Report: Bush eased domestic spy rules after 9/11

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Since the Iraq war is illegal in its own right, everything carried out in the commission of that crime are special circumstances and will compound his charges when he is finally stopped.

It won't be the war in Iraq that will be given as a defense, it will be the "war on terror" that "gives" Bush the power to do things like this. Prepare to hear THAT war being invoked in the coming week or so.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler Prepare to hear THAT war being invoked in the coming week or so.

"That" war is already invoked every other sentence . Terror terror terror, is the only policy of this admin.
Without it they would just vaporize.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel "That" war is already invoked every other sentence . Terror terror terror, is the only policy of this admin.

In that case, get ready to hear it even MORE!

Without it they would just vaporize.

No, but they WOULD be seen, even by the Bush lemmings, as a dangerous, inneffective and essentially worthless group of individuals.

I recall asking a number of Bush acolytes during the last year exactly what good this president and his administration have done, provided you eliminate the war, terrorism and all references to them.

I lost track of how many threads just died after those posts.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zeebadee I guess we are supposed to overlook spelling and grammatical errors, but has anyone else noticed that those "iditos" that are the most ardent Bush admirers are also those that display the most "ignorants" in their support of him? Perhaps the concept of actually living by the precepts embodied in the Constitution instead of merely mouthing them are simply too much for them to comprehend. Why anyone would voluntarily give up their Constitutionally guaranteed rights for a little security is one thing, but these people are will to do just that for even an illusion of security. Why is it so hard for them to understand that our country's strength comes from the very system of law that they are so willing to sacrifice? How do we become more secure by giving up the principles that made this country the greatest the world has ever seen?

Off Topic
It seems that some people in power on this forum, have overlooked your masterpiece packed with cyncism-filled invectives and insults addressed to me. Keep, share and enjoy your perfect vocabulary along with sublime onomastics to yourself, family, friends, relatives, ect.
Bear in your mind, that I am capable of addressing some words, too.

On Topic
The Patriot Act (alone) - which is in effect still, as of today - provides U.S. governing body with variety of options to use some methods and techniques (in conjunction with the top technology available) to monitor (read : spy on) people.

Once again :
- previous U.S. Presidents did it
- Bush does it
- next U.S. Presidents will continue

Example :
Every single telephone is being monitored.
Every single computer connected within the internet is being monitored.
Every single phone service provider is obligated to release the information on your activity.
Every single internet service provider is obligated to release the information on your activity.
Ect.

How does it work, in technical terms ?
In short :
- it depends what you say, and/or you type.

You think that your phone has a built-in microchip that scrambles your conversation, so nobody can understand what you talk about ? That is good for advertisement or commercials, in order to ensure potential buyers that they are safe.
Do you think is that so hard to develope a decoder ? maybe even biult-in within that microchip ? What do you think : is that possible or not ?
(That is one of the reasons Osama is not so easy target to acquire, since he uses wireless devices extremely rarely and/or not at all.)

Do you think that sitting by a computer nobody sees you ? and does not know who you really are ?
Every single key pressed is being logged. You computer is connected to your ISP. By pressing a key, you actually send a signal to your ISP. Then, your ISP sends that signal to a site you type on, but keeps all the data within a "log file". That "log file" is being stored onto ISP server, and on its backup server, additionally and respectivelly.
How long ?
It depends of ISP policy. It could be 5 and/or 15 years.

All of it, has been accepted and approved by the U.S. House.
You did not know that ? Now, you know that.
You want to tell me, that you learnt about eavesdrop procedures that are taking place in U.S. (and around the world) from mass-media, just few days ago ?! :-)))
As a word of compassion : you are not alone.

I tell you something more :
All the previous U.S. Presidents were doing the same. Bush is not the exception.
Regardless of the outcomes, that process will continue no matter who is in the White House. That is a part of state's policy.

our country's strength comes from the very system of law

A state's power and strenght is : Mind.
Any Constitution and/or Law is meaningless and useless without it.

[Milton Bradley]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...nsa/index.html


Bush's admission of guilt.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I spotted this on Huffington post. Biden wrote the FISA Act 25 years ago

Sen. Biden: Neither “Legal, Nor Is It Necessary,” “A Very Dangerous Overreaching”… CBS | Posted December 18, 2005 03:03 PM From the December 18 Edition of "Face the Nation": Senator JOSEPH BIDEN (Democrat, Delaware; Ranking, Foreign Relations Committee): Well, I'm the guy that drafted the FISA Act 25 years ago on the Judiciary Committee, one of the three people, and we set it up--it's a secret court allowing the president to wiretap anybody, intercept anything for up to 75 hours. They can in the meantime go into that court and say, `I needed to do this.' If there's a reason the court thinks is under the Constitution permissible, they're allowed to do it. If it turns out they're not allowed to do it, they have to destroy the evidence. So I just don't get it. He already has the authority under the FISA court to go in and intercept anything he wants up to 72 hours. This is neither, I think, legal, nor is it necessary what he's been doing. It is a little bit frightening how broadly he asserts his authority as commander in chief, where the guy hasn't shown very good judgment on torture or a lot of other things.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: bishop hopefully this will give the dems enough reason to filibuster the patriot act in the senate.

Why not? I mean, many of them they voted for it last time. Now they all can do the KErry flip-flop and vote against it.

[Apeman81]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Did you hear Bush upbraid that snotty little, ignorant reporter this AM?

Some twit named Peter asked him about the continuation of his "Unchecked Executive power".

Like many here, this fellow was ignorant or chose to ignore the fact that the President has worked with the Congress on this matter and has briefed them on many occasions.

But facts don’t seem to bother some when they wish to make a gratuitous assertion. Thus they may be as gratuitously ignored. As was the question of this stooge.

Bush said in his speech that what he was doing was legal. Does anyone here have any proof that it is not? Don’t site me, as was done earlier, some document that says “in most cases”. That proves nothing. Let’s see the evidence.

[bishop]

whoop-dee-fucking-doo... just because bush says that it was legal, by golly, he must be telling the truth!

heh, and you want to call people ignorant... FUNNY!

the reactions from both democrats AND republicans seem to show that they were shocked that bush was doing this - and members from both parties have called for an investigation.. the fact of the matter is that bush could've legally done this by following the due process set forth under the FISA law. he didn't do that - instead, he violated that law and decreed that he has power beyond those provided via legislation.. talk about being above the law.. (and, so much for being a nation ruled by laws.)

should be really interesting to see what happens in this investigation... just because bush says that what he did was legal, only a complete retard would believe him simply because he said so..

[Apeman81]

Quote by: bishop whoop-dee-fucking-doo... just because bush says that it was legal, by golly, he must be telling the truth! heh, and you want to call people ignorant... FUNNY! the reactions from both democrats AND republicans seem to show that they were shocked that bush was doing this - and members from both parties have called for an investigation.. the fact of the matter is that bush could've legally done this by following the due process set forth under the FISA law. he didn't do that - instead, he violated that law and decreed that he has power beyond those provided via legislation.. talk about being above the law.. (and, so much for being a nation ruled by laws.) should be really interesting to see what happens in this investigation... just because bush says that what he did was legal, only a complete retard would believe him simply because he said so..

Um... Doesn't the reciprocal, Just because Bishop says its illegal.... hold true.

I asked for evidence, or even a learned discussion of the laws involved. Anyone else?

[Birdzeye]

I'm not really shocked; this is something I'd expect from Bush.

I remember the Nixon era, and a guy I dated in college who was active in the antiwar movement. He was so paranoid about the government spying on antiwar activists that he used an alias when working with antiwar groups. At the time I thought he was being overly paranoid. Later on I found out that he wasn't.

Now I find myself wondering what the real criteria are for getting special attention. Does the definition of "terrorist sympathizer" include antiwar activists, for example?

[bishop]

Quote by: ape Um... Doesn't the reciprocal, Just because Bishop says its illegal.... hold true. I asked for evidence, or even a learned discussion of the laws involved. Anyone else?

i pointed out the provision (FISA) that bush could have used that would make what he did legal.. that's evidence - and bush admitted that he didn't follow due process as set forth by FISA.

perhaps you can show us some evidence yourself? (this should be interesting...) where was bush given the authority to sidestep the FISA provision?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: bishop i pointed out the provision (FISA) that bush could have used that would make what he did legal.. that's evidence - and bush admitted that he didn't follow due process as set forth by FISA. perhaps you can show us some evidence yourself? (this should be interesting...) where was bush given the authority to sidestep the FISA provision?

Perhaps you forget how the law works in the U.S. One is innocent until proven guilty. There exists no need to prove one's innocence.

Since it has been established that Congress has long been aware of the actions of the President in this matter, are you somewhat surprised that what you seem to believe is so obviously an illegal act has heretofore not been addressed as such by this body?

BTW, do you find succor in changing my “name” as given to something more to your liking?

[Birdzeye]

We have Bush's word for it that Congress was "aware" of his actions in this area. How many members of Congress backed him up?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Birdzeye We have Bush's word for it that Congress was "aware" of his actions in this area. How many members of Congress backed him up?

Exactly, Bush "briefing" Congress does not amount to Congress's participation, much like the Patriot Act, they are expected to go along with the Presidental dictates, or be painted as a coward, and anti-American. Perhaps even put on the anthrax mailing list.

[bishop]

Quote by: ape Perhaps you forget how the law works in the U.S. One is innocent until proven guilty. There exists no need to prove one's innocence.

which is why i eagerly await the results of the upcoming investigation.

Quote by: ape Since it has been established that Congress has long been aware of the actions of the President in this matter, are you somewhat surprised that what you seem to believe is so obviously an illegal act has heretofore not been addressed as such by this body?

from what i understand, congress wasn't legally allowed to leak this information. (kind of like how the administration wasn't supposed to leak the name of a certain covert cia agent - but that's besides the point.) and from what i understand, congress didn't choose to ignore the FISA provisions - bush did.. i don't know which members of congress were aware of what bush was doing, but something tells me that the democrats were in the dark - since this is something that they would go for the jugular if they knew it was going on... should be interesting to see what's unearthed during the investigation..

Quote by: ape BTW, do you find succor in changing my “name” as given to something more to your liking?

no, it just takes less time to write, that's all.


btw, you still haven't shown us where bush has the legal authority to decree that he doesn't need to abide by FISA in order to wiretap u.s. citizens... kindly do so..

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: apeman Bush said in his speech that what he was doing was legal. Does anyone here have any proof that it is not? Don’t site me, as was done earlier, some document that says “in most cases”. That proves nothing. Let’s see the evidence.

How does this grab ya:

Amendment IV, US Constituion: 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.

See my post above (#46) for the exception. Whereby the exception to getting a judiciary warrant, is a presidential privelege for 75 hours:

Quote by: post #46 (Joe Biden: )Well, I'm the guy that drafted the FISA Act 25 years ago on the Judiciary Committee, one of the three people, and we set it up--it's a secret court allowing the president to wiretap anybody, intercept anything for up to 75 hours. They can in the meantime go into that court and say, `I needed to do this.' If there's a reason the court thinks is under the Constitution permissible, they're allowed to do it. If it turns out they're not allowed to do it, they have to destroy the evidence.

If he did not exceed the 75 hours there wouldnt be much of a story.
Otherwise w is playing dress up again at the expense of our Constitution.

[ericsp23]

I watched a bit of Bush's speech this morning, and at one point he said that Article 2 of the Constitution gave him authority to do this.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/...erencetext.php

Article 2 of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.

He is either delusional or grasping at straws. It reminds me of a small child who has been caught doing something he knows he shouldn't be doing and trying to lie his way out of it, and not doing a very good job of it. I have read through the text of Article 2 several times and can find nothing that even remotely comes close to authorizing this. Here is the full text of Article 2:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ion/article02/
If anyone can find any justification for warrantless searches in any of that, by all means, please point it out to me.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Article 2 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Maybe he thinks he is the boss and so he gets to make the rules.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Look at the bold words:

Quote by: Article 2 Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Maybe in his admitted incompetance, he just plain isnt ABLE, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Whether because Unca Dick wont let him or whatever lame excuse. Ability has always taxed w.