Senate Approves Telco Amnesty, Legalizes Bush's Secret Spy Program

[TastesLikeChicken]

Who said it?

Now, let me say something more. What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest. Everybody tosses that around and says: Well, what do you mean? I say: Well, what are they making out of this? What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it. But they don't have to do it, because they do have shareholders to respond to, to answer to.

Was it Bush? Cheney? One of those dastardly neocons?

Nope. It was none other than Jay Rockefeller, that Democrat from West Virginia. But what does he know? He's only the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman.

I guess taking vacation was more important to the Dems than protecting their country.

 

[Lemon law]

I note the title to this thread is that the Senate approves telco immunity.

And in MHO, I am glad that our founding fathers had the wisdom to set bicameral legislative branch. And what passes in the Senate has failed in the house. Making the Senate passage moot because it requires both houses and Senate approval to get it passed.

And if taking a vacation is what it takes to stop a GWB&co. police state, then I approve vacations.

Now if we want to talk about a better future law, we can do so, but I suspect that will be more possible after GWB&co leaves town after 1/20/2009. And we can find a better balance between protecting liberty and catching terrorists. Maybe its time for GWB to shut up and see what McCain suggests. Maybe we can find a better way before GWB leaves town, but GWB may just not get his way for a change.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I note the title to this thread is that the Senate approves telco immunity.

And in MHO, I am glad that our founding fathers had the wisdom to set bicameral legislative branch. And what passes in the Senate has failed in the house. Making the Senate passage moot because it requires both houses and Senate approval to get it passed.

And if taking a vacation is what it takes to stop a GWB&co. police state, then I approve vacations.

Now if we want to talk about a better future law, we can do so, but I suspect that will be more possible after GWB&co leaves town after 1/20/2009. And we can find a better balance between protecting liberty and catching terrorists. Maybe its time for GWB to shut up and see what McCain suggests. Maybe we can find a better way before GWB leaves town, but GWB may just not get his way for a change.

Yeah. Congrats to the House for leaving our collective pants down and making this country weaker. Boy that sure shows that mean old George Bush a thing or two. But partisanism and BDS trumps any potential intelligence failure due to the Democrats in the House pandering for headlines instead of actually doing their job.

:roll:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Who said it?

Now, let me say something more. What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest. Everybody tosses that around and says: Well, what do you mean? I say: Well, what are they making out of this? What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it. But they don't have to do it, because they do have shareholders to respond to, to answer to.

Was it Bush? Cheney? One of those dastardly neocons?

Nope. It was none other than Jay Rockefeller, that Democrat from West Virginia. But what does he know? He's only the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman.

I guess taking vacation was more important to the Dems than protecting their country.

Bullshit

All it does is show that politicians on both sides are bought and paid for. The telco's get MILLIONS of dollars for various contract with the gov't. Do you really think they gave all that data to the NSA for FREE?

All the pathetic blabbering from the idiots in Congress and the WH doesn't change the fact that the law said that wiretapping the whole country is ILLEGAL. The gov't knew, it telco's knew, we now it. The only thing left is to determine are we really a free country, where the laws are observed by everyone, or are we going to become a country where we allow our own gov't to break the very laws they are sworn to uphold?

Not passing the Senate bill doesn't do ANYTHING to hurt us. THe FISA is still in full force. The NSA can wiretap/intercept comms on anyone outside the US. THat has never been in question. Inside the US, they can still wiretap with a warrant from the FISA court, and even get the wiretap first if time is critical.

Please explain how we are in "more" danger from this. With facts please, not some lying BS statement from someone in the Bush admin, who hasn't told the truth in 7 years about anything. Because when the same people that say "we don't torture", and then say "we waterboard" after having denied that we waterboard, their credibility with most of the US and the rest of world is about zero.

It's amazing the amount of people that are willig to throw 200+ years of obeying the law and not sinking to the level of our enemies, all becuase a small terrorist group managed to hurt us one day. It's pathetic that all you people now support invading countries for the hell of it, just to feel good, to torture anyone you want, break any and all laws, all in the name of "the war on terror". Terrorism is the new "get out of jail free card". All you have to do is invoke the "terror" card, and you can do anything you want.

Terrorism will always be around (it alwas had in the past as well). Show some guts and stand up to it, ignore it, and get on with your life and don't allow them to change our way of living. 20 years ago, the thought of torture would have been totally repugnant, and dismissed out of hand. Ditto with the idea of national surveillance on the entire country.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Riiiight. Because terrorism is never a life or death situation? Finding out as much as possible about terrorism here and abroad seemed a pretty major emergency immediately after 9/11. Or was that something you personally feel we could wait and take our sweet time with?

btw, can you point out to me where the USC defines what an emergency is per your claim? Surely you pulled your definition from there and wouldn't just make it up, would you?

No, you don't understand what is meant by emergency. You can't have an ongoing program that relies upon a constant state of emergency, that's not what it means.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I note the title to this thread is that the Senate approves telco immunity.

And in MHO, I am glad that our founding fathers had the wisdom to set bicameral legislative branch. And what passes in the Senate has failed in the house. Making the Senate passage moot because it requires both houses and Senate approval to get it passed.

And if taking a vacation is what it takes to stop a GWB&co. police state, then I approve vacations.

Now if we want to talk about a better future law, we can do so, but I suspect that will be more possible after GWB&co leaves town after 1/20/2009. And we can find a better balance between protecting liberty and catching terrorists. Maybe its time for GWB to shut up and see what McCain suggests. Maybe we can find a better way before GWB leaves town, but GWB may just not get his way for a change.

Yeah. Congrats to the House for leaving our collective pants down and making this country weaker. Boy that sure shows that mean old George Bush a thing or two. But partisanism and BDS trumps any potential intelligence failure due to the Democrats in the House pandering for headlines instead of actually doing their job.

:roll:

MY ASS. The House and Senate offered Bush and the Republicans a 21 day extention of the PAA while they worked things out, the Republicans refused. If this act was so important that 'our pants are down' without it, then to refuse an extention of it while people responsibly work out their differences is the height of partisanism and irresponsibility. The republicans, and the republicans alone are responsible for the current situation as they were given a perfect opportunity to have the act stay in effect with no strings attached and they refused it.

EDIT: Oh, and I like how anytime someone refuses to give Bush anything and everything he asks for it's because they are somehow overwhelmed by BDS. (by the way, that term is retarded). When Bush threatens to veto the act, no matter how crucial, unless it provides amnesty for illegal acts done by the telecoms, he's just doing What's Best For The Country. When the Democrats in the House refuse him, they're just crazy partisans.

Nice world you must live in.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I note the title to this thread is that the Senate approves telco immunity.

And in MHO, I am glad that our founding fathers had the wisdom to set bicameral legislative branch. And what passes in the Senate has failed in the house. Making the Senate passage moot because it requires both houses and Senate approval to get it passed.

And if taking a vacation is what it takes to stop a GWB&co. police state, then I approve vacations.

Now if we want to talk about a better future law, we can do so, but I suspect that will be more possible after GWB&co leaves town after 1/20/2009. And we can find a better balance between protecting liberty and catching terrorists. Maybe its time for GWB to shut up and see what McCain suggests. Maybe we can find a better way before GWB leaves town, but GWB may just not get his way for a change.

Yeah. Congrats to the House for leaving our collective pants down and making this country weaker. Boy that sure shows that mean old George Bush a thing or two. But partisanism and BDS trumps any potential intelligence failure due to the Democrats in the House pandering for headlines instead of actually doing their job.

:roll:

MY ASS. The House and Senate offered Bush and the Republicans a 21 day extention of the PAA while they worked things out, the Republicans refused. If this act was so important that 'our pants are down' without it, then to refuse an extention of it while people responsibly work out their differences is the height of partisanism and irresponsibility. The republicans, and the republicans alone are responsible for the current situation as they were given a perfect opportunity to have the act stay in effect with no strings attached and they refused it.

EDIT: Oh, and I like how anytime someone refuses to give Bush anything and everything he asks for it's because they are somehow overwhelmed by BDS. (by the way, that term is retarded). When Bush threatens to veto the act, no matter how crucial, unless it provides amnesty for illegal acts done by the telecoms, he's just doing What's Best For The Country. When the Democrats in the House refuse him, they're just crazy partisans.

Nice world you must live in.

Yes, your ass indeed.

A vote on the long-term legislation was not allowed by the Democrats because they knew that between the GOP and the Blue Dogs that there were enough votes to pass the Senate bill in this House if it were put to a vote. Rather than permit that to happen the Dems pulled this extension baloney instead to buy themselves more time to rally against the passage of the actual bill. So don't try and pretend this was an offer to to Republicans. The Senate already overwhelmingly and in bi-partisan fashion, nearly 2-1, passed this bill. Now some Dems in the House are interfering. So let's cut the spin and BS on this.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I note the title to this thread is that the Senate approves telco immunity.

And in MHO, I am glad that our founding fathers had the wisdom to set bicameral legislative branch. And what passes in the Senate has failed in the house. Making the Senate passage moot because it requires both houses and Senate approval to get it passed.

And if taking a vacation is what it takes to stop a GWB&co. police state, then I approve vacations.

Now if we want to talk about a better future law, we can do so, but I suspect that will be more possible after GWB&co leaves town after 1/20/2009. And we can find a better balance between protecting liberty and catching terrorists. Maybe its time for GWB to shut up and see what McCain suggests. Maybe we can find a better way before GWB leaves town, but GWB may just not get his way for a change.

Yeah. Congrats to the House for leaving our collective pants down and making this country weaker. Boy that sure shows that mean old George Bush a thing or two. But partisanism and BDS trumps any potential intelligence failure due to the Democrats in the House pandering for headlines instead of actually doing their job.

:roll:

MY ASS. The House and Senate offered Bush and the Republicans a 21 day extention of the PAA while they worked things out, the Republicans refused. If this act was so important that 'our pants are down' without it, then to refuse an extention of it while people responsibly work out their differences is the height of partisanism and irresponsibility. The republicans, and the republicans alone are responsible for the current situation as they were given a perfect opportunity to have the act stay in effect with no strings attached and they refused it.

EDIT: Oh, and I like how anytime someone refuses to give Bush anything and everything he asks for it's because they are somehow overwhelmed by BDS. (by the way, that term is retarded). When Bush threatens to veto the act, no matter how crucial, unless it provides amnesty for illegal acts done by the telecoms, he's just doing What's Best For The Country. When the Democrats in the House refuse him, they're just crazy partisans.

Nice world you must live in.

BDS is just an Ad Hominem they reach for when they run out of arguments.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, your ass indeed.

A vote on the long-term legislation was not allowed by the Democrats because they knew that between the GOP and the Blue Dogs that there were enough votes to pass the Senate bill in this House if it were put to a vote. Rather than permit that to happen the Dems pulled this extension baloney instead to buy themselves more time to rally against the passage of the actual bill. So don't try and pretend this was an offer to to Republicans. The Senate already overwhelmingly and in bi-partisan fashion, nearly 2-1, passed this bill. Now some Dems in the House are interfering. So let's cut the spin and BS on this.

Yes, lets definitely cut the spin and BS on this.

If Bush and the Republicans truly believed that the PAA was this vital to our country's protection, they would have signed off on the extention. They did not. The Democrats gave them two choices, either allow more time for debate with the PAA still being in effect, or allow more time for debate without the PAA being in effect. The Republicans chose the latter.

The Republicans are the ones crying that allowing the PAA to expire is somehow opening us up to The Terrorists, not the Democrats. If this is the case they should have been more then willing to pass that extention, considering the fact that the Democrats were going to have their time for debate either way. But no, they decided to play politics instead. If you're so worried about the country being Vulnerable To Terror, then your blame should be placed squarely at the feet of Bush and the congressional republicans who refused the extention as his urging.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, your ass indeed.

A vote on the long-term legislation was not allowed by the Democrats because they knew that between the GOP and the Blue Dogs that there were enough votes to pass the Senate bill in this House if it were put to a vote. Rather than permit that to happen the Dems pulled this extension baloney instead to buy themselves more time to rally against the passage of the actual bill. So don't try and pretend this was an offer to to Republicans. The Senate already overwhelmingly and in bi-partisan fashion, nearly 2-1, passed this bill. Now some Dems in the House are interfering. So let's cut the spin and BS on this.

Yes, lets definitely cut the spin and BS on this.

If Bush and the Republicans truly believed that the PAA was this vital to our country's protection, they would have signed off on the extention. They did not. The Democrats gave them two choices, either allow more time for debate with the PAA still being in effect, or allow more time for debate without the PAA being in effect. The Republicans chose the latter.

The Republicans are the ones crying that allowing the PAA to expire is somehow opening us up to The Terrorists, not the Democrats. If this is the case they should have been more then willing to pass that extention, considering the fact that the Democrats were going to have their time for debate either way. But no, they decided to play politics instead. If you're so worried about the country being Vulnerable To Terror, then your blame should be placed squarely at the feet of Bush and the congressional republicans who refused the extention as his urging.

Obviously the Dems don't believe that this is vital to our country's protection, but that seems par for the course for our cut & run congressional contingent who blew into a majority in the House yakking up all the changes they were going to make and now sit on their hands and playing games to block legislation.

This bill has been debated for quite a while now. They weren't looking for more time for debate. They put a roadblock in place and REFUSED to bring it up for a vote because they knew it would pass. That's not making time for debate. That's plain old interference of a bill that a minority in the House don't want to see passed. A bi-partisan majority does want to see it passed, so spin it any way you choose to place blame on Bush but it's obvious to anyone without BDS blinders on where the blame falls.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Obviously the Dems don't believe that this is vital to our country's protection, but that seems par for the course for our cut & run congressional contingent who blew into a majority in the House yakking up all the changes they were going to make and now sit on their hands and playing games to block legislation.

This bill has been debated for quite a while now. They weren't looking for more time for debate. They put a roadblock in place and REFUSED to bring it up for a vote because they knew it would pass. That's not making time for debate. That's plain old interference of a bill that a minority in the House don't want to see passed. A bi-partisan majority does want to see it passed, so spin it any way you choose to place blame on Bush but it's obvious to anyone without BDS blinders on where the blame falls.

"Hurf... blurf... god I'm getting owned again... uhmmm....BDS!"

The bill is going to come up for a vote eventually. Everyone knows this. You have two options, keep the PAA in place until that time, or do not keep the PAA in place until that time. If you choose not to keep it in place, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Keep spinning and twisting!

Oh, and cut and run? I think you're getting your partisan smears mixed up. You're supposed to use cut and run in relation to Iraq. The appropriate right wing smear for this would be something like 'terrorist loving'.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Obviously the Dems don't believe that this is vital to our country's protection, ...

Maybe that's because, unlike you, they believe in the U.S. Constitution more than they believe your lying POS Traitor in Chief, his gang of murderers, traitors and torturers and their ass licking sycophants in Congress. :thumbsup:

... it's obvious to anyone without BDS blinders on where the blame falls.

I'm proud of my BDS. It's acquired by REMOVING the blinders. Once you do, the truth can raise only contempt, disgust and total disrespect for the entire Bushwhacko administration.

You really should try it... for a change. :roll:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Just a quick question for you....

You do realize that the statute that you quoted is for "STORED DATA" that is "relating to the emergency"?

The .gov didn't want stored data and there was no emergency. They wanted unfettered access to live data so that they could mine it for POTENTIAL use. HUGE difference.

Good effort though. You actually provided something in defense of your position beyond your opinion.

So the entire complaint here is the few calls intercepted in the US from suspected foreign terrorists and not the NSA database and records obtained from the Telcos to build that database? I'm asking to be sure because nobody has clarified that point yet.

Do you realize that it wasn't a case of a "few calls intercepted in the US from suspected foreign terrorists" that was the object of the warrantless wiretapping program? They were spying on everyone and then data mining the information that they got to try to find or define who terrorists were.

http://www.casavaria.com/senti...006/06-0818-notaps.htm

A federal judge in Detroit ruled early yesterday that Pres. Bush's NSA surveillance program, which uses wiretaps implemented with no judicial oversight, is unconstitutional. The ruling strongly enforced the point that there are "no powers not created by the Constitution" rejecting the AG's claim that the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (in Afghanistan) as a legal platform for sweeping new domestic powers.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor specified that because there are "no powers not created by the Constitution" available to the president, "all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution". This specifically takes issue with the attorney general's much criticized counsel suggesting the president can derive expansive new prosecutorial powers from laws specifically enacting Constitutional processes designed to permit overseas military action.

More specifically, the NSA wiretap program ?as argued by many legal experts and civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and the other plaintiffs? violates several Constitutional provisions and amendments, regarding the separation of powers, the interpretive role of the Judiciary, the oversight roles of both the Judiciary and the Legislature, and the individual liberties of innocent Americans.

Judge Diggs Taylor used recent Supreme Court precedent to guide her decision, stating "We have seen in Hamdi that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is fully applicable to the Executive branch?s actions and therefore it can only follow that the First and Fourth Amendments must be applicable as well?" She also notes that all presidential powers are by definition constrained to those enumerated specifically in the Constitution.

Now, you can continue to try to argue that it wasn't illegal for the telecoms because of some mystery letters that the DoJ wrote (without the constitutional authority to do so I might add), but it still doesn't change the fact that what they did was illegal.

Have you noticed that there has been no appeal to the USSC on this case? I wonder why the Bush administration is fighting so hard to get the laws changed instead of just fighting this case which, according to the DoJ, you and the rest of the idiots that can't read the 5th Amendment would settle the debate once and for all?

So I feel that I have to leave you with one last question, are you truly this much of an imbecile or do you honestly desire for this country to turn fascist within your lifetime?

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Harabec
Well, in Israel you don't own your records. The government can do whatever it wants with them and give you a dildo to play with.
"Legal"? Heh, who cares about the law as long as you're a friend of a friend...

Yeah, and in Syria they toss in jail for saying #@#@!!@$ Hezbolllah.

 

[Lemon law]

Before we concede that our pants are down and we are bare ass naked without these police state spying on everyone, maybe its time to ask if, in the entire history of then world,
if this has yielded any significant information that has helped stop one single attack.

We already know the so called war on terror is a failure because it creates more terrorists.

And to a great extent Bin Laden does not have to do anything to the USA, because we engaging in panic panic terror terror nation suicide by jumping into every available quagmire.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Before we concede that our pants are down and we are bare ass naked without these police state spying on everyone, maybe its time to ask if, in the entire history of then world,
if this has yielded any significant information that has helped stop one single attack.

We already know the so called war on terror is a failure because it creates more terrorists.

And to a great extent Bin Laden does not have to do anything to the USA, because we engaging in panic panic terror terror nation suicide by jumping into every available quagmire.

Well it's a fact many of the resources devoted to this "war on terror" has prevented several alleged-attacks, but as a rule stuff like this rarely turns on good. The fact remains, you cannot have a war on terror unless you cut the source. If we continue to sleep with Saudi Arabia, appease Iran, sex with Pakistan, and ignore Indonesia and Britain "terror" will continue.

Then again, the only terror that can be blatantly seen from our perspective is our own.

End this fear-propaganda and focus on goals that can actually be completed.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Just a quick question for you....

You do realize that the statute that you quoted is for "STORED DATA" that is "relating to the emergency"?

The .gov didn't want stored data and there was no emergency. They wanted unfettered access to live data so that they could mine it for POTENTIAL use. HUGE difference.

Good effort though. You actually provided something in defense of your position beyond your opinion.

So the entire complaint here is the few calls intercepted in the US from suspected foreign terrorists and not the NSA database and records obtained from the Telcos to build that database? I'm asking to be sure because nobody has clarified that point yet.

Do you realize that it wasn't a case of a "few calls intercepted in the US from suspected foreign terrorists" that was the object of the warrantless wiretapping program? They were spying on everyone and then data mining the information that they got to try to find or define who terrorists were.
Can you provide a link from a normal/respectible site (not a blog please) that states what information is being gathered?

I have a hard time believing it is citizen-to-citizen calls as you seem to claim.


-snip-

Now, you can continue to try to argue that it wasn't illegal for the telecoms because of some mystery letters that the DoJ wrote (without the constitutional authority to do so I might add), but it still doesn't change the fact that what they did was illegal.

Have you noticed that there has been no appeal to the USSC on this case? I wonder why the Bush administration is fighting so hard to get the laws changed instead of just fighting this case which, according to the DoJ, you and the rest of the idiots that can't read the 5th Amendment would settle the debate once and for all?
If it was unconstitutional, getting the law changed would NOT help with that. You would need a Constitutional amendment. Congress can NOT pass a law overruling the Constitution.

So I feel that I have to leave you with one last question, are you truly this much of an imbecile or do you honestly desire for this country to turn fascist within your lifetime?

Please see bolded remaks.

Fern

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Just a quick question for you....

You do realize that the statute that you quoted is for "STORED DATA" that is "relating to the emergency"?

The .gov didn't want stored data and there was no emergency. They wanted unfettered access to live data so that they could mine it for POTENTIAL use. HUGE difference.

Good effort though. You actually provided something in defense of your position beyond your opinion.

So the entire complaint here is the few calls intercepted in the US from suspected foreign terrorists and not the NSA database and records obtained from the Telcos to build that database? I'm asking to be sure because nobody has clarified that point yet.

Do you realize that it wasn't a case of a "few calls intercepted in the US from suspected foreign terrorists" that was the object of the warrantless wiretapping program? They were spying on everyone and then data mining the information that they got to try to find or define who terrorists were.

http://www.casavaria.com/senti...006/06-0818-notaps.htm

A federal judge in Detroit ruled early yesterday that Pres. Bush's NSA surveillance program, which uses wiretaps implemented with no judicial oversight, is unconstitutional. The ruling strongly enforced the point that there are "no powers not created by the Constitution" rejecting the AG's claim that the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (in Afghanistan) as a legal platform for sweeping new domestic powers.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor specified that because there are "no powers not created by the Constitution" available to the president, "all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution". This specifically takes issue with the attorney general's much criticized counsel suggesting the president can derive expansive new prosecutorial powers from laws specifically enacting Constitutional processes designed to permit overseas military action.

More specifically, the NSA wiretap program ?as argued by many legal experts and civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and the other plaintiffs? violates several Constitutional provisions and amendments, regarding the separation of powers, the interpretive role of the Judiciary, the oversight roles of both the Judiciary and the Legislature, and the individual liberties of innocent Americans.

Judge Diggs Taylor used recent Supreme Court precedent to guide her decision, stating "We have seen in Hamdi that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is fully applicable to the Executive branch?s actions and therefore it can only follow that the First and Fourth Amendments must be applicable as well?" She also notes that all presidential powers are by definition constrained to those enumerated specifically in the Constitution.

Now, you can continue to try to argue that it wasn't illegal for the telecoms because of some mystery letters that the DoJ wrote (without the constitutional authority to do so I might add), but it still doesn't change the fact that what they did was illegal.

Have you noticed that there has been no appeal to the USSC on this case? I wonder why the Bush administration is fighting so hard to get the laws changed instead of just fighting this case which, according to the DoJ, you and the rest of the idiots that can't read the 5th Amendment would settle the debate once and for all?

Where in your link does it claim that the actual wiretapping involved "everyone?" It doesn't. fyi, the actual wireapping amounted to about 40. Nobody except those with access to the program knows the precise number, but that's the number being made public.

You are conflating TWO seperate issues here. The data mining was done using existing records (i.e. - Stored Records) and does not involve wiretaps. There was NO illegal eavesdropping in regard to the data mining. Only call records of numbers were cross-refererenced in order to see if any patterns arose that involved terrorism. Then, if a pattern was discovered a warrant was issued to investigate further. The data-mining was/is perfectly legal.

So I feel that I have to leave you with one last question, are you truly this much of an imbecile or do you honestly desire for this country to turn fascist within your lifetime?

You've made it perfectly clear that you don't even know the facts of the matter, which is what I imagined in the first place and is why I asked the question previously, so go get a clue first before you call anyone else an embicile. btw, if you're so brave to call me names, save it for my face. Then let's see if you have the same nads that your litle e-balls try to display. I guarantee that you wouldn't dare, little lame one.

 

[GrGr]

Imho if you turn the US into a Stasi style state the terrorists have won. After that it is only a matter of time before the nation implodes.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The terrorists may not have won but maybe the lawyers did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...av=rss_opinion/columns

A closed-door caucus of House Democrats last Wednesday took a risky political course. By 4 to 1, they instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call President Bush's bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists. Rather than passing the bill with a minority of the House's Democratic majority, Pelosi obeyed her caucus and left town for a week-long recess without renewing the government's eroding intelligence capability.

Pelosi could have exercised leadership prerogatives and called up the FISA bill to pass with unanimous Republican support. Instead, she refused to bring to the floor a bill approved overwhelmingly by the Senate. House Democratic opposition included left-wing members typified by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but they were only a small faction of those opposed. The true reason for blocking the bill was Senate-passed retroactive immunity to protect from lawsuits private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation's torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.

The recess by House Democrats amounts to a judgment that losing the generous support of trial lawyers, the Democratic Party's most important financial base, would be more dangerous than losing the anti-terrorist issue to Republicans. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the phone companies for giving individuals' personal information to intelligence agencies without a warrant. Mike McConnell, the nonpartisan director of national intelligence, says delay in congressional action deters cooperation in detecting terrorism.

Big money is involved. Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiffs' lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.

...

 

[Lemon law]

And now TLC wants us to believe the trial lawyers are in league with the terrorists and they are the only group in America who opposes this blanket violations of our privacy.

Well guess again TLC, millions of Americans are cheering the house on to just say no to GWB and CO. And with the specter of the trial lawyers getting a piece of their butts, I think some telco execs are sending big lobbying bucks to republirats. And those same telco execs will think twice and three times about voluntarily turning over much of anything to idiots like GWB in future. The congress standing up and saying no is long overdue. Why the shock when they do it? So you invent all kinds of crass motives for democrats while ignoring the fact these are powers GWB&co. should not have. And just the mere seeking of these powers implies all kinds of crass motivations and total idiocy on the part of GWB. The very two qualities that define GWB&co.

In many ways, its probably best for our country to let matters stand as they are until GWB leaves office. And then saner heads can discuss what is best thereafter.

What happened to the GOP personal responsibility thing? If you do the crime be prepared to do the time.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now TLC wants us to believe the trial lawyers are in league with the terrorists and they are the only group in America who opposes this blanket violations of our privacy.

Well guess again TLC, millions of Americans are cheering the house on to just say no to GWB and CO. And with the specter of the trial lawyers getting a piece of their butts, I think some telco execs are sending big lobbying bucks to republirats. And those same telco execs will think twice and three times about voluntarily turning over much of anything to idiots like GWB in future. The congress standing up and saying no is long overdue. Why the shock when they do it? So you invent all kinds of crass motives for democrats while ignoring the fact these are powers GWB&co. should not have. And just the mere seeking of these powers implies all kinds of crass motivations and total idiocy on the part of GWB. The very two qualities that define GWB&co.

In many ways, its probably best for our country to let matters stand as they are until GWB leaves office. And then saner heads can discuss what is best thereafter.

What happened to the GOP personal responsibility thing? If you do the crime be prepared to do the time.

Millions of Americans are cheering the House on? Hee-larious. Is that why Congress has had even a worse approval rating than Bush for how long now; and since the Democrats came into control it's been dropping even further?

btw, LL. If any terrorists are reading this no doubt they are incensed that you affiliated them with lawyers. More than likely you are on their death list now. You better grab a spare Hijab for your own personal use, just in case.

 

[Lemon law]

Now TLC comes up with a another whopper---btw, LL. If any terrorists are reading this no doubt they are incensed that you affiliated them with lawyers. More than likely you are on their death list now. You better grab a spare Hijab for your own personal use, just in case.

I have zero faith the so called department of home land security could protect me or this country from anything. But with GWB steering us straight over a cliff, why do terrorists need to attack us? GWB is doing everything Ossama wants him to do as it is while creating more and more terrorists and terrorist recruits.

Its the terrorists who will sad to see GWB&co. go. As for that foreign spying, Al-Quida simply does not communicate that way so its matters not to them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Besides the fact that it worries me that you claim to know how AQ communicates or what matters to them...lighten up. It was a joke.

 

[vhx]

Originally posted by: brandonb
This along with the recently introduced "Anti extremist bill", which will make it a crime to speak out against the government, including anything online (and now they can spy on us without warrant) means the government is seizing alot of power it shouldn't. Slippery slope!

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9825287-38.html

Sweet. Terrorist is the new Communist. Can't wait to go back to those good 'ol Marxist times.

Troubled times ahead indeed...