Gonzales on the hotseat right now...

[FirstFreedom]

in front of the Senate committee investigating the warrantless spying on Americans. As expected, Gonzales is a weaseling, question-avoiding POS. Never thought I'd say thank God for Patrick Leahy. Of course, the repubs like Hatch are throwing him softballs veiled as hardballs.

 

[garand_shooter]

the warrantless spying on Americans

Have any facts or evidence been yet brought to light to support the assertion that innocent Americans have been the subject of domestic eavesdropping?

Or is this just more opining and political posturizing?

 

[Weeg]

in front of the Senate committee investigating the warrantless spying on Americans. As expected, Gonzales is a weaseling, question-avoiding POS.

Spare me...

Never thought I'd say thank God for Patrick Leahy.

Patrick Leahy mollests Poodles...He's probably pi**ed beacuse he thinks the NSA is monitoring his kiddie porn surfing.

Have any facts or evidence been yet brought to light to support the assertion that innocent Americans have been the subject of domestic eavesdropping?

Or is this just more opining and political posturizing?

Exactly...


.

 

[stevelyn]

Keep approving of their behavior in the name of safety and eventually their activities will affect you.
Duhbya and his cronies might be benevolent and well meaning, but they won't be in office forever.
Do you want Hillary to have that same power after she declares gun owners terrorists?

 

[pipoman]

Do you want Hillary to have that same power after she declares gun owners terrorists?

Why not, BC had it and used it as did every President back to Carter.

 

[garand_shooter]

Keep approving of their behavior in the name of safety and eventually their activities will affect you.

Facts, references, please.

Because I choose to form opinions on facts, and not get caught up in the witch hunt, doesn't mean I approve of what is being alleged. With the current political climate, if there were cold hard evidence, we would know about it. They are called allegations for a reason. I will defer judgement until some proof is found.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Have any facts or evidence been yet brought to light to support the assertion that innocent Americans have been the subject of domestic eavesdropping?

YES. In fact, the Bush admin has ADMITTED 'warrantless spying on Americans'. Are you saying Bush is lying when he admits that?

They admit to spying / eavesdropping
They admit to doing it without even so much as a FISA warrant, which are easier to get than a hooker in times sqaure.
The admit it is done on Americans, domestically.

Wow, even an admission is not enough evidence for the Bush koolaid drinkers.

Spare me...

Ah yes, a response devoid of any substance - sure sign of a losing argument, or in this case, no argument at all.

 

[Derius_T]

FirstFeedom wrote:

Wow, even an admission is not enough evidence for the Bush koolaid drinkers.

Figures. Squeeze a little more ketchup on those fries and bash away....

The fact is, he admitted to spying on people within our own borders with KNOWN or suspected STRONG TIES to KNOWN terrorists. Whats wrong with that? I know I have nothing to fear, because I do not conspire against my country with known terrorists.

I know, I know, it opens the door for the gubmint to spy on anybody they want, anytime, under the guise of terrorist activity.....blah, blah.....

PARANOIA MAN.......pure and simple. Bush did it so it HAS TO BE Bad, AND HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE......:barf:

 

[garand_shooter]

Wow, even an admission is not enough evidence for the Bush koolaid drinkers.

Talk about drinking the kool-aid.

It often pays to read the story beyond the headlines. They have admitted to eavesdropping on people in contact with known terrorists, those with terrorist ties, or to phone numbers seized when arresting known terrorists.


It also often pays to analyze. Let me take you through my analysis step-by-step. Try to keep up.

Do they have the resources to eavesdrop on every conversation, everywhere in the USA, at all times?

No, resources are not unlimited.

Do they care about your daily, petty, conversations about everyday life?

No, they pose no threat.

Would everyone be better served, if they used those limited resources, to monitor those which could be threats?

Yes.

You see, when you get the kool-aid out of your bloodstream, and allow yourself to think independantly, it's not that hard.

Again, if you want to provide any substantive evidence, I'm all ears. Until then, it sounds to these ears, like yours is the 'response devoid of any substance'.

 

[Baba Louie]

The only REAL Negative, besides the whole "I just want to be left alone cause I'm not gonna do anything to anyone anyway" is, we're at that Orwellian stage where anyone with a big enough fast enough computer can wreak havoc, and we don't really KNOW what the "Unintended Consequences" will be, but we think that we won't really like it sometime down the road... sorta like passing an Income Tax Amendment and selling it by telling everyone that it will only be used for the "Wealthy" and would never be over 7% and blah blah blah. It may very well end up being abused by some NON-ELECTED Bureaucrat who is either a "Do-Gooder" or some type of ner-do-well with POWER and a grudge...

But I could be wrong...

So put me down for the Fear of the Unknown factor and I'm sure that our Founding Fathers would do this exact same thing were they alive today... right?

What comes next? Implanted micro-chips at birth?

And will it REALLY stop terrorism? Or is IT a form of Terrorism unto itself?

 

[FirstFreedom]

The fact is, he admitted to spying on people within our own borders with KNOWN or suspected STRONG TIES to KNOWN terrorists.

Yes. Exactly. Warrantless spying on Americans. Just exactly as I said. Sure that they (allegedly) have ties to terrorists group. Doesn't change the fact that it's spying, on Americans, without a warrant. I was 100% accurate then.

Whats wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that it is ILLEGAL without a warrant such as a FISA warrant, which is pitifully easy to get.

OMG, you guys are flat out mentally challenged - nothing you say contradicts the fact that the admin is (as I originally said)

1. Spying
2. on Americans
3. without a Warrant (warrantless)

which one of those 3 things are you saying that I am wrong on?

So garand, I've clearly demonstrated the fact for you, that the government is conducting warrantless spying on Americans, which this admin freely admits. What's to stop them from spying on YOU without a warrant next time?

 

[M3 Pilot]

Well put.

 

[pipoman]

What's wrong with that is that it is ILLEGAL without a warrant such as a FISA warrant, which is pitifully easy to get.

Wrong..It is not illegal...the hearings are to determine if the current policy should be ammended or if it was abused.

Again it was saintly Jimmy Carter who first used this the way I understand it. When are every Preident since going to be called to testify about their use of this? (A shovel may be required)

I also understand information obtained through this lawful wire tapping is not admissable in any court. This is used to gather intellegence. If the Government wants to collect evidence they will get warrants. Because of "freedom of information" warrant information may be obtained and used by the enemy.

 

[Eghad]

"Washington D.C., February 4, 2006 - Despite objections from then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-CIA director George H. W. Bush, President Gerald Ford came down on the side of a proposed federal law to govern wiretapping in 1976 instead of relying on the "inherent" authority of the President because the "pros" outweighed the "cons," according to internal White House documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University."

http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=8992

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB178/index.htm

"Specter told Gonzales that even the Supreme Court had ruled that "the president does not have a blank check." Specter suggested that the program's legality be reviewed by a special federal court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"There are a lot of people who think you're wrong. What do you have to lose if you're right?" Specter, R-Pa., asked Gonzales."

Specter told Gonzales that federal law "has a forceful and blanket prohibition against any electronic surveillance without a court order."

http://news.sbc.yahoo.com/s/ap/2006...5COZdas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

 

[garand_shooter]

FF, they're conducting surveillance on an enemy during wartime. Unfortunately for all of us, some of those enemies reside within our borders. You are well aware your spin is trying to make it seem like innocent school girl's cell phone conversations are being monitored. You are also well aware this is not the case. Spin on if it pleases you. I will let the investigation run it's course, defering judgement until such time.

 

[Eghad]

We also have a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution....

what would your argument be if Bush decided to apply his "supposed wartime powers" to the Second Amendment and confiscate your firearms for public safety?

 

[jcoiii]

Does it really matter which president is/was/will do this? Doesn't it just matter that it's being done?

 

[pipoman]

what would your argument be if Bush decided to apply his "supposed wartime powers" to the Second Amendment and confiscate your firearms for public safety?

This is as likely as shutting down newspapers, limiting travel, and putting armed military on every corner.

Doesn't it just matter that it's being done?

No it doesn't. The information gathered is simply intelligence. If any aspect of a criminal case in the US was based on this method of investigation, the entire case would likely be thrown out. Information gained through this method would not even demonstrate probable cause to obtain a warrant, it is merely intelligence. I would guess information gathered about anyone communicating with our enemy would be monitored indefinitely trying to thwart enemy activities.

There is a contingent in this country who do not believe there are groups who desire to kill us, who are at war with America, who spend every day trying to kill us. Some people would not acknowledge a threat if enemy tanks were rolling down their street. These same people will blame the Republicans if there is another attack on US soil. "Bush knew in advance and did nothing", "Bush let them attack to help his oil buddies", etc.etc.

 

[garand_shooter]

Not the same, Eghad, not by a long shot. Let's phrase the question in the context of the surveillance.

What would your arguement be if the administration confiscated the weapons of people in contact with known terrorists, known terrorist ties, or people who became known through information seized when arresting known terrorists?

The only difference between us is you are assuming there is misuse/abuse, and I am waiting for the investigation to run it's course.

 

[Fal 4 Me]

You are well aware your spin is trying to make it seem like innocent school girl's cell phone conversations are being monitored. .

The truth is we DO NOT know how many Americans have had their e-mails looked at or had their phone conversations listened to because there is NO OVERSIGHT. This is where the problems come into play. The FISA Court was put in place to make sure the president, whether Republican or Democrat, didn't abuse his powers. Yes, every president since Carter has used this law. What everyone needs to remember is that the law has changed since it was first introduced. The Patriot Act even made some changes to the FISA Law. This means that Clinton may have been able to do something under FISA that GW Bush cannot, it would be illegal for Bush. The president, even in wartime is not above the law. And one more point of contention, the president NEVER took a vow to protect the people of the United States. here is the oath he took:

I, [insert name], do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and that I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The president protects the Constitution of the United States, and NOT the people of the U.S.

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.

This ammendment says no searching without a warrant. Wiretaps are a form of searching, therefore the president violated his oath of office by violating the Constitution of the U.S. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S WAR TIME OR NOT.

What would your arguement be if the administration confiscated the weapons of people in contact with known terrorists, known terrorist ties, or people who became known through information seized when arresting known terrorists?

If the people are known terrorists within our borders the government should have no problem getting a warrant. And since when are we supposed to take the word of the president at face value? Many of the same people that "KNEW" Clinton was lyeing with only hearsay in the news are also the same people who think Bush can do know wrong. Using their arguements for supporting Bush, we should all have just believed Clinton when he said he never had sex with Ms. Lewinski, or Nixon when he said "I am not a crook."