WP: House Approves Wiretap Measure

[PeterMP]

Yeah, i'm sorry. I went off on a tangient there. What I think might of happened is absolutly impossible, right?

No, but there are huge flaws in the logic you are using to disprove what the goverment says. The idea that a very tall building, while in the process of falling couldn't "throw" debris over a shorter building and hit the building behind it isn't far fetched.

[Koolblue13]

A little off topic here, but it's a slow sunday, so what the hell. I've been watching this video I found and some of you guys a little more in the know about stuff might enjoy debunking it for me. It's long, but a good watch. It starts talking about religion and finishes with some federal reserve stuff. It has some 9/11 talk in the middle that we have been over plenty, so I don't need your input on that so much, but would appriciate the rest.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

If it interests you, i'll start a thread about it.

[Koolblue13]

No, but there are huge flaws in the logic you are using to disprove what the goverment says. The idea that a very tall building, while in the process of falling couldn't "throw" debris over a shorter building and hit the building behind it isn't far fetched.

I was talking more about where it hit the building. Fema isn't even sure of thier own explaination. I know it's possible, anything is. I guess diesel fuel could cause a steel structured building to collapse at near free fall speeds into it's own footprint.

From the "official" Fema report.

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue

[PeterMP]

A little off topic here, but it's a slow sunday, so what the hell. I've been watching this video I found and some of you guys a little more in the know about stuff might enjoy debunking it for me. It's long, but a good watch. It starts talking about religion and finishes with some federal reserve stuff. It has some 9/11 talk in the middle that we have been over plenty, so I don't need your input on that so much, but would appriciate the rest.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

If it interests you, i'll start a thread about it.

Are you refering to the jet fuel that brought down two of the towers? Yes, it did. NIST did a whole study on this (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm). Are you saying that NIST is it on the cover up too? Why would they do that? These aren't people getting rich. They are basic science and engineers. And the data they released is faked?

I was talking more about where it hit the building. Fema isn't even sure of thier own explaination. I know it's possible, anything is. I guess diesel fuel could cause a steel structured building to collapse at near free fall speeds into it's own footprint.

I'm sorry, but I don't have 2 hrs to watch a video. If you want to pull out a quote or two that you think are of interest, that is a different story. People on this site have addressed the issues w/ the FED multiple times. In addition, there is a book called The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve, which I'd guess will adequately address the questions you have.

[Koolblue13]

Are you refering to the jet fuel that brought down two of the towers? Yes, it did. NIST did a whole study on this (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm). Are you saying that NIST is it on the cover up too? Why would they do that? These aren't people getting rich. They are basic science and engineers. And the data they released is faked?

I'm sorry, but I don't have 2 hrs to watch a video. If you want to pull out a quote or two that you think are of interest, that is a different story. People on this site have addressed the issues w/ the FED multiple times. In addition, there is a book called The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve, which I'd guess will adequately address the questions you have.

I was talking about building 7 specificly, no jet fuel, only diesel.

[PeterMP]

I was talking more about where it hit the building. Fema isn't even sure of thier own explaination. I know it's possible, anything is. I guess diesel fuel could cause a steel structured building to collapse at near free fall speeds into it's own footprint.

From the "official" Fema report.

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue

Forget FIMA. Look at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

Just look at the first paragraphy. You seem to think the firers in building 7 were minor:

"Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water

supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse."

The fires were so minor that after the FDNY pulled out, the continued to burn for HOURS.

[Teller]

Here it is, directly from the Congressional Record, John Tierney, D, MASS:

"He (hh edit: meaning President Bush) also sought authority to search concerning a person abroad. Didn't even have to target a person abroad, a foreign person. In other words, the search did not have to be directed in that direction, just concerning a person abroad."

Like I said, I listened to this this morning. You could tell by his delivery that by not "targeting" a person abroad, he meant "targeting" within the United States ABOUT a person abroad.

"It would also authorize any search inside the United States if the government can claim it concerns an al Qaeda or affiliate."

Note, Mr. Tierney directly says "search inside the United States," without reference to any foreign participation in the communication.

And it also sought authority for the Attorney General to authorize surveillance into and out of the United States with a court review only to determine that the procedures of the Attorney General clearly were erroneous; and, even if they found that, it was only advisory, apparently, because there was no remedy. No review or audit by a Department of Justice Inspector General to see how this was implemented. No sunset provision forcing review. Essentially an indefinite suspension of our constitutional rights and our civil liberties. Based on the word of this Attorney General? This one? And this President?"

Slightly off topic as far as my earlier point, but helps show the context of his comments.

Here's the link to the House record where I found this transcript. Mr. Tierney's comments are a little less than 1/3 of the way down the page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:4:./temp/~r110Ppj5lF:e29013

[PeterMP]

Here it is, directly from the Congressional Record, John Tierney, D, MASS:

Like I said, I listened to this this morning. You could tell by his delivery that by not "targeting" a person abroad, he meant "targeting" within the United States ABOUT a person abroad.

Note, Mr. Tierney directly says "search inside the United States," without reference to any foreign participation in the communication.

Slightly off topic as far as my earlier point, but helps show the context of his comments.

Here's the link to the House record where I found this transcript. Mr. Tierney's comments are a little less than 1/3 of the way down the page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:4:./temp/~r110Ppj5lF:e29013

So are those things that the President has sought, or are those things that are in the law? It isn't clear to me, even from reading the comments around it in the record, exactly what he means.

[ACW]

ASF gets it. Why does Bush want the terrorists to win? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Teller]

So are those things that the President has sought, or are those things that are in the law? It isn't clear to me, even from reading the comments around it in the record, exactly what he means.

Truth be told, I'm not exactly sure either. However, if a seemingly well-intentioned congressman is concerned about it (even if he is a democrat from Massachussets :laugh: ) then maybe I should be too.

Look, Peter, I'm a conservative republican who voted for Bush twice. I don't have a hidden agenda as far as making the administration look bad. I'm just viewing this as a concerned American who is watching his civil liberties disappear before his eyes.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances here. When it was just NSA listening to alleged Al Qaeda suspects calling into this country. Hmm, hard to argue against that. I still don't think there is ANY excuse for not getting a FISA warrant later, but I certainly don't want to eliminate good intel.

But add to that the post office budget signing statement, in which Bush authorized himself to open ANY American's mail for ANY reason; and I know for DAMNED sure THAT'S unconstitutional.

There is a deliberate and systemic effort on behalf of this administration to erode civil liberties; and the fact that congress appears to be going along for the ride scares the **** out of me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. Bush should be impeached. Not for Iraq, but for warrantless spying on Americans; and for the P.O. signing statement. His #1 job, over and above EVERYTHING else, is to protect and defend the Constitution. At this point, I see him as one of her domestic enemies. Honestly. And I'm ashamed of the fact that I twice got duped into voting for the SOB.

[Ken]

Are you refering to the jet fuel that brought down two of the towers? Yes, it did. NIST did a whole study on this (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm). Are you saying that NIST is it on the cover up too? Why would they do that? These aren't people getting rich. They are basic science and engineers. And the data they released is faked?

I'm sorry, but I don't have 2 hrs to watch a video. If you want to pull out a quote or two that you think are of interest, that is a different story. People on this site have addressed the issues w/ the FED multiple times. In addition, there is a book called The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve, which I'd guess will adequately address the questions you have.

Yes.

Same guys who investigated Oklahoma City are the same ones who "investigated" the Twin towers. If you look at the experiment that they did involving trying to "weaken" the steel beams with a fire, it didn't even work.

Not only was the fire much hotter in the test, but it also had a consistent fuel source. Not exactly what was experienced on 911.

Guess they didn't put that part in the FAQ.

NOT ONLY THAT, but they used multiple shotgun blasts at close range to "dislodge" the fireproofing from the beams. This didn't work very well either.

I hate turning this thread into 911, but it is a fulcrum for what is happening in this country right now.

BTW, I'm still waiting for them to release their Building 7 report...

[Koolblue13]

A lot of us got fooled the first time Hog.

[Koolblue13]

I think 9/11 is relevent to this discussion as well Ken. That's the tool that is being used to comprimise the constitution, as well as brought us into the Iraqi occupation.

[Teller]

A lot of us got fooled the first time Hog.

Yeah, I know. And there were a lot of other factors that led to me buying it the second time around. I just still take a lot of this **** personally, because I consider myself to be intelligent, well informed, and a good judge of character. I'm not used to going 0-for-3 with 3 Ks. :doh: :laugh:

[Koolblue13]

Yeah, I know. And there were a lot of other factors that led to me buying it the second time around. I just still take a lot of this **** personally, because I consider myself to be intelligent, well informed, and a good judge of character. I'm not used to going 0-for-3 with 3 Ks. :doh: :laugh:

At least you've learned something, nothing wrong with that. By the way, it was a thread you started a while back about feeling betrayed by the GOP that got me hooked on this board. Thanks a lot. :laugh:

[Teller]

At least you've learned something, nothing wrong with that. By the way, it was a thread you started a while back about feeling betrayed by the GOP that got me hooked on this board. Thanks a lot. :laugh:

Yeah, that was kind of when reality set in for me. Kinda like the point last season when I realized that a team that was one play away from the NFC Championship game in 2005 was about to go 5-11. :doh: :doh: :doh:

[Larry]

Unless you talk to Osama on a daily basis, you have nothing to worry about.

Which you can declare with absolute certainty because

1. You, personally, have seen the list of every single person who has ever been monitored under this program, and the only name on the list of who's been monitored is Ossama, and you've verified that the specific language of the bill specifies that this law can only be used in the future against people who talk to Ossama on a daily basis.
   
2. Rush Limbaugh told you so, and he's seen the list of who it's been applied to.
   
3. You pulled this declaration out of your behind.
   

(Any bets?)

[Koolblue13]

Yeah, that was kind of when reality set in for me. Kinda like the point last season when I realized that a team that was one play away from the NFC Championship game in 2005 was about to go 5-11. :doh: :doh: :doh:

That was a terrible reference Hog. Acurate, but terrible.:laugh:

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF gets it. Why does Bush want the terrorists to win? :mad: :mad: :mad:

IMO, the fault does not simply rest with Bush, keep in mind who passed this domestic spying bill. The real test for the Dems will come in Jan 09 we'll see if the Democratic president will roll back these unConstitutional laws, we can only hope.

[PeterMP]

Truth be told, I'm not exactly sure either. However, if a seemingly well-intentioned congressman is concerned about it (even if he is a democrat from Massachussets :laugh: ) then maybe I should be too.

Look, Peter, I'm a conservative republican who voted for Bush twice. I don't have a hidden agenda as far as making the administration look bad. I'm just viewing this as a concerned American who is watching his civil liberties disappear before his eyes.

I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances here. When it was just NSA listening to alleged Al Qaeda suspects calling into this country. Hmm, hard to argue against that. I still don't think there is ANY excuse for not getting a FISA warrant later, but I certainly don't want to eliminate good intel.

But add to that the post office budget signing statement, in which Bush authorized himself to open ANY American's mail for ANY reason; and I know for DAMNED sure THAT'S unconstitutional.

There is a deliberate and systemic effort on behalf of this administration to erode civil liberties; and the fact that congress appears to be going along for the ride scares the **** out of me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. Bush should be impeached. Not for Iraq, but for warrantless spying on Americans; and for the P.O. signing statement. His #1 job, over and above EVERYTHING else, is to protect and defend the Constitution. At this point, I see him as one of her domestic enemies. Honestly. And I'm ashamed of the fact that I twice got duped into voting for the SOB.

I actually only voted for Bush once. I'd love to see them bring him up on charges for what he did w/ respect to the FISA court.

In general, I'd agree w/ you, but I believe two things:

1. Screaming about something that doesn't need to be screamed about only lessens the impact of when you do scream. So far I don't see the need to scream about this.

2. I actually don't think that many of "civil liberties" are protected by the Constitution. I'd love to see the Supreme Court start saying, 'we're sorry, but the Constitution is silent on this matter, but we really think an Ammendment to address it should be seriously considered.' To the point, I don't believe the postal system is mentioned in the Constitution. Is it really realistic to expect mail being handeled by the federal goverment not to be subjected by opening by agents of the federal goverment. I don't really see that.

[luckydevil]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. Bush should be impeached. Not for Iraq, but for warrantless spying on Americans; and for the P.O. signing statement.

Absolutely, Bruce Fein has made the same argument.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Which you can declare with absolute certainty because

1. You, personally, have seen the list of every single person who has ever been monitored under this program, and the only name on the list of who's been monitored is Ossama, and you've verified that the specific language of the bill specifies that this law can only be used in the future against people who talk to Ossama on a daily basis.
   
2. Rush Limbaugh told you so, and he's seen the list of who it's been applied to.
   
3. You pulled this declaration out of your behind.
   

(Any bets?)

Ok, I know its not A, but B and C seem equally plausible, but then some might argue that they are one and the same.

[Teller]

I actually only voted for Bush once. I'd love to see them bring him up on charges for what he did w/ respect to the FISA court.

In general, I'd agree w/ you, but I believe two things:

1. Screaming about something that doesn't need to be screamed about only lessens the impact of when you do scream. So far I don't see the need to scream about this.

2. I actually don't think that many of "civil liberties" are protected by the Constitution. I'd love to see the Supreme Court start saying, 'we're sorry, but the Constitution is silent on this matter, but we really think an Ammendment to address it should be seriously considered.' To the point, I don't believe the postal system is mentioned in the Constitution. Is it really realistic to expect mail being handeled by the federal goverment not to be subjected by opening by agents of the federal goverment. I don't really see that.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

[Larry]

I actually don't think that many of "civil liberties" are protected by the Constitution. I'd love to see the Supreme Court start saying, 'we're sorry, but the Constitution is silent on this matter, but we really think an Ammendment to address it should be seriously considered.' To the point, I don't believe the postal system is mentioned in the Constitution. Is it really realistic to expect mail being handeled by the federal goverment not to be subjected by opening by agents of the federal goverment. I don't really see that.

Problem with your argument (and all the folks who make similar arguments about "But the words 'enemy combatants' aren't in the Constitution", or "telephones weren't invented back then", or "the Constitution doesn't apply outside the US", or "but we're at War", or . . . ) is:

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What that says is that just because the word "fizbin" (Trekkie reference) doesn't exist in the Constitution, doesn't mean that if the President clicks his heels together and says "fizbin" three times, then he magically gains super powers, and the Constitution ceases to exist.

It means that there is no magical place (or time, or circumstance, or group of people) where the government has unlimited power, and people have zero rights.

It means that the world consists of exactly two areas:

• Places where the Constitution applies, fully, to everybody.
  
• Places where the US Government has no power whatsoever.
  

(And, FWIW, IMO, if Bush were to be impeached and/or tried for Treason, I wouldn't do it because of domestic spying or signing statements. My "case" would be Jose Padilla, the US citizen who Bush ordered "disappeared" and held without charges or access to his attorney for over three years. But that's just me.)

[PeterMP]

Problem with your argument (and all the folks who make similar arguments about "But the words 'enemy combatants' aren't in the Constitution", or "telephones weren't invented back then", or "the Constitution doesn't apply outside the US", or "but we're at War", or . . . ) is:

What that says is that just because the word "fizbin" (Trekkie reference) doesn't exist in the Constitution, doesn't mean that if the President clicks his heels together and says "fizbin" three times, then he magically gains super powers, and the Constitution ceases to exist.

It means that there is no magical place (or time, or circumstance, or group of people) where the government has unlimited power, and people have zero rights.

It means that the world consists of exactly two areas:

• Places where the Constitution applies, fully, to everybody.
  
• Places where the US Government has no power whatsoever.
  

(And, FWIW, IMO, if Bush were to be impeached and/or tried for Treason, I wouldn't do it because of domestic spying or signing statements. My "case" would be Jose Padilla, the US citizen who Bush ordered "disappeared" and held without charges or access to his attorney for over three years. But that's just me.)

And the problem w/ that logic is that by those rules the US Federal goverment doesn't have the ability or the rights to do lots of things that it does do and the vast majority of Americans think it should be doing. Powers not delegated to the Federal goverment in the Constitution would include running the US postal service (they could establish, but not run it), running Social Security. I mean let's be realistic. Given a strict reading of the Constitution as currently defined by the Supreme Court (and supported by many liberals), it shouldn't be illegal to yell fire in a crowded place (the 14th ammendment extends the rest of the Constitution to state and local goverments. Freedom of speech should extend to all goverments. Yelling fire in a crowded place is clearly speech, but that's not reasonable so there are all sorts of mental contortions that just become ridiculous when ever they try to address and issue like pornography.

The fact of the matter is that the US mail has in fact been considered to belong to the US federal goverment. Therefore it is only logical that the federal goverment would have the right to open it:

"And not only are the mails under the protection of the National Government, they are in contemplation of law its property. This principle was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1845 in holding that wagons carrying United States mail were not subject to a state toll tax imposed for use of the Cumberland Road pursuant to a compact with the United States.1393 "

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/39-post-office.html

Look, I'm not happy w/ how the Constitution is read on so many levels it isn't even funny, and that is the way the right and the left want it read so don't try and put me in either bucket. The fact of the matter is that both sides have distorted how it is read for their particular purposes at multipe times in history so I find it funny when one side complains. In the end the Supreme Court will make the decision. If you don't like the decision the Supreme Court makes, you have two options I guess, vote the people that put them there out, which won't probably actually do much good anytime soon, or go to work on getting a Constitutional Ammendment passed.

Otherwise you can scream it is Unconstitutional all you want, but it will have as much affect as the people who have been doing the same since Roe v. Wade. On the mail issue, we'll see what the court says.

In terms of an impeachment, I've contacted my elected officials on more than one occassion and told them I'd support an impeachment.