Bush admin sought phone records without warrants...

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: maluckey
So now Bush controls courts? Does he also control the weather?

The guy was CONVICTED of being a crook. A judge and jury sat down with the lawyers and after hearing the evidence, convicted the man of violating the law on 19 separate occaisions. The man brought up the charges ONLY after he was charged, not before.

The NSA ASKED Qwest Communications to accept a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company?s lawyers considered illegal. The request was refused as it should have been.

Cops ask all the time for information from telecom companies about customer contact numbers for lead purposes. Sometimes they get limited information, and sometimes they just say no. The cops just get a subpoena or a warrant in that case. Asking for personal information is NOT illegal.

There's no story here. Had the NSA decided to implement their proposal (which we weren't told what it was) without consent or a subpoena or warrant AFTER being denied...THAT would be a story!

I don't know, I think it's a pretty big story as it is. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I would be surprised if Qwest is authorized to help the NSA do something that would otherwise be illegal. Whatever the action is, whatever Qwest's response is, the legal requirements should be the same. Qwest is not a legal authority, and the privacy laws protecting our communications are not Qwest's to overrule.

My point is that asking Qwest should have no legal standing at all, I'm not sure what benefit asking them would bring EXCEPT if the government was trying to skirt privacy laws. Whether or not they got away with it is hardly the point, the fact that it was attempted is pretty bad all by itself.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Nebor
Do you have macros made for "TRAITOR IN CHIEF" and "war of LIES?" You use them in every post, with the exact same capitalization and bolding.

Why should you care? Do you have a problem with the truth? :roll:

George W. Bush is a LIAR and a TRAITOR and a MURDERER. I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. I'd like to see him sentenced to the hell of his own design -- life in Guantanamo with daily waterboarding.

OK Dave. PROOF OR RETRACT. Troll

Umm... As Dave already pointed out, you actually quoted me so I'll start by asking why so many of you vapor headed neocon liars insist on repeatedly denying that your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his gang of murderous traitors have, in fact, LIED when we've posted the same documentation of their lies so many times. BUT... since you can't remember the same answers to your own repeated lies and denials, how about one or two or three or four or just a shitload of Bushwhacko lies about why they decided to murder 3,827 (10/13/07 11:59 pm EDT) American troops in their war of LIES in Iraq.

🙁

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
• "Well, of course he is.?
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

Dave and Harvey are eerily similar, though the latter still has the advantage on the keyboard macros 😀

You and the rest of the neocon sycophant liars can keep reposting the same lies and denials. Strangely enough, the facts, links and quotes disproving your lies won't change. Why should I waste time rewriting the same answers just because you can't overcome your own memory lapses? :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Nebor
Do you have macros made for "TRAITOR IN CHIEF" and "war of LIES?" You use them in every post, with the exact same capitalization and bolding.

Why should you care? Do you have a problem with the truth? :roll:

George W. Bush is a LIAR and a TRAITOR and a MURDERER. I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. I'd like to see him sentenced to the hell of his own design -- life in Guantanamo with daily waterboarding.

OK Dave. PROOF OR RETRACT. Troll

:roll:

Since you're getting paid to post lies against your country at least get the person you are addressing right. Sheesh

Since you have taken it upon yourself to tell me, an American who loves his country, that I have posted lies against my country, you better fucking post proof.

I take offense when you start calling people, especially me, who disagree with you as unAmerican.

Although I think your dream for America will never happen under our current constitution, your claims of sources are bullshit, and in general the very definition of a troll, I would never call you unAmerican.

Youre disrespect for fellow Americans that hate America is fucking disgusting.

Corrected for you.

I'll give you that. I do not respect anyone that hates this country.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company?s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.

This was a proposal - not a directive.

Try again.

Ever hear of the crime attempted murder. Just because Bush failed to get his illegal wire taps does not in anyway make his actions any less illegal.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Nebor
Do you have macros made for "TRAITOR IN CHIEF" and "war of LIES?" You use them in every post, with the exact same capitalization and bolding.

Why should you care? Do you have a problem with the truth? :roll:

George W. Bush is a LIAR and a TRAITOR and a MURDERER. I'd like to see him tried and convicted for his crimes. I'd like to see him sentenced to the hell of his own design -- life in Guantanamo with daily waterboarding.

OK Dave. PROOF OR RETRACT. Troll

:roll:

Since you're getting paid to post lies against your country at least get the person you are addressing right. Sheesh

Since you have taken it upon yourself to tell me, an American who loves his country, that I have posted lies against my country, you better fucking post proof. I take offense when you start calling people, especially me, who disagree with you as unAmerican. Although I think your dream for America will never happen under our current constitution, your claims of sources are bullshit, and in general the very definition of a troll, I would never call you unAmerican. Youre disrespect for fellow Americans is fucking disgusting.

I think you've been blinded by your rage. Try reading more carefully before making a fool of yourself.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with the it was early on just asked correct position. I am ashamed to admit that AT&T, the phone company I am forced to use also caved. Not only should GWB&co. be held legally accountable for these outrageous violations of our constitution, but we are missing what they are now trying to do. Namely make these violations retroactively permissible for both themselves and the telco companies. But as long as free speech is not a crime, GWB&co. can get an eyeful of what I think of him just by visiting P&N. Why
bother listening to my phone conversations to get a dose of the same?

Nor will I subscribe to the argument that documents will never surface, they may be heavily redacted now or what ever the term is, but when GWB&co. leaves, they become fair game. Justice delayed may be justice denied, but justice evaded is a total outrage. Just say no to retroactive.

 

[heyheybooboo]

If former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales - who as former White House counsel to the President said torture is "legal up to the pain equivalent to organ failure or death" - says the legal underpinnings for the warrantless domestic wiretapping programs are constitutional we have to believe him. Because everyone knows lawyers, especially Con lawyers, would never tell a lie.

You Libs are just a bunch of al Qaeda-loving unpatriotic degenerates and Nattering Nabobs of Negativity. Even former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, a real man whose only love greater for True Americans is for that of Jesus Our Lord, knows Democrats are gay-loving weaklings on terrorism who only want to steal from rich Americans and give the money to prostitutes and drug users.

We Real Americans know you Democrats want all our soldiers to die in Iraq. We see you burning Old Glory and banning school prayer.

May God bless George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, and O Lord, bless their nukular weapons, that with them thou mayst blow thine Democrats to tiny bits, in thy mercy. . . .

For then we will have no need to use the warrantless domestic wiretapping programs.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company?s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.

This was a proposal - not a directive.

Try again.

Ever hear of the crime attempted murder. Just because Bush failed to get his illegal wire taps does not in anyway make his actions any less illegal.

LOL, what?! So now there are laws against RFI's?

The "requests" themselves are not illegal in any way, shape, or form - and the NSA has been working with telco's since the NSA's inception - decades before GWB took office!

This is hardly newsworthy...

 

[Fern]

Given that GWB was just inaugurated on Jan 20th, I'm highly skeptical this had anything to do with his admin.

Likely some program established under his predessesor (Clinton). I doubt the WH, the NSA etc and all the lawyers under GWB could work so quickly as to attempt put something in place in under one month. Plus, I thought GWB wasn't supposed to be concerned about terrorism until AFTER 9/11 took place.

Moreover, we don't know what the request was for.

Another "shoot", "ready", "aim" thread so common around here.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern
Given that GWB was just inaugurated on Jan 20th, I'm highly skeptical this had anything to do with his admin.

Likely some program established under his predessesor (Clinton). I doubt the WH, the NSA etc and all the lawyers under GWB could work so quickly as to attempt put something in place in under one month. Plus, I thought GWB wasn't supposed to be concerned about terrorism until AFTER 9/11 took place.

Moreover, we don't know what the request was for.

Another "shoot", "ready", "aim" thread so common around here.

Fern

Come on Fern. Common sense and logic has no place in a thread where we accuse of GWB for all the evils in the world!

 

[ProfJohn]

With all the new toys being added to the forums you think we can get an ?Ignore crazy posts by Harvey? button?

Or maybe someone can program a filter that ignores any comments with more than one emotion in them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company?s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings.

This was a proposal - not a directive.

Try again.

Ever hear of the crime attempted murder. Just because Bush failed to get his illegal wire taps does not in anyway make his actions any less illegal.

LOL, what?! So now there are laws against RFI's?

The "requests" themselves are not illegal in any way, shape, or form - and the NSA has been working with telco's since the NSA's inception - decades before GWB took office!

This is hardly newsworthy...

Every day you guys surpass yourselves in your Bush ever loving above God.

It's an incredible thing to witness.

 

[Moonbeam]

We will need the numbers of Democrats and who they call to help collect them into concentration camps.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Not impeachable though. There are always loopholes. No ones fault for those loopholes except congress.

Actually, it probably is impeachable, along with their TREASON and the MURDER of every American who's died in their war of LIES. :|

Unfortunately, when it started, when something COULD have and SHOLUD have been done to stop it, we were saddled with a corrupt, brain dead Republican majority in Congress, most of whom were full of themselves and their TRAITOR IN CHIEF's shit.

Then, of course, there were all the Bushwhackos' lies, denials and Presidential "signing statements" claiming the laws of the nation, including the U.S. Constitution, itself, don't apply to the criminals in the Whitehouse.

At this point, even with a scant Democratic majority, we're stuck with no way to bring the Bushwhakcos' catastrophy to a screeching halt, let alone fix the horrendous damage they've done or to restore the lost lives.

🙁

No, it isnt. Just because you deem it so doesnt make it. Bitch moan and whine but he wont get impeached.

yeah he is still getting booted out in a few more months as the worst president in US history... So what's your point?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Not impeachable though. There are always loopholes. No ones fault for those loopholes except congress.

Actually, it probably is impeachable, along with their TREASON and the MURDER of every American who's died in their war of LIES. :|

Unfortunately, when it started, when something COULD have and SHOLUD have been done to stop it, we were saddled with a corrupt, brain dead Republican majority in Congress, most of whom were full of themselves and their TRAITOR IN CHIEF's shit.

Then, of course, there were all the Bushwhackos' lies, denials and Presidential "signing statements" claiming the laws of the nation, including the U.S. Constitution, itself, don't apply to the criminals in the Whitehouse.

At this point, even with a scant Democratic majority, we're stuck with no way to bring the Bushwhakcos' catastrophy to a screeching halt, let alone fix the horrendous damage they've done or to restore the lost lives.

🙁

No, it isnt. Just because you deem it so doesnt make it. Bitch moan and whine but he wont get impeached.

yeah he is still getting booted out in a few more months as the worst president in US history... So what's your point?

He's not getting "booted out" lol. He's finishing his term. Maybe its the same for you lol

 

[Stoneburner]

People like Pabster know that Bush will never allow evidence to be released, so that's why he asks for evidence. Unfortunately THIS IS EVIDENCE. Some people don't know the difference between evidence and confirmation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Fern
Given that GWB was just inaugurated on Jan 20th, I'm highly skeptical this had anything to do with his admin.

Likely some program established under his predessesor (Clinton). I doubt the WH, the NSA etc and all the lawyers under GWB could work so quickly as to attempt put something in place in under one month. Plus, I thought GWB wasn't supposed to be concerned about terrorism until AFTER 9/11 took place.

Moreover, we don't know what the request was for.

Another "shoot", "ready", "aim" thread so common around here.

Fern

According to the left Bush ignored the intelligence community completely when he took ofice and did nothing so how could he be responsible for this? So what is the explantion from all the BDS sufferers in here? Did he do nothing, or was he actively persuing it?

Would you make up your friggin minds?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Fern
Given that GWB was just inaugurated on Jan 20th, I'm highly skeptical this had anything to do with his admin.

Likely some program established under his predessesor (Clinton). I doubt the WH, the NSA etc and all the lawyers under GWB could work so quickly as to attempt put something in place in under one month. Plus, I thought GWB wasn't supposed to be concerned about terrorism until AFTER 9/11 took place.

Moreover, we don't know what the request was for.

Another "shoot", "ready", "aim" thread so common around here.

Fern

According to the left Bush ignored the intelligence community completely when he took ofice and did nothing so how could he be responsible for this? So what is the explantion from all the BDS sufferers in here? Did he do nothing, or was he actively persuing it?

Would you make up your friggin minds?

You assume the request was Terrorist related.

 

[MadRat]

No kidding. There is absolutely no reason to suspect the requests were for national security reasons.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MadRat
No kidding. There is absolutely no reason to suspect the requests were for national security reasons.

I detect a hint of sarcasm. 🙂

There's a lot more to National Security than Terrorism. From other inside knowledge that we know of, Terrorism wasn't on the agenda. Perhaps the NSA was focussed on Terrorism and made this request on their own initiative?

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush can do whatever the hell he wants. The worthless coward Democrats are in his pocket. They're afraid to take a sh!t in case it costs them a vote.

 

[maluckey]

I don't know, I think it's a pretty big story as it is. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I would be surprised if Qwest is authorized to help the NSA do something that would otherwise be illegal. Whatever the action is, whatever Qwest's response is, the legal requirements should be the same. Qwest is not a legal authority, and the privacy laws protecting our communications are not Qwest's to overrule.

Each corporation is responsible to maintain it's action within the law, regardless if they are "legal authorities" or not. If Ford Motor Company decided to release all the names and adresses of it's employees for whatever reason, they are culpable under the law, regardless of who asked them to do it.

A curious issue for me (and no details at all were given) is exactly WHAT was NSA asking Quest to do? Was it Title 3, financial or something else? So far, it's just intrigue. We the readers have no true picture of anything other than they (Quest) denied a proposal that they felt to be illegal. As they should have......

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
People like Pabster know that Bush will never allow evidence to be released, so that's why he asks for evidence. Unfortunately THIS IS EVIDENCE. Some people don't know the difference between evidence and confirmation.

"Evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence" (adapted from the movie Treasure of the Sierra Madre).

Of course you must have evidence. It needn't be released to the public. If Congress wants to investigate this they know how to do it.

To draw much in the way of conclusions from this article is simply stupid. Nobody here knows what was asked, why it was asked, or even which Admin may have been responsible for the asking.

Fern

 

[Stoneburner]

There is a distinction between evidence and the weight of evidence. To draw a conclusion based on the little we know and based on the fact we know we don't know more is PRUDENT and fully justified given this administrations penchant for overreaching.

Fern

 

[Fern]

^ WTF?

(and why you signing your post with my nick?)

Fern