Gov't/Bush Ok'd Wiretapping.. NOT OK..says judge

macgyver06

its been deemed unconsitutional by a FEDERAL judge...

bush defended this.

bush slaves should start standing behind the american people and not a stupid party. because he wont be in power forever... but the american people you talk against are... and by this i mean mainly republicans and their piss poor selfish attitudes.

sennin

:eek:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/PJ_Calgary/funny/zergrush1.gif

:eek:

macgyver06

sennin wrote:

:eek:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/PJ_Calgary/funny/zergrush1.gif

:eek:

i love starcraft..zerg rush works so good

aNiMaL

Huh, isn't that odd, it is illegal to wiretap the country the way GW was, and so sure he was in the right in doing so. What a fucking ID10T!!!

FredFlintstone

Typical activist judges actively rooting for the terrorists to win.

darkcrow

i guess he will not get impeached?

aNiMaL

darkcrow wrote:

i guess he will not get impeached?

We could only hope.

aNiMaL

FredFlintstone wrote:

Typical activist judges actively rooting for the terrorists to win.

GW has single handedly done more to help the terrorist than anyone I know. He has done anything but detour them. He opened up Iraq to be the world largest terrorist breeding ground. He has done nothing to shake up Al-Qaeda....hence how they are as strong if not stronger than they were on 9/11/01...they are more organized and focused on us than ever before. Good job GW...way to fuck things up royally. ‘Stay the course’…as though we are seeing signs that the course we are on is improving anything. What a joke.

FredFlintstone

aNiMaL wrote:

GW has single handedly done more to help the terrorist than anyone I know. He has done anything but detour them. He opened up Iraq to be the world largest terrorist breeding ground. He has done nothing to shake up Al-Qaeda....hence how they are as strong if not stronger than they were on 9/11/01...they are more organized and focused on us than ever before. Good job GW...way to fuck things up royally. ‘Stay the course’…as though we are seeing signs that the course we are on is improving anything. What a joke.

I suppose you would rather have spent that 350B we poured into Iraq for freedom on some social program - let me guess ....health care or education or paying off national debt.
typical liberal. If it wasn't for our leader, you would be speaking Farsi.

YieldInHiding

FredFlintstone wrote:

If it wasn't for our leader, you would be speaking Farsi.

C'mon now...do you REALLY believe that?

aNiMaL

FredFlintstone wrote:

I suppose you would rather have spent that 350B we poured into Iraq for freedom on some social program - let me guess ....health care or education or paying off national debt.
typical liberal. If it wasn't for our leader, you would be speaking Farsi.

Yeah, instead of fighting this pointless war...and losing 2,600+ American soldiers to this pointless war, I would rather see our health care and education get some of that money.....or else we will raise a nation full of idiots just like the one in charge of the country now.

Can you really support this war in Iraq as a positive thing? What are the pros to this war and this administration, as you see it?

FredFlintstone

aNiMaL wrote:

Yeah, instead of fighting this pointless war...and losing 2,600+ American soldiers to this pointless war, I would rather see our health care and education get some of that money.....or else we will raise a nation full of idiots just like the one in charge of the country now.

Can you really support this war in Iraq as a positive thing? What are the pros to this war and this administration, as you see it?

I guess sarcasm doesnt come through well in the Pit.

YieldInHiding

FredFlintstone wrote:

I guess sarcasm doesnt come through well in the Pit.

I suspected it because of your sig quote, but I wasn't sure.

FredFlintstone

YieldInHiding wrote:

I suspected it because of your sig quote, but I wasn't sure.

Sorry mate - i just enjoy spouting BWG talking points - I least i can humor myself for a few minutes.
The INVASION is a fraud, a catastrophe, and is bankrupting the country
"Stay the course" is a nice phrase designed to cover the fact that we havent yet completed construction on the permanent bases we are building in iraq to couple with the largets embassy in the world's history.

freedom is on the march. errr mushroom cloud. errr 9/11.

aNiMaL

FredFlintstone wrote:

I guess sarcasm doesnt come through well in the Pit.

D'Oh! That one flew right the hell over my head. Nice to see we're on the same page.

acutejam

I'm not a lawyer, nor overly concerned by someone wiretapping my phone.

I understand the "power corrupts" meme and the slippery slope of civil rights restrictions. But at face value, I support a big ol' agency monitoring every single one of my phone calls. And yours. I certainly have nothing to hide. I find myself hidden enough in the anonymity of the masses... I have my privacy as a faceless number in a database...

Now say I was a very competitive business person and was setting up deals overseas, and that secret competitive advantage was leaked to my competitiors, ok sure I'd be pissed. I see the potential for abuse -- but I just can't assume that because the potential is there, it's automatically happening.

I really don't think Bush is sitting there thinking, "What law can i break next." I think he's trying to track down terrorists and their supporters -- I can take that at face value. I think he has some executive leeway in how he conducts foreign policy and I yet I also think he's stepping on some toes, blurring the line with regards to US citizens talking to folks overseas.

It's definitely something we need to figure out -- does he have enough time to go through FISA process? (probably not). Shouldn't he have least tried? (probably so)

It's a truism of humanity that "Generals fight their last wars, not the present war." I think that's kind of an important insight -- we're in a new paradigm where it might not be a KGB agent in DC talking to Moscow over the phone, lo and behold, it could be a US citizin talking to a Yemeni.

Now sure, throwing this aspect of the battle into all the other bad decisions this administration has made would give you a gut reaction to cry foul ... but stepping back, and just looking at this issue irrespective of all the other screw-ups, successes, and generally confused situations -- again, I got nothing to hide and just don't undestand why it bugs people.

Wire tap my phone, please. Get a laugh outta me discussing my hemroids with my mexican surgeon if that's what floats your boat....

(And um, the carter-era judge was shown to be on the board of a funding organization that provides funds to the plantifs in the case, suggesting perhaps she should have recused herself, or at least made that public during the ruling ... impeachment process would have to wait for the appeal process I think, which is definitely comin i'd think)

Kat

I don't understand why they're acting as if they can't still do the surveillance. They're allowed to contact the FISA Court within 72 hours of the action. Is it just smoke and mirrors again...all the complaining about having to go to the court? I think oversight is important.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/24/rove.spying.ap/index.html

Am I missing something?

Love,
Kat

P.S. Besides, weren't there people (FBI?) trying to blow the whistle on suspicious activities before the 9/11 attack and they were ignored anyway.

aNiMaL

Kat wrote:

I don't understand why they're acting as if they can't still do the surveilance. They're allowed to contact the FISA Court within 72 hours of the action. Is it just smoke and mirrors again...all the complaining about having to go to the court? I think oversight is important.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/24/rove.spying.ap/index.html

Am I missing something?

Love,
Kat

P.S. Besides, weren't there people (FBI?) trying to blow the whistle on suspicious activities before the 9/11 attack and they were ignored anyway.

Rove said: "Imagine if we could have done that before 9/11. It might have been a different outcome," he said.

I say: Imagine if this administration had actually paid attention to the intelligence that said terrorist were planning on hijacking airplanes. It might have been a different outcome.

Milhouse VanHouten

Kat wrote:

P.S. Besides, weren't there people (FBI?) trying to blow the whistle on suspicious activities before the 9/11 attack and they were ignored anyway.

An article in The New Yorker from about a month ago covered some of this. Before 9/11, the CIA and FBI were notorious for refusing or at least being reluctant to share information with each other. Bureaucratic infighting and secrecy between the two agencies kept the FBI unaware that the men who would become the 9/11 highjackers had entered the United States...

sweet adeline

Kat wrote:

P.S. Besides, weren't there people (FBI?) trying to blow the whistle on suspicious activities before the 9/11 attack and they were ignored anyway.

good point. apparently reports titled, "bin laden plans major attack on u.s. soil" weren't cause for concern for this administration.

inmytree

Kat wrote:

I don't understand why they're acting as if they can't still do the surveilance. They're allowed to contact the FISA Court within 72 hours of the action. Is it just smoke and mirrors again...all the complaining about having to go to the court? I think oversight is important.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/24/rove.spying.ap/index.html

Am I missing something?

Love,
Kat

you are not missing a thing...you are spot on...

this nation was built on a system of checks and balances...if they (bush and company) have nothing to hide, what's the big deal...? go to the court after the fact and get needed permisson...

sweet adeline

inmytree wrote:

you are not missing a thing...you are spot on...

this nation was built on a system of checks and balances...if they (bush and company) have nothing to hide, what's the big deal...? go to the court after the fact and get needed permisson...

like the old saying, "its better to ask for forgiveness than permission".

floyd1975

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

An article in The New Yorker from about a month ago covered some of this. Before 9/11, the CIA and FBI were notorious for refusing or at least being reluctant to share information with each other. Bureaucratic infighting and secrecy between the two agencies kept the FBI unaware that the men who would become the 9/11 highjackers had entered the United States...

Very true...so now we have the bloated DHS to bring this together.

acutejam

sweet adeline wrote:

good point. apparently reports titled, "bin laden plans major attack on u.s. soil" weren't cause for concern for this administration.

Nor the previous one. Nor for the people themselves, I don't think any of us were really concerned prior to 9/11 and we'd seen terrorist acts against us since the early 80s.

Kat

Thanks all...no doubt left...now I understand. It's just playing politics before this election season. I hope people everywhere keep discussing these things so it's clear to all.

Have a great one.

Love,
Kat

YieldInHiding

Kat wrote:

Thanks all...no doubt left...now I understand. It's just playing politics before this election season. I hope people everywhere keep discussing these things so it's clear to all.

Have a great one.

Love,
Kat

The problem is getting the right people to participate in this type of discussion so they're more informed. Things would be a lot different if people were more informed when they voted.

WMA

Any judge, no matter their political leaning, would have to come to the same conclusion if they determined that the matter could be heard in court. After they failed to get the case thrown out because of the classification, they offered no defense at all, which was an automatic win for the plaintiff.

The judge ruled that the case would go foward because of the amount of info they have already released to the public. They already admitted to doing the spying, all they have to do is justify it to people who know law. (terror!, 911!, death! doesn't work as a legal defense usually)

They could have easily argued their right under law to do the surveillance, and how it doesn't infringe on 4th amendment rights if they felt they had a strong case, but instead are pretty much saying "We did spy, but we don't have to explain ourselves as we are above the law"

So, lets see. They can flagrantly break any law they want so long as they don't give security clearance to any judges.

Maybe the next judge will be one of those 'activist' judges they installed and will agree that the admistration doesn't have to be held accountable or even explain itself even when admitting to breaking a law.

Edit: Doh, 4th amendment

Commy

FredFlintstone wrote:

Typical activist judges actively rooting for the terrorists to win.

so your'e not in to the whole freedom thing?

Commy

Commy wrote:

so your'e not in to the whole freedom thing?

FredFlintstone wrote:

I guess sarcasm doesnt come through well in the Pit.

nevermind...

Purple Hawk

What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?

IamMine

Purple Hawk wrote:

What are you people going to say when this decision is overturned?

Hubby and I were talking about that...

We think it will be, unfortunately. :(

They'll take it all the way up to Supreme Court?

They're not gonna let a Detroit judge stop 'em. ( I say Detroit cuz we're from there )

(off/kinda related topic, Karl Rove got "cleared" for the leak information.... so.... hmm?)