Something we can all agree on

Warrants are needed for criminal prosecutions. These "wiretaps" are a foreign intelligence matter so warrants aren't required/useful (no criminal prosecutions were intended). AIUI, a warrant couldn't be had for these since we had no idea who was being listening to or for what. At least part of the deal seems to have been phone numbers collected off known terrorists' laptops. "Tapping" these numbers for information is a bad thing?

--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith
Loading thread data ...

and

Do you think only "non-citizens" are targets of the wiretaps?

Reply to
Richard Henry

message

that

"damages

for

for

off

and

The law in question (FISA 1978) defines "United States Person" for its application. It can be viewed on this page:

formatting link

Reply to
Richard Henry

Well, they hate the Democrats for exposing their crimes, but they sure do love to cite them as precedent when it provides an excuse for them.

I belive George Orwell called this "doublethink."

Thanks, Rich

--
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo Possum
Reply to
Richard the Dreaded Libertaria

Do you extend the definition of "the people" to include foreign/non-citizens?

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

I don't generally watch O'Reilly... I find him just a big bully, disagree and get talked over... just like the leftist weenie style of "debate" ;-) But I did watch when "Rummy" was on.

"Rumsfeld gets to lie" is just your leftist weenie take. I think "Rummy" is a very straight-up kind of guy.

You leftist weenies should love to twist up what was actually said. Maybe you're hard of hearing ?:-)

And you are characteristically undereducated and can't spell ;-)

FOX quotes Limpballs as a source of fact? I think not.

I guess I left out blind... you leftist weenies take NYT blather as truth ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

I've taken to watching O'Reilly lately*. His Dec 16 interview with Rumsfeld was a classic. Here is a transcript:

formatting link

It was enjoyable to watch O'Reilly bend over for Rummy, make excuses for the horrible failures, and to try to encourage him to 'fight back' against those liars like Murtha. Rumsfeld demurred, excusing Murtha by saying he was was just misinformed. Rumsfeld is a lot smarter than O'Reilly, of course. He realizes that people pay attention to what he says, so he lets O'Reilly make up the lies, and then is just 'too polite' to argue against them... So, Rumsfeld gets to lie without actually saying the words. Smart, eh?

I've also taken to enjoying "Mr Waterboard" Brit Hume... torture? No problem... wiretapping? No problem... Iraq in turmoil? No, things are getting better, but the evil 'mainstream liberal media' isn't reporting that, since they hate the president and our soldiers. Our "Fair and Balanced" reporting is a lighthouse of truth in a sea of liberal lies. The liberal press wants our soldiers to be killed and maimed by roadside bombs, or they wouldn't be reporting that the president taps the phones of American citizens, and snoops their library checkouts, and holds them without trial for years, and cuts taxes on the wealthy as the country sinks into debt, and guts environmental protection law. If only the president were declared Der Furor, the trains would be running on time again!

Oh, and Rush Limbaugh, now there is a guy to admire... He just makes stuff up, and then points out that anybody who doesn't believe his filthy lies is being influenced by those nasty liberal media types. He is right there, because A) Everybody is to his left, and B) paying attention to any media at all other than him makes it clear that he is a lying idiot, who gets his so-called facts from some kind of oxycontin induced trance. Sadly, FOX then feels the need to report his brain-damaged lies, since they are 'fair and balanced'...

I don't think the problem is with the NYT. They actually seem to care when somebody points out factual errors (unlike those FOX bozos). Their editorial page is fairly liberal, particularly with Safire gone, but if you do the research, their news is not the moronic half baked blather of FOX; they often try to do actual reporting, instead of just reading handouts from the administration. If that reporting turns up a fact that the president doesn't like (like this recent wiretapping thing) they have no obligation to hold it (Although they did hold this one for a year for some reason, to their shame); they need to report it, so we can talk about it and figure out whether that is the kind of thing we as Americans should be doing...

(*) Seeing O'Reilly in action makes "The Colbert Report" much funnier.

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Monsen

Hey, Jim, this "leftist weenie" thing is getting very tiresome.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Evidence obtained without warrant is generally NOT admissible to court unless there's some other kind of probable cause, like a police officer witnessing something illegal, THEN searching your car.

Ooops! I just realized that you're Canadian. Isn't your warrant system just like ours?

You quote a leftist weenie source ?:-)

What BS!

And Carter didn't recently 'fess up ???

Talk about arguing without facts!

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Bwahahahaha!

I see! Leftist traitors are whistle-blowers, but right wingers are guilty as certified by NYT ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

And your source is? NYT no doubt ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Sorry, I don't believe it. Either you are making this up, or you are quoting somebody who is making it up.

The recent 'Clinton thought it was OK' idea originated with an OpEd by a deputy attorney general under Clinton. He apparently got the facts wrong. I wonder why your sources didn't feel the need to post a retraction when this was pointed out? The conservative pundits are still using this as evidence that *everybody* does it, when, in fact, *nobody* does it except Bush.

Here is an analysis:

formatting link

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Monsen

They are simply exhausting the administrative approaches required before the circuit court will consider their petition for a writ ordering the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel. Bush is in trouble because he has been taking counsel from the likes of the imbecilic fringe nut, and product of the racial quota system, by the name of John Yoo Choo, a thoroughly unqualified p.o.s. and racial token. You can see the idiot kow-tow here:

formatting link
, and you can read what *real* Constitutional scholars have to say about his intellectual abilities and sorry attempts at scholarship here:
formatting link
, Cole is a Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown who *earned* his status, it was not handed to him because of his race.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

Of course, violating security clearances is a crime, and those who do it should be punished.

On the other hand, these 'leakers' were more like whistleblowers, trying to alert the public to what they considered abuses of power. At least they weren't doing it for crass political gain...

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Monsen

The other presidents never did this. It is all a lie, made up by the Republicans to try to cover their asses.

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Bob Monsen

I agree, but why didn't they get a warrant from the FISA Court, it would have been a done deal?

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

Funnily enough I'm reading 1984 right now.

Another classic example of 'newspeak' from that is *thoughcrime*. Kinda scary. Mind you I reckon Rumsfeld et al thought as much of any criticism of the Iraq fiasco.

Graham

Reply to
Pooh Bear

thoughtcrime of course - sodding keyboard decided to slip off the one underneath it !

Reply to
Pooh Bear

We don't know all the facts but what I gather thus far is that the surveillance was a mix of massive data mining and individual surveillance. Apparently the opposition "knows" there was illegal individual surveillance going on- this must have come from an informant in the administration- and this is what they are going after. They will not be pressing for prosecution based on the mass data mining. Also, from what I read, they have been applying for and obtaining warrants from the FISA Court all along- but just not in all cases, and this is the gotcha.

Reply to
Fred Bloggs

What, I should change to leftist wiener ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.