• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gonzales PR trip to stem NSA criticism backfires

I

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
This is obviously a PR trip gone horribly bad. Hats off to the law school students who obviously will now end up on some government terrorist watch list.

Check this image I uploaded from the article:

Gonzales Says NSA Criticism Misleading

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the Bush administration's domestic spying program Tuesday and suggested that some critics and news reports have misled Americans about the breadth of the National Security Agency's surveillance.

Gonzales said the warrantless surveillance is critical to prevent another terrorist attack within the United States and falls within President Bush's constitutional authority and the powers granted by Congress immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

At a Georgetown Law School Forum, Gonzales said the nation needs "to remember that ... it's imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately and without delay" any al-Qaida related communication entering or leaving the United States.

As he spoke, more than a dozen students stood silently with their backs turned to the attorney general. Outside the classroom where Gonzales was to speak, a pair of protesters held up a sheet that said, "Don't torture the Constitution."

Gonzales cautioned his listeners about critics and journalists who have mischaracterized details about the program. "Unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the President has actually authorized," he said.

The attorney general's appearance at the law school is part of a campaign by the Bush administration to overcome criticism, often by attempting to redefine the program.

On Monday at Kansas State University, Bush said the program should be termed a "terrorist surveillance program" and contended it has the backing of legal experts, key lawmakers and the Supreme Court.

But some members of Congress from both parties have questioned whether the warrantless snooping is legal. And many Democrats along with a number of legal experts say flatly that Bush has broken the law and has committed an impeachable offense.

Last week, Gonzales sent leaders of Congress a 42-page legal defense of warrantless eavesdropping which suggests that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is unconstitutional if it prevents the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping.

The National Security Agency program bypassed the special FISA court Congress established in 1978 to approve or reject secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.
Click to expand...

Source
 
What is the giant crying shame here is that the terrorists they want to catch don't communicate by means
that are interceptable---they use couriers instead. They are smarter than Bush---which doesn't require much smarts.

What is needed now is any evidence that this spying program has even slowed a single terrorists. But it sure keeps alot of spies otherwised engaged in some windowless building somewhere where they waste massive amounts of tax payer dollars. -------not catching terrorists but up to date on all the latest gossip.
 
wow thats great. I hope they dont get in any trouble for doing something that they have a constitutional right to do.
 
Originally posted by: OrByte
wow thats great. I hope they dont get in any trouble for doing something that they have a constitutional right to do.
Click to expand...

I wonder if their families have heard from them again (after the "incident").

Wouldn't be surprised if the answer is "no"

 
Yea I think the scary part is the full quote "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both"
 
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
 
Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?
 
:thumbsup: Props to those students, hell I would glady spend a a couple days in jail for something like that.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?
Click to expand...

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

It seems like you guys are doing shady things if you're so afraid of the government listening in on your phone conversations. I don't give a rat's ass if they listen to my phone conversations; in fact they'd probably laugh their asses off if they did.

"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."

I don't see anything about tapping phone calls. Oh OK it's the 20th century blah blah. OK it says "unreasonable"; listening in on terrorist phone calls is pretty damn reasonable to me. They wrote this into the Constitution so military personnel don't come into your house and eat your food and house there like the British soldiers so famously did.

Catch-22 with your liberals. OK let's say the government went through the courts blah blah and went through the bureacratic red tape and then there's another terrorist attack. And after the investigation they find out that the information was available but because of the bureacracy they didn't catch it in time. They'llcrucify Bush no matter what he does.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?
Click to expand...

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

It seems like you guys are doing shady things if you're so afraid of the government listening in on your phone conversations. I don't give a rat's ass if they listen to my phone conversations; in fact they'd probably laugh their asses off if they did.

"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."

I don't see anything about tapping phone calls. Oh OK it's the 20th century blah blah. OK it says "unreasonable"; listening in on terrorist phone calls is pretty damn reasonable to me. They wrote this into the Constitution so military personnel don't come into your house and eat your food and house there like the British soldiers so famously did.

Catch-22 with your liberals. OK let's say the government went through the courts blah blah and went through the bureacratic red tape and then there's another terrorist attack. And after the investigation they find out that the information was available but because of the bureacracy they didn't catch it in time. They'llcrucify Bush no matter what he does.
Click to expand...

Good lord, what a mess. I rarely post here, but I make exceptions in certain cases....

People like privacy. Do you ever close the door when you go to the bathroom? if so, why? Nothing to hide right?

I'd much prefer that the 4th amendment be followed, ie, get a warrant if you want to listen to me sh1tting my guts out, or talking on the phone, whatever...

As for your last paragraph, I strongly suggest you get a clue about what you are tlaking about before posting. Through FISA the govt can actually get the warrant after tapping the phone line, as long as they do so within 72 hours ( I think). the "OMG TEH COURTS ARE GOING TO ALLOW TERRISTS TO ATTACK!!1111" defense has been refuted about 20 times already....

Granted some people will blame Bush no matter what, but they are usually filed under the "whackos" category.

edit: and fyi, nobody, especially the president, is above the law in America (at least theoretically... 😉 .
 
Originally posted by: screech
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?
Click to expand...

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

It seems like you guys are doing shady things if you're so afraid of the government listening in on your phone conversations. I don't give a rat's ass if they listen to my phone conversations; in fact they'd probably laugh their asses off if they did.

"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."

I don't see anything about tapping phone calls. Oh OK it's the 20th century blah blah. OK it says "unreasonable"; listening in on terrorist phone calls is pretty damn reasonable to me. They wrote this into the Constitution so military personnel don't come into your house and eat your food and house there like the British soldiers so famously did.

Catch-22 with your liberals. OK let's say the government went through the courts blah blah and went through the bureacratic red tape and then there's another terrorist attack. And after the investigation they find out that the information was available but because of the bureacracy they didn't catch it in time. They'llcrucify Bush no matter what he does.
Click to expand...

Good lord, what a mess. I rarely post here, but I make exceptions in certain cases....

People like privacy. Do you ever close the door when you go to the bathroom? if so, why? Nothing to hide right?

I'd much prefer that the 4th amendment be followed, ie, get a warrant if you want to listen to me sh1tting my guts out, or talking on the phone, whatever...

As for your last paragraph, I strongly suggest you get a clue about what you are tlaking about before posting. Through FISA the govt can actually get the warrant after tapping the phone line, as long as they do so within 72 hours ( I think). the "OMG TEH COURTS ARE GOING TO ALLOW TERRISTS TO ATTACK!!1111" defense has been refuted about 20 times already....
Click to expand...

I was just about to post the same thing screech. And I have nothing to hide, I just prefer my privacy
 
Originally posted by: screech
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?
Click to expand...

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

It seems like you guys are doing shady things if you're so afraid of the government listening in on your phone conversations. I don't give a rat's ass if they listen to my phone conversations; in fact they'd probably laugh their asses off if they did.

"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."

I don't see anything about tapping phone calls. Oh OK it's the 20th century blah blah. OK it says "unreasonable"; listening in on terrorist phone calls is pretty damn reasonable to me. They wrote this into the Constitution so military personnel don't come into your house and eat your food and house there like the British soldiers so famously did.

Catch-22 with your liberals. OK let's say the government went through the courts blah blah and went through the bureacratic red tape and then there's another terrorist attack. And after the investigation they find out that the information was available but because of the bureacracy they didn't catch it in time. They'llcrucify Bush no matter what he does.
Click to expand...

Good lord, what a mess. I rarely post here, but I make exceptions in certain cases....

People like privacy. Do you ever close the door when you go to the bathroom? if so, why? Nothing to hide right?

I'd much prefer that the 4th amendment be followed, ie, get a warrant if you want to listen to me sh1tting my guts out, or talking on the phone, whatever...

As for your last paragraph, I strongly suggest you get a clue about what you are tlaking about before posting. Through FISA the govt can actually get the warrant after tapping the phone line, as long as they do so within 72 hours ( I think). the "OMG TEH COURTS ARE GOING TO ALLOW TERRISTS TO ATTACK!!1111" defense has been refuted about 20 times already....
Click to expand...

Gawd I hope a Democrat becomes president and San Francisco gets nuked bc the pvssy was soft on terrorism.
 
You wrote a lot of words, you could have just said "As long as Bush does it I'm ok with it". Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is masterful.

I have nothing to hide with my phone calls either. That doesn't mean I want secret agencies of the federal government illegally tapping them because the president thinks it's a good idea. This is a government for the people by the people. If the president doesn't think the FISA law was flexible enough he should change the law, not break it.

You and your ilk's ability to flash the bogeyman terror card every time your people break the rules is amazing. "Mushroom cloud!!!" Sorry, some of us don't shake in our boots and relinquish our rights so readily. I'd rather be a dead American than a living coward.

We got attacked on 9/11, I guess the "pssy" president was soft on terror. Nice O'Liely impersonation, fits you like a glove. Now run off and hide, you obviously live in contant fear - too much Fox news?
 
I applaud the students for protesting in a civil fashion, instead of just disrupting the speech, throwing a pie in the AG's face, or setting things on fire in a riot.
 
Gawd I hope a Democrat becomes president and San Francisco gets nuked bc the pvssy was soft on terrorism.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty pathetic red herring, even by P&N standards. Also managed work in a false generalization there. Congrats. Would you like to display your lack of understanding on this subject any further?
 
Originally posted by: JS80

Gawd I hope a Democrat becomes president and San Francisco gets nuked bc the pvssy was soft on terrorism.
Click to expand...

And you poor, poor scared little people wonder why so many look upon you as being one in the same as terrorists, osama? is that you? QUIT TROLLING!
 
American industry is in the deep right now and has largely had its load relocated outside these here united states. If they don't keep abreast of the world economy then they'll lose their possessions overseas and never get them back. Spying across the world may be necessary, but it takes a geniune scumbag self-interest type to profit in this manner. Most spy games have nothing to do with military actions, they are vying for the world-wide macroeconomic-scale resources - be they capital, labor, or otherwise. Its a shame we've been drug into this quagmire. Its was a slippery slope slid down that now we cannot climb.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?
Click to expand...

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

It seems like you guys are doing shady things if you're so afraid of the government listening in on your phone conversations. I don't give a rat's ass if they listen to my phone conversations; in fact they'd probably laugh their asses off if they did.

"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."

I don't see anything about tapping phone calls. Oh OK it's the 20th century blah blah. OK it says "unreasonable"; listening in on terrorist phone calls is pretty damn reasonable to me. They wrote this into the Constitution so military personnel don't come into your house and eat your food and house there like the British soldiers so famously did.

Catch-22 with your liberals. OK let's say the government went through the courts blah blah and went through the bureacratic red tape and then there's another terrorist attack. And after the investigation they find out that the information was available but because of the bureacracy they didn't catch it in time. They'llcrucify Bush no matter what he does.
Click to expand...

You speak of what you do not know nor experienced in your lifetime. Either you are simply naive (and I pity you for it) or you are a hardcore Communist or Fascist.

You would feel right at home where I used to live in the 80s, which was Communist Hungary. They regularly opened our International mail (both sent and received) and listened to phone calls. All for the motherland.

Communism or Fascism is the same sh!t different pile. How about not turning the West into what you claim to want to destroy (Tyranny)? Seems that was one reason why my family fled to the West.

P.S. Don't try to come at me with the notion that you are fighting against terrorism. Terrorism isn't a political or ideological entity, but rather a means to an end.
 
I'm proud of going to a university founded by that brilliant man.

Edit: I love how people love to rationalize Franklin's quotation. I think it was Pabster who said, "Franklin didn't live in an age of terrorism" ... just wow.
 
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!
 
Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attakc blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!
Click to expand...

Good. We blue staters are not hiding in our basements with duct tape and plastic. Remember where the WTC were? Who did they vote for again? Funny how the fear mongers who support a police state are all scared of the bogeyman and yet they live in bum fck nowhere, the last targets on Earth. It might do you guys some good to no drink so much of the coolade that you are passing off as policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top