Options
Gov't/Bush Ok'd Wiretapping.. NOT OK..says judge
macgyver06
Posts: 2,500
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.
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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/PJ_Calgary/funny/zergrush1.gif
:eek:
i love starcraft..zerg rush works so good
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
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.
C'mon now...do you REALLY believe that?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
good point. apparently reports titled, "bin laden plans major attack on u.s. soil" weren't cause for concern for this administration.
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".
Very true...so now we have the bloated DHS to bring this together.
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.
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.
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
so your'e not in to the whole freedom thing?
nevermind...
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
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?)
EV: It's your band.
~Q Magazine
"Kisses for the glow...kisses for the lease." - BDRII