Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them

  1. #31
    572Daytona
    Personally I don't see the big deal of monitoring phone conversations either. Your cell phone conversantions and any internet messages you send can already be monitored, so why not wired phones as well? If you aren't doing anything illegal there's nothing to worry about. If you are plotting to blow up a building or something then I think we have the right to be protected. I think we need more of it, perhaps it would address some of our domestic problems such as drugs, organized crime and government corruption.
    What I find pathetic is that there is a person or persons out there that are so politically motivated that they are willing to put the nation's security at risk by leaking classified information just to take a shot at the president. If they truly thought that what Bush was doing was unconstitutional, they should have hired a lawyer (I'm sure the ACLU would have loved to take the case) and fought their fight in court. It is trully gutless just to anonymously tell a reporter.

  2. #32
    Steve 1
    Myself I would spend less time typing and more in research! excerpetd
    Nov. 18, 2002, 5:30pm EST COURT UPHOLDS EXPANDED U.S. WIRETAPPING POWERS
    A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the U.S. government has an expanded authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques in its efforts to track suspected terrorists.
    The court's ruling said that expanded powers to wiretap those suspected in foreign terrorist operations – including U.S. citizens – outlined in the U.S.A. Patriot Act do not violate the Constitution.
    The ruling, made by a select panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, overturns a decision limiting the government's surveillance authority by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – a top secret body created in 1978 to review the attorney general's requests to authorize electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information.
    Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the ruling during a press conference Monday, saying it "confirmed
    the Department of Justice's legal authority to integrate fully the functions of law enforcement and intelligence."
    "Today's ruling is an affirmation of the will of Congress, a vindication of the agents and prosecutors of the Department of Justice, and a victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people," Ashcroft said.
    More;
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 ---> the problem here is simply people do not read the amendments!!
    - - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
    Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
    Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
    (a) Secretary of State;
    (b) Secretary of Defense;
    (c) Director of Central Intelligence;
    (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
    (e) Deputy Secretary of State;
    (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
    (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
    None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    WILLIAM J. CLINTON - Bent Bill no less !!
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    February 9, 1995. - Note the date!
    reflects My personal feelings
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/, Please read the entire article it will become obvious that the selective tapping of international phone calls by American citizens or not when made to known contact numbers for terrorists is proper and mandatory for our protection.

  3. #33
    Old Texan
    IMO the bulk of the problems we see and hear are the fault of our general media, meaning the nightly network news and traditional print media. The article Steve has posted and the documents going back to the prior adminsitration are readily available with some research. Why isn't it put forth in the daily news papers and evening reports general America tradionally relies on? Sure would have eliminated a lot of debate and fingerpointing.
    Most network news reports are complete and utter jokes as far as accuracy. Sensationalism is the key to selling advertising dollars, don't let the truth or accurate facts get in the way.
    The New York Times has no more credibilty that the National Enquirer. In fact I have heard the NE being sited as a source of info by the AP. The news agencies themselves have gotten so political they have completely morphed into more of a propaganda machine than a reporting medium.

  4. #34
    SmokinLowriderSS
    I don't think reporting actually exists any more. Just look at the news stories, the TV stories, they are all virtually carbon-copy identical. Nowadays, the only "investigative" reporters (and I do use the term VERY loosely) are AP/UPI field reporters. The news agencies above them pull copy from the wire feed, edit out the parts they dislike (like the letter from the soldier home), throw it in presses and teleprompters, and turn the power on.

  5. #35
    Freak
    Man....your digging...Tell me how in relation to our conversation does this post have meaning?
    Myself I would spend less time typing and more in research! excerpetd
    Nov. 18, 2002, 5:30pm EST COURT UPHOLDS EXPANDED U.S. WIRETAPPING POWERS
    A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the U.S. government has an expanded authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques in its efforts to track suspected terrorists.
    The court's ruling said that expanded powers to wiretap those suspected in foreign terrorist operations – including U.S. citizens – outlined in the U.S.A. Patriot Act do not violate the Constitution.
    The ruling, made by a select panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, overturns a decision limiting the government's surveillance authority by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – a top secret body created in 1978 to review the attorney general's requests to authorize electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information.
    Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the ruling during a press conference Monday, saying it "confirmed
    the Department of Justice's legal authority to integrate fully the functions of law enforcement and intelligence."
    "Today's ruling is an affirmation of the will of Congress, a vindication of the agents and prosecutors of the Department of Justice, and a victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people," Ashcroft said.
    More;
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 ---> the problem here is simply people do not read the amendments!!
    - - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
    Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
    Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
    (a) Secretary of State;
    (b) Secretary of Defense;
    (c) Director of Central Intelligence;
    (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
    (e) Deputy Secretary of State;
    (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
    (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
    None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
    WILLIAM J. CLINTON - Bent Bill no less !!
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    February 9, 1995. - Note the date!.
    reflects My personal feelings
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/, Please read the entire article it will become obvious that the selective tapping of international phone calls by American citizens or not when made to known contact numbers for terrorists is proper and mandatory for our protection.
    I read it. Where did it state that he used the phone? It mentioned the web....and quote: "In coded messages, sent to his al Qaeda handlers via an unnamed third party in the United States". Sounds to me like they are not using the phone.
    Like I said......I have no problem with wire tapping.....So what again is your point?

  6. #36
    Steve 1
    My God man it is posted above ,that paragraph on the bottom is some of the results!

  7. #37
    SmokinLowriderSS
    I read it. Where did it state that he used the phone? It mentioned the web....and quote: "In coded messages, sent to his al Qaeda handlers via an unnamed third party in the United States". Sounds to me like they are not using the phone.
    Like I said......I have no problem with wire tapping.....So what again is your point?
    So .... since it doesn't say the telephone was used, does that mean he just tossed the "coded communications" in the US MAil?? Hmmmm The "Unnamed 3rd party just might be the post office, UPS, Fed-Ex, AOL, or Atlantic Bell, as far as specifics in the article go. Face it, if you want to talk to someone the other side of the world, you either CALL THEM, or you HOPE (and pray to Alah) THEY ARE AT THEIR COMPUTER (not to mention you hope it is THEM at their computer). Which one will provide results faster?

  8. #38
    Old Texan
    Man....your digging...Tell me how in relation to our conversation does this post have meaning?
    I read it. Where did it state that he used the phone? It mentioned the web....and quote: "In coded messages, sent to his al Qaeda handlers via an unnamed third party in the United States". Sounds to me like they are not using the phone.
    Like I said......I have no problem with wire tapping.....So what again is your point?
    Could be using smoke signals or tribal drums. These are tricky wascals and they are somewhat backwards in technology. :rollside:
    Early on we were monitoring bin Laden's cell calls until the loud mouth media made it their duty to report our success. Freedom of information is another great right we have but it's abuse of use places that much more difficulty on our government's abilities to protect us and defeat our real enemies.
    What was the old saying back in WWI or II, "Loose lips sink ships". The dedicated media doesn't get that concept.
    Go tell the victims survivors of a terrorist attack we could have stopped it, but it would have violated Mohammed's rights.
    In our justice system, all are innocent until proven guilty.
    In our PC world all people are terrorists until proven innocent means Granny Smith and 6 yr old little Johnny are just as suspect boarding a plane as Osama himself. Let's cut the crap and use common sense instead of refusing to profile and zoom in on real suspects. There is a way and it isn't going to turn into a Gestapo like America. Too da mn bad if a few immigrants get their feelings hurt, they don't seem to care much about our feelongs anyway.

  9. #39
    Seadog
    In Vietnam, they would give children explosive devices. As the children would swarm around the soldiers to get the treats as usual, the child would toss the device into the crowd. Often the child would not even get away. How do you deal with a situation like that? The only way to be effective is to get the people behind the attacks, and to do that, you have to locate them and get to them before they can act. When they use phones that are only used for a few days and constantly move around, is it practical to wait while some judge debates the technicalities of the warrant?
    What most people do not realize is that many of these so-called rights are only recent additions to our society. Many of these rights were not instituted until after 1960 as a reaction to the civil rights movement and the actions of many local police departments. I doubt very much that the original Congress had wiretaps in mind or radio intercepts.
    There is also another question. The government regulates the airwaves and phones systems. If you broadcast information over the airwaves, what right should any person have to expect absolute privacy? When you talk quietly in a back room, you are making a reasonable effort to keep things private. But if you shout across a street, that is hardly private. Transmitting a message for several miles could be considered the same action. You are putting information into the public domain.

  10. #40
    Boatcop
    I've skimmed through this thread, and it is pretty much the same old arguments. Bush's abuse of power (even though Clinton used it).
    The same can be said about the so-called secret torture camps he developed (which had been used by Jimmy Carter). But that's another thread.
    Here's something to ponder visa-vis the overseas wire taps.
    In order to keep this country safe and prevent drugs, illegals, criminals, terrorists, etc. from entering, the US government has set up check-points at every legal border crossing. The US Coast Guard also has unfettered authority to stop and search any vessel in or entering US waters for the same reason. If you want to enter this country, citizen or not, you, your belongings, papers, etc. are subject to search. The Supreme Court (Liberal and Conservative Justices alike) has consistently ruled that protecting the borders is paramount to our safety and security, and that the limited imposition of the government in such searches outweigh the "rights" of those persons desiring to enter.
    In earlier times, communications between the US and other countries were hand carried, and subject to search and inspection (unless carried in recognized diplomatic "pouches"). Again, the fact that you were a citizen had no bearing on whether you, your belongings, or your papers were searched.
    Fast forward to the electronic age, when these communications occur over hard wire, micro-wave, cell, and satellite. Are these communications not the same as those hand carried letters of the 1800s and before? Or even the papers hand carrried across the borders today? The signals of email and phone communications are indeed crossing our borders and their content definitely has the potential to be a threat to our safety and security.
    This is a case where the law and ideals have not kept up with technology. Plans, maps, bomb recipes, pictures of possible targets, kiddy-porn, etc. can be transmitted through cyber-space with no monitoring, while in the past there was a high likelyhood that these items would be discovered crossing the border. It didn't matter whether the papers the Customs Agents read were the letters from Aunt Polly, or the plans to a nuclear device. They got inspected.
    I submit to you that there is absolutely no difference between the two methods of bringing harmful material into this country, and that there is no expectation of privacy when crossing the US border. Be it physically or virtually.
    Any (except diplomatic) communications are subject to search and inspection if they originate or terminate outside of this country. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that principle.
    They just don't realize it yet.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-28-2006, 10:07 AM
  2. Bush 1 and Bush II
    By Just Tool'n in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-12-2005, 08:00 PM
  3. No more BUSH!
    By HCS in forum Political Phetoric
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-07-2004, 09:12 PM
  4. Bush take two.
    By Blown 472 in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 08-26-2004, 09:25 AM
  5. BUSH ON AIR NOW!!!!
    By XLGPP in forum Sandbar
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-17-2003, 06:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •