My question is do you trust this man (Bush) enough to give him the power? Or is it at a stage were even the people, don`t have the choice.