Bush caught on tape LYING about wiretaps...

[DjTj]

Now that I've established the legality of Bush's Executive Orders (see other related threads), I will once again pose the following question to those on the radical left with the courage to muster a response. NoCAL, - you had your chance and chose to dodge the question.

If an NSA intercept saves American lives from an impending terrorist attack, would you accept it's legitimacy, neccessity, and fully support the action? A simple yes or no is all that's required, and that will be accepted as a response.

Yes, and if lives are in imminent danger, the law would support such actions without a warrant. Even regular police officers are allowed to conduct searches without a warrant if they believe there is imminent danger.

What we're talking about here is not imminent danger; nowhere has Bush or Gonzales argued that any of these wiretaps were necessary to prevent an impending terrorist attack.

So yes, of course we should act to prevent an imminent attack, but no, that is not the issue here.

[Destino]

And now you will cry....

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Yeah I'm crying .... lol :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Yes, and if lives are in imminent danger, the law would support such actions without a warrant. Even regular police officers are allowed to conduct searches without a warrant if they believe there is imminent danger.

What we're talking about here is not imminent danger; nowhere has Bush or Gonzales argued that any of these wiretaps were necessary to prevent an impending terrorist attack.

So yes, of course we should act to prevent an imminent attack, but no, that is not the issue here.

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth. That's your qualifier, and not mine.

Got English skills?

There's a difference.

Main Entry: im·pend

Pronunciation: im-'pend

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Latin impendEre, from in- + pendEre to hang -- more at PENDANT

1 a : to hover threateningly : MENACE b : to occur

2 archaic : to hang suspended

im·mi·nent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)

adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

imminent Show phonetics

adjective

coming or likely to happen very soon:

imminent disaster/danger

A strike is imminent.

Oh really? Hmmm.... ever hear about the domestic terrorist - Fasil - plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge? Thanks to this NSA program, it never materialized.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Yeah I'm crying .... lol :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, I know it's tough for your feeble mind to get those synapses going....

I gave you a Clinton example. And now you have a Carter example of conducting a "domestic" intel operation, legally, w/out a judge involved.

[DjTj]

Do not attempt to put words in my mouth. That's your qualifier, and not mine.

Got English skills?

There's a difference.

Main Entry: im·pend

Pronunciation: im-'pend

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Latin impendEre, from in- + pendEre to hang -- more at PENDANT

1 a : to hover threateningly : MENACE b : to occur

2 archaic : to hang suspended

im·mi·nent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)

adj.

About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

imminent Show phonetics

adjective

coming or likely to happen very soon:

imminent disaster/danger

A strike is imminent.

Oh really? Hmmm.... ever hear about the domestic terrorist - Fasil - plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge? Thanks to this NSA program, it never materialized.

If the attack is impending but not imminent, I don't see why they can't go to the FISA court. And if there is evidence of an impending attack, I can't see why the FISA court would turn them down.

So again, yes, I would support NSA wiretaps to prevent impending attacks, and I would like to see them go through the proper channels.

[Destino]

Yeah, I know it's tough for your feeble mind to get those synapses going....

I gave you a Clinton example. And now you have a Carter example of conducting a "domestic" intel operation, legally, w/out a judge involved.

Sorry but I'm still laughing about this:

Mike -

Destino is an anti-American zealot. What do you expect? He prefers to see America transformed into a socialist, Islamic theocracy.

When I can force my "feeble mind to get those synapses going" again I'll move onto to your change in topic concerning Carter. I think I've told you more then a few times that legal issues won't be answered by me. DJTJ seems willing to debate with you on such things, i'm content to take the wait and see approach and let those more qualified hammer that part out.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Sorry but I'm still laughing about this:

When I can force my "feeble mind to get those synapses going" again I'll move onto to your change in topic concerning a Carter.

The example - or "topic" as you call it - remains the same: legal precedent. Get a clue, man. Come on, I know you can keep up if you really really try. :laugh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

If the attack is impending but not imminent, I don't see why they can't go to the FISA court. And if there is evidence of an impending attack, I can't see why the FISA court would turn them down.

So again, yes, I would support NSA wiretaps to prevent impending attacks, and I would like to see them go through the proper channels.

There are reasons. That's why Clinton did it, Carter did it, and federal courts have upheld it.

[DjTj]

There are reasons. That's why Clinton did it, Carter did it, and federal courts have upheld it.

Both Clinton and Carter did it with public executive orders, and in both of those orders they explicitly invoked 50 U.S.C. 1802(a), which specifically requires that the Attorney General certify that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."

Bush has instituted this program secretly and his Attorney General has made the argument that the searches they are conducting are not authorized under FISA, but that that they derive their authority from Congress' authorization of force after 9/11 and the President's inherent authority to protect national security.

Clinton and Carter acted within FISA using public executive orders, but Bush is operating secretly outside of FISA. That is a major difference.

[Destino]

The example - or "topic" as you call it - remains the same: legal precedent. Get a clue, man. Come on, I know you can keep up if you really really try. :laugh:

You accused me of wanting an Islamic theocracy in the US and then responded by posting a Carter executive order. I'd say that is a change in topic wouldn't you?

You accused me of something completely and totally false. You should apologize to me. I'm serious.

[Joe Sick]

And now you will cry....

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Did you read the part at the bottom?

Any monitoring which constitutes

electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that

Act as well as this Order.''.

That means they went to the courts. What was your point?

[Thiebear]

Perspective:

bad: Ordering the FBI files on 400 republicans...

good: Ordering 30+ wire taps on calls between a phone in the US and a suspected terrorist outside the country.

Difference... huge.

Reasoning... obvious.

Red-Herring.. none

[Thiebear]

Hey Joe, NOW that you know you were wrong your going to change the title of the thread....

RIGHT?

[Chief skin]

Where is the man who plotted, financed, gloated, over the 911 attack? you remember that Binladen clown?

[Thiebear]

Where is the man who plotted, financed, gloated, over the 911 attack? you remember that Binladen clown?

You sir are correct:

We are having a hard time finding a man with 1000's of fanatical fans in a foreign country.

Yet the case remains unsolved more than 30 years later, and D. B. Cooper has become the Bigfoot of crime, evading one of the most extensive and expensive American manhunts of the 20th century. The whereabouts of the man (or his remains) is one of the great crime mysteries of our time.

Of course, the annals of wrongdoing are stuffed with titillating unsolved cases, from London's notorious ripper in the 1880s to the Black Dahlia murder of an aspiring actress in Los Angeles in 1947 to the befuddling murder—and muddled investigation—of little Jon Benet Ramsey in 1997 in Boulder, Colo.

Might as well mention some others since were at it .

They didnt kill as many people but they also didnt have several countries to hide in either...

[Burgold]

Well, people have been looking for definite evidence that Bush lies to your faces, day after day. Here is one example...

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. QUOTE]

Getting away from party politics. This is a pretty black and white statement.

Bush says "any time," "nothing has changed" and "requires" this isn't really gray. At the point he said this, he believed or put forth the idea that for any wiretap to occur legally... "a wiretap requires a court order" because "nothing has changed..." and it doesn't matter if your trying to find out if your mate is cheating on you or you're "chasing down terrorists..."

This is not contextual stuff... he says in every situation, any time, regardless of the who... Now, if there were laws passed since then, that gave him new authority or emergency authority than the quote becomes invallid, but what he says and what he did are in direct conflict. There's no argument.

[@DCGoldPants]

Without court order, and anybody checking their work.

How do you know they aren't tapping phones and computers of people who are political rivals? Without any oversight they could just say "Well, we thought that John Smith was a muslim terrorist who had contact outside the U.S. and was planning an attack on us. How were we supposed to know he was going to discuss political strategy about an upcoming Senate Race in North Dakota?"

[portisizzle]

Hey Joe, NOW that you know you were wrong your going to change the title of the thread....

RIGHT?

Don't hold your breath. How many times are the resident libs going to get sucked into another Democratic Underground puff piece?

[Air Force Cane]

Kind of like Kerry's: "I voted for the war before I voted against the war before I voted for it again"

Since you like maps, here is one you might enjoy. Instead of "Redskins Country" it is "Bush Country 2004"...

[Burgold]

Kind of like Kerry's: "I voted for the war before I voted against the war before I voted for it again"

Since you like maps, here is one you might enjoy. Instead of "Redskins Country" it is "Bush Country 2004"...

That map just shows that P.T. Barnum was right.

Just as Bush was dead on accurate in the quote that started this thread. Also, read C. Rice's defense of the legality of warantless wiretaps during last weekend's Meet the Press... it's truly enlightening.

[webnarc]

Mike -

Destino is an anti-American zealot. What do you expect? He prefers to see America transformed into a socialist, Islamic theocracy.

Isn't this a slanderous statement? Even for you it's a little over the top.

[Joe Sick]

Hey Joe, NOW that you know you were wrong your going to change the title of the thread....

RIGHT?

No. He says "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way."

He says ANYTIME. What is so hard about understanding that? It makes him a complete liar. McClellan said it only referred to the Patriot Act. What about ANYTIME doesn't he, or the Bush apologists on here understand?

(I know it's tough to take this guy "at his word" or "on his honor," with the little credibility he does have left.)

It just burns people up to see their Great Leader caught on camera lying to their faces. It hurt my feelings when Clinton did it. However, I still believed that he would get what his actions merited, which was impeachment.

[Joe Sick]

Isn't this a slanderous statement? Even for you it's a little over the top.

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Destino]

Isn't this a slanderous statement? Even for you it's a little over the top.

It was a shamefully dishonest attack which is why I mentioned that he owes me an apology for it. Completely false and totally uncalled for.

[Joe Sick]

Here's another lie...

They are coming fast and furious now.

In his radio address Saturday, Bush said two of the hijackers who helped fly a jet into the Pentagon -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- had communicated with suspected Al Qaeda members overseas while they were living in the U.S.

"But we didn't know they were here until it was too late," Bush said. "The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after Sept. 11 helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities."

But some current and former high-ranking U.S. counter-terrorism officials say that the still-classified details of the case undermine the president's rationale for the recently disclosed domestic spying program.

Indeed, a 2002 inquiry into the case by the House and Senate intelligence committees blamed interagency communication breakdowns -- not shortcomings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any other intelligence-gathering guidelines.

See, as it turns out, the NSA had been monitoring calls between a safe house in Yemen and an apartment in San Diego rented by the hijackers. They knew at least one of the men was in the country, and communicating with suspected Al Qaeda members at that safe house. Furthermore, they knew that the safe house had been a base of operations for planning the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and to the 2000 bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole.

Those links made the safe house one of the "hottest" targets being monitored by the NSA before the Sept. 11 attacks, and had been so for several years, the officials said.

Authorities also had traced the phone number at the safe house to Almihdhar's father-in-law, and believed then that two of his other sons-in-law already had killed themselves in suicide terrorist attacks. Such information, the officials said, should have set off alarm bells at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Under authority granted in federal law, the NSA already was listening in on that number in Yemen and could have tracked calls made into the U.S. by getting a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Then the NSA could have -- and should have -- alerted the FBI, which then could have used the information to locate the future hijackers in San Diego and monitored their phone calls, e-mail and other activities, the current and former officials said.

The case Bush cited on Saturday had absolutely nothing to do with shortcoming in FISA and everything to do with bungling between our spy agencies. Or as Ezra says

So FISA, as we keep saying, was plenty powerful and responsive enough to gather intelligence, but Bush hadn't calmed the turf wars among our intelligence services. The PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reorganization should have, in theory, solved some of those problems. A secret domestic espionage program, conversely, would have no impact at all. What this means, of course, is that a top government official is lying about matters of national security. Sounds like someone needs to wiretap George W. Bush.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/21/14120/907