Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Spies, Lies and Wiretaps


Midnight Judges

Recommended Posts

Let me use a more accurate title for the thread I intended. This thread was not created to reiterate Bush's talking points from 2004, it was created to expose the contradictions in those talking points to Bush's rhetoric in 2006.

http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/01/29/spies-lies-and-wiretaps/

Can we rename this thread Spies, Lies and Wiretaps?

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.

The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.

Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year I said "it couldn't get any worst, so what if Bush has a second term". Silly me. Bush is a terrible president. He's quick to sacrifice the very liberties that the soliers in Iraq are dying for. The liberty of privacy shouldn't be violated just because Bush wants it that way. People will say "don't you want him to stop the terrorist?". Of course I do, but I don't want to do it at the sake of destroying the things that make this country great because of fear. Winston Churchill's words are so prophetic "there is nothing to fear except fear itself".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious you four are taking LIBERAL sips of the Defeatocrat kook-aid. Hummm... betting you're getting a personalized e-mail newsletter from both Hillary and Howard. Good luck with that!

Way to stay on subject there, guy. Do you deny that Bush lied about this subject or do you support the lies? Checks and balances are not some fringe liberal ideal, they are a mainstream American quality that your party simply does not believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Checks and balances are not some fringe liberal ideal, they are a mainstream American quality that your party simply does not believe in.
I'm GOP and I believe in Constitutional Checks and Balances. Why don't you ask the the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Liberal politicians about that? Talk about checks and balances, sheesh.:mad:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think some people in this country would love to see this country go to hell under Bush's watch so they can jump around, point and say "Haha, republicans suck, Bush is the worst, told ya so!!"

This partisan craps getting way old, way fast.

'Course, another way of saying that, is that the country is "go[ing] to hell under Bush's watch", and people are pointing it out, and people are saying "Haha, liberals suck, who cares what's going on?"

(Bumper sticker I've seen, lately: "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the public needs to Know everything?

The only times when the public should be kept in the dark is for true, national security issues that would put agents, or soldier's lives at risk. Not political issues like which oil CEO's the White House has been meeting with. The American public has a right to know and understand our surveillance policy. Otherwise, how can we make an educated decision on who to vote for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scariest part to me is that it seems this administration has no use or understanding of doubt. It's like they think they're infallable or something. Some of the things Bush has said about doing God's will and being put on this earth by God to lead America through this terrorist crisis are downright neurotic, scary and sound an awful lot like the rhetoric coming from the fundamentalist Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate saying this...but I'll say it anyway..

I really think some people in this country would love to see this country go to hell under Bush's watch so they can jump around, point and say "Haha, republicans suck, Bush is the worst, told ya so!!"

This partisan craps getting way old, way fast.

This goes both ways. Some people will defend Bush no matter what he does (whether it is positive or negative). The partisan defense of Bush is rather tiresome, particularly from conservatives. Bush isn't a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To tell you the truth, I wish Bush wouldn't push for the Patriot Act 2 or "illegal" monitoring. Let the ACLU have their way. If nothing happens, well you can say "I told you so" or "no harm done." But when some lunatic flies into Fedex field during a Redskins game with a 747, well just don't say a word OK? Or maybe just swing the ol' party focus to reforming medicare so it can be debated for another 30 years in Congress without resolution.

And last, HAVE NICE DAY!:rant:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This goes both ways. Some people will defend Bush no matter what he does (whether it is positive or negative). The partisan defense of Bush is rather tiresome, particularly from conservatives. Bush isn't a conservative.

I'll agree with that...

I just look at it as someone you work with...you might not like them, you might not like their ideas....but bashing them isn't going to get anything done.

Some (certainly not all) liberals love bashing him, but when hard pressed don't come up with any answers or ideas on how he should go about making things better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sith lord
I hate saying this...but I'll say it anyway..

I really think some people in this country would love to see this country go to hell under Bush's watch so they can jump around, point and say "Haha, republicans suck, Bush is the worst, told ya so!!"

This partisan craps getting way old, way fast.

It doesn't matter what people want. Bush is taking this country to hell in a bread basket. Did you hear about his $2+ zillion budget? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man this is funny. Libs are the first ones to pipe in "We're for defense, too","We support the soldiers............but not the war" and are still dogging the intel community to this day over iraq.

And yet they have no problems when the NYT's comprimises an operation and leaks a story to the world on that operation that is meant to keep the country safe and find terrorists.

Anyone see a little hypocracy here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sith lord
Just curious

What should be cut from the budget?

I don't know what should be cut. But I don't think programs like medicare should get less. And from what I heard, medicare isn't the only program getting less to boost our ever growing defense cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First:

PLEASE use the Article as the title and put your OPINION in the post itself.

Part of the rules thing..

Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act

Second:

IF they believe he had the power to do this (beit wrong or not) then its not really a bold faced lie is it? If something comes out that shows they tried to hide it.. Then were going to start down that road. BUT I beleive he had to sign some statement every 45 days and did it 30 times to keep it going....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...