Bush: Black Is White

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

Oh Crap!!!

I hope they didn’t listen in on my call to Africa to ask my girlfriend’s dad if I could marry her.

Seriously, though…I’m not a big fan of having a surveillance society, but did anyone not think for the last 5 years that the higher-ups would not be doing this - listening to calls - trying to divert future attacks.

Really, I get upset with people who are mind-blown that this was going on.

You know - I reasoned with the fact that it’s more than likely that if I try to plan a terrorist attack or assassination over the phone, black helicopters will soon be circling my house…so I don’t use the phone for those types of things…I use it to keep in contact with my family and friends and keep them abreast of what’s going on with my life.

Anyways, this is what it boils down to…Bush’s people didn’t jump through the right hoops, and now he’s getting hung out for it - has it prevented terrorist attacks on our country? Probably.

…but damn George Bush for invading our privacy.

CR

102

[quote]msuchancey wrote:

Seriously, though…I’m not a big fan of having a surveillance society, but did anyone not think for the last 5 years that the higher-ups would not be doing this - listening to calls - trying to divert future attacks.
…[/quote]

Agreed. I don’t want a surveillance society either. I think traffic cameras are a much bigger problem than this program.

No one seems to care about that.

103

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

The foriegn calls were foriegn to foriegn and foriegn to US phone calls.

Why would 3 Democrats object if the briefing was as you claim and Graham tries to claim?

Get with reality here.

Only select members of Congress are kept in the loop on espionage affairs.

Just because some congressman say they were out of the loop means nothing.[/quote]

Instead of asking me why don’t you just read what they said for God’s sake. Graham’s position is so damn clear–he didn’t hear anything about warrantless domestic surveillance.

Here’s Pelosi’s declassified letter and response.
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Jan06/declassified.html
Again her “briefing” seems to be the NSA saying they’ve expanded operations. How, under what authority, etc…Pelosi doesn’t know.

Here’s Rockefeller’s letter:
"July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller"

Note Rockefeller can’t even reflect with legal counsel to figure the legality of the information presented, and does not endorse the activities. Also note the date so at that point the NSA had already been doing this for 2 years. And yet you will still lie and say Congress was briefed.

You said:
“Why would 3 Democrats object if the briefing was as you claim and Graham tries to claim?”

Why in the hell wouldn’t a sensible person object?

104

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, why did 3 Democrats object when in your mind they were

a. not briefed and/or
b. were briefed but fooled into believing there were warrants?

[/quote]

a. “Briefed” (again not to National Security Act demands), but not informed. Example: we’re expanding our operations. How? We can’t tell you.

b. Obvious fake question. How are you fooled when you’re not told. They were not told “we are now expanding our operations massively into domestic surveillance, we will be working around FISA and without warrants while eavesdropping on thousands of americans, the president believes you have authorized him to do this and if you haven’t he has the inherent authority to do so anyway.”

105

[quote]msuchancey wrote:

Anyways, this is what it boils down to…Bush’s people didn’t jump through the right hoops, and now he’s getting hung out for it - has it prevented terrorist attacks on our country? Probably.

CR[/quote]

Hilarious. That’s really what it boils down, all the outrage because the president didn’t “jump through the right hoops”

I think it’s more of the congressional reach around and current illegality of domestic surveillance without warrants, and the implications of a president who thinks he has inherent authority to do whatever he wants during a “war” that stretches into infinity, and all the lies, contradictions, spewed by the admin along the way.

As for your made up guess on the program preventing attacks…

“The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. “There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,” the former F.B.I. official said.”

and

"In response to the F.B.I. complaints, N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more “calls to Pizza Hut,” one official, who supervised field agents, said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ex=1138770000&en=b4f352627fbfa8d1&ei=5070

Or how about: did this program need to be carried out illegally to prevent attacks? Probably not.

106

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, why did 3 Democrats object when in your mind they were

a. not briefed and/or
b. were briefed but fooled into believing there were warrants?

a. “Briefed” (again not to National Security Act demands), but not informed. Example: we’re expanding our operations. How? We can’t tell you.

b. Obvious fake question. How are you fooled when you’re not told. They were not told “we are now expanding our operations massively into domestic surveillance, we will be working around FISA and without warrants while eavesdropping on thousands of americans, the president believes you have authorized him to do this and if you haven’t he has the inherent authority to do so anyway.”

[/quote]

What did they object to if they were not told?

Stop with the spin and think about it.

No one has any way of knowing what was said behind closed doors. Al that crap you posted is spin.

How could 3 Democrats object to something they were not told?

107

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

The foriegn calls were foriegn to foriegn and foriegn to US phone calls.

Why would 3 Democrats object if the briefing was as you claim and Graham tries to claim?

Get with reality here.

Only select members of Congress are kept in the loop on espionage affairs.

Just because some congressman say they were out of the loop means nothing.

Instead of asking me why don’t you just read what they said for God’s sake. Graham’s position is so damn clear–he didn’t hear anything about warrantless domestic surveillance.

Here’s Pelosi’s declassified letter and response.
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Jan06/declassified.html
Again her “briefing” seems to be the NSA saying they’ve expanded operations. How, under what authority, etc…Pelosi doesn’t know.

Here’s Rockefeller’s letter:
"July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller"

Note Rockefeller can’t even reflect with legal counsel to figure the legality of the information presented, and does not endorse the activities. Also note the date so at that point the NSA had already been doing this for 2 years. And yet you will still lie and say Congress was briefed.
[/quote]

He wrote the letter in response to the briefing!

He questioned the legality of it in the letter!

How could he do that if he wasn’t briefed?!?!?!?!?!?

What part don’t you understand?

He knew it was happening!!!

This was not going on in secret!!!

Senators from both sides of the aisle knew.

How can you possibly claim they were not briefed??

108

[quote]100meters wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
100meters wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

He didn’t need the permission. You are just plain wrong and by all the polls taken it seems like at leat half of the nation agrees with the policy anyway.

He is the President, this is a time of war and he had every right to do what he did.

Yes he does. Please read FISA for God’s sake. If FISA exists, and FISA is the law, then I at least have to be kind of right, right?

anyway polls…what poll shows a majority of Americans supporting the president if he did not get warrants? Most americans support the NSA spying on al queda–that’s not the issue though. I’d love to see the poll you’re citing (probably made up-but maybe you’ve got one…).

The last zogby poll said a majority support impeachment if the president did not get warrants. That’s kind of like the opposite of what you’re saying…so my guess is you’re just making stuff up again.

Well, I don’t know what polls you are looking at, but the polls that I have seen look evenly divided to me. I don’t “make stuff up again” or otherwise, and personal attacks are not warranted nor do they add anything to an intellectual discussion, if that is what we are having.

Let me play your game though. Let’s say that the law is clear and even in a time of war the President must go to some judge to get a warrant. Why would the administration break the law? What advantage would they have for doing so? Are you saying that all of the White House attorneys are idiots?

I did read FISA – there is an exemption during war. Do you understand that we are in a war? The widows and widowers of the 9/11 victims here in N.Y. understand that.

Now, I know this hurts you MA liberals, but repeat after me:

(1) George W. Bush is our President.

(2) George W. Bush is the Commander n Chief of the U.S. Armed forces.

Now repeat these two over and over again until you come to understand what that means. I am sorry for you that John (‘flip flop’) Kerry didn’t win the election. Get over it!

He did NOT need the warrants. He is the President…

Heck of a legal argument.
You read FISA, how long of an exemption?
And I’m from N.Y. lived in Greenpoint on 9/11. N.Y.ers don’t support the president.

Please stop making things up. This isn’t the intelligent design thread.
[/quote]

Hey 100 meters,

I was not making a legal argument, but a constitutional one. You remember the Constitution, don’t you? I know you liberals have a problem with this document, but IT is the law of the land!

Now, about making stuff up – is it that when people don’t agree with you “100 meters” that you just accuse them of making stuff up? I stated two constitutional principles. Which of these principles that can be found in the Constituion has been made up? Hmmm?

Perhaps if you read the Constitution and had less of an allegience to Socialistic, left-wing ideology, you could see what I am talking about…

109

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
msuchancey wrote:

Seriously, though…I’m not a big fan of having a surveillance society, but did anyone not think for the last 5 years that the higher-ups would not be doing this - listening to calls - trying to divert future attacks.
…

Agreed. I don’t want a surveillance society either. I think traffic cameras are a much bigger problem than this program.

No one seems to care about that. [/quote]

I agree about this. Nothing screams big brother like cameras at intersections.

110

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
msuchancey wrote:

Seriously, though…I’m not a big fan of having a surveillance society, but did anyone not think for the last 5 years that the higher-ups would not be doing this - listening to calls - trying to divert future attacks.
…

Agreed. I don’t want a surveillance society either. I think traffic cameras are a much bigger problem than this program.

No one seems to care about that.

I agree about this. Nothing screams big brother like cameras at intersections.[/quote]

It is just a way to suck money out of peoples pockets. I cannot believe the American people stand for them. If they had them near me I would have to sabotage them.

I hear they are everywere in Britian.

111

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
msuchancey wrote:

Seriously, though…I’m not a big fan of having a surveillance society, but did anyone not think for the last 5 years that the higher-ups would not be doing this - listening to calls - trying to divert future attacks.
…

Agreed. I don’t want a surveillance society either. I think traffic cameras are a much bigger problem than this program.

No one seems to care about that.

I agree about this. Nothing screams big brother like cameras at intersections.

It is just a way to suck money out of peoples pockets. I cannot believe the American people stand for them. If they had them near me I would have to sabotage them.

I hear they are everywere in Britian.[/quote]

Yes, they were terrible. So terrible, in fact, that the cameras were instrumental in catching some of the London bombers – I think I remember hearing about that in the news.

All surveillance isn’t bad. I used to manage branches for a large bank here in N.Y. I was very glad to have cameras and barriers in my offices to DETER possible crime. Surveillance is only bad if you are the bad guy. Otherwise, who cares? I don’t particularly like all of the cameras, but if I am a law abiding citizen and the cameras would either deter crime or help catch the bad guys, then let’m roll!

112

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, why did 3 Democrats object when in your mind they were

a. not briefed and/or
b. were briefed but fooled into believing there were warrants?

a. “Briefed” (again not to National Security Act demands), but not informed. Example: we’re expanding our operations. How? We can’t tell you.

b. Obvious fake question. How are you fooled when you’re not told. They were not told “we are now expanding our operations massively into domestic surveillance, we will be working around FISA and without warrants while eavesdropping on thousands of americans, the president believes you have authorized him to do this and if you haven’t he has the inherent authority to do so anyway.”

What did they object to if they were not told?

Stop with the spin and think about it.

No one has any way of knowing what was said behind closed doors. Al that crap you posted is spin.

How could 3 Democrats object to something they were not told?[/quote]

You are exhausting. You have a meeting with Hayden, you send him a letter at the time expressing your concerns that weren’t answered and you call it spin?

And can you please pretend for a second that some issues, discussions might be “complicated”? Can you object to something that you haven’t been fully informed about, of course…you do it all the time.

113

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He wrote the letter in response to the briefing!

He questioned the legality of it in the letter!

How could he do that if he wasn’t briefed?!?!?!?!?!?

What part don’t you understand?

He knew it was happening!!!

This was not going on in secret!!!

Senators from both sides of the aisle knew.

How can you possibly claim they were not briefed??
[/quote]

oh.
my.
god.
Just how hard is it for you to wrap your mind around simple matters.

The NSA was responsible for foreign intelligence. They tell you in a meeting we are expanding our operations domestically. In most congressmen’s minds this might raise ethical, legal, and of course technical questions relating to legality etc… that would create a need for more info (example: would this fall under FISA? We can’t tell you/ no answer.) With no ability to consult anykind of counsel and no answers from NSA or the admin, how would you know the legality, how would you know anything? Again what Graham and Rockefeller and Pelosi were informed about was the NSA moving into the new(for them) realm of foreign communications transited through u.s. communication sites. This doesn’t mean spying on americans without warrants! They’re legal concerns then quite possibly have nothing to do with the legal concerns now. And their objections then may not be the same objections now, because as Graham said:

GRAHAM: I was briefed. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal ? and I think unconstitutional ? eavesdropping on American citizens.

Translation for you: I was briefed on the NSA expanding its surveillance into foreign communications transiting throught u.s. communication centers, I was never briefed on warrantless domestic (hence illegal) surveillance.

114

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Hey 100 meters,

I was not making a legal argument, but a constitutional one. You remember the Constitution, don’t you? I know you liberals have a problem with this document, but IT is the law of the land!

Now, about making stuff up – is it that when people don’t agree with you “100 meters” that you just accuse them of making stuff up? I stated two constitutional principles. Which of these principles that can be found in the Constituion has been made up? Hmmm?

Perhaps if you read the Constitution and had less of an allegience to Socialistic, left-wing ideology, you could see what I am talking about…

[/quote]

You stated 2 points, but did not make a constitutional case in regards to the domestic surveillance without warrants program.

For laughs you said:
"(1) George W. Bush is our President.

(2) George W. Bush is the Commander n Chief of the U.S. Armed forces."

Neither points say anything about domestic surveillance without warrants. The supreme court on the other hand has previously ruled the President must obtain warrants for domestic eavesdropping.

In fact they ruled 8-0 in the Keith case that the president did not have the authority to do so.

The freedoms protected by the Fourth Amendment “cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillance may be conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch,‘’ wrote Justice Lewis Powell, a Nixon appointee.”

Even if the case involves national security (as Nixon claimed) the president still had to seek a warrant based on probable cause.

The supreme court has also said (YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER) the president does not have the power to defy congress.

Ok, so you’re kind of dead wrong. And making stuff up.

Of course, this is constitutional stuff, and as a Republican, you really don’t care about the constitution do you? Cause your party kind of likes to piss on it remember?

115

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

All surveillance isn’t bad. I used to manage branches for a large bank here in N.Y. I was very glad to have cameras and barriers in my offices to DETER possible crime. Surveillance is only bad if you are the bad guy. Otherwise, who cares? I don’t particularly like all of the cameras, but if I am a law abiding citizen and the cameras would either deter crime or help catch the bad guys, then let’m roll![/quote]

Uhmm… It would also be bad if you liked things like…“privacy” (hey it’s a constitutional thing so you probably wouldn’t understand)

116

I hope this doesn’t come before the Supreme Court until we have a Democratic president. Then I hope it is struck down just to watch 100meters head explode.

117

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He wrote the letter in response to the briefing!

He questioned the legality of it in the letter!

How could he do that if he wasn’t briefed?!?!?!?!?!?

What part don’t you understand?

He knew it was happening!!!

This was not going on in secret!!!

Senators from both sides of the aisle knew.

How can you possibly claim they were not briefed??

oh.
my.
god.
Just how hard is it for you to wrap your mind around simple matters.

The NSA was responsible for foreign intelligence. They tell you in a meeting we are expanding our operations domestically. In most congressmen’s minds this might raise ethical, legal, and of course technical questions relating to legality etc… that would create a need for more info (example: would this fall under FISA? We can’t tell you/ no answer.) With no ability to consult anykind of counsel and no answers from NSA or the admin, how would you know the legality, how would you know anything? Again what Graham and Rockefeller and Pelosi were informed about was the NSA moving into the new(for them) realm of foreign communications transited through u.s. communication sites. This doesn’t mean spying on americans without warrants! They’re legal concerns then quite possibly have nothing to do with the legal concerns now. And their objections then may not be the same objections now, because as Graham said:

GRAHAM: I was briefed. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal ? and I think unconstitutional ? eavesdropping on American citizens.

Translation for you: I was briefed on the NSA expanding its surveillance into foreign communications transiting throught u.s. communication centers, I was never briefed on warrantless domestic (hence illegal) surveillance.[/quote]

The briefing told him they were not going to use warrants. That is why Rockefeller objected.

Why else would Rockefeller object and write that letter?

Graham did not assume they were getting warrants. His interview was bullshit.

Do you really not understand this?

Are you that dumb/blind?

This is pretty simple.

They were briefed.

Some objected because no warrants were to be used.

They knew what was going on. End of discussion.

118

GRAHAM: "I was briefed. "
(This is true, he was briefed)

“There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal ? and I think unconstitutional ? eavesdropping on American citizens.”
(Since the eavesdropping was necessary, legal and constitutional this statement is meaningless and solely for the consumption of those too stupid to understand that he is playing smear politics)

119

9/11 Commission: FISA Court Too Slow

"The FISA application process continues to be long and slow. Requests for approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct a surveillance.?

"The ‘wall’ between criminal and intelligence investigations apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations.

"Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance. Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved at FBI Headquarters and the Department of Justice was incredibly lengthy and inefficient.

“Several FBI agents added that, prior to 9/11, FISA-derived intelligence information was not fully exploited but was collected primarily to justify continuing the surveillance.”

120

Not to change the subject…

But is this as illegal as Clinton selling the whitehouse to China? selling nuclear tech to China and N. Korea? Telling lies under oath?

Just a thought.

Maybe Bush was/is wrong (and anyone who knows me knows I’m no fan of Bush) but at least he did it for the right reasons…as oppossed to Clinton selling the Whitehouse and American Security down the pooper.