Bush broke the law

[xrayzebra]

These are Dubyas words. Is he lying then or is he lying now? Was he for a court order for wiretaps before he was against it? I know I know, i'm stuck under a bridge.

"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.
-George W. Bush



Next.

I give you an argument and you repeat the same old crap.

Court orders are required on "domestic" wire taps. They are also
required for a pen register (you know what that is?) The listening
he was doing was on "international" calls. Maybe from a phone
in the US and maybe not. But you don't need a court order to
listen in on international calls. Those are facts.

[FromWayDowntown]

I give you an argument and you repeat the same old crap.

Court orders are required on "domestic" wire taps. They are also
required for a pen register (you know what that is?) The listening
he was doing was on "international" calls. Maybe from a phone
in the US and maybe not. But you don't need a court order to
listen in on international calls. Those are facts.

That is NOT a fact. If you bug a phone in the United States, you have to have a warrant. Period. It doesn't matter that you're "only" listening to calls coming in from overseas -- though I have to say that I'm hard-pressed to understand how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls; there may be some technology there that I'm not familiar with, but it would seem to me that a tap will hear all calls, regardless of their source. As long as the White House was eavesdropping domestically, it HAD to have a warrant to comply with the 4th Amendment and the laws that Congress has enacted to aid the Executive in obtaining warrants. Then again, the Cons ution continues to be a trifiling issue for this White House, so I can see why all of the parrots are repeating this "Bush broke no law" mantra. Say anything enough and you'll eventually begin to believe it.

[SA210]

That is NOT a fact. If you bug a phone in the United States, you have to have a warrant. Period. It doesn't matter that you're "only" listening to calls coming in from overseas -- though I have to say that I'm hard-pressed to understand how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls; there may be some technology there that I'm not familiar with, but it would seem to me that a tap will hear all calls, regardless of their source. As long as the White House was eavesdropping domestically, it HAD to have a warrant to comply with the 4th Amendment and the laws that Congress has enacted to aid the Executive in obtaining warrants. Then again, the Cons ution continues to be a trifiling issue for this White House, so I can see why all of the parrots are repeating this "Bush broke no law" mantra. Say anything enough and you'll eventually begin to believe it.

Xray=OWNED

[xrayzebra]

That is NOT a fact. If you bug a phone in the United States, you have to have a warrant. Period. It doesn't matter that you're "only" listening to calls coming in from overseas -- though I have to say that I'm hard-pressed to understand how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls; there may be some technology there that I'm not familiar with, but it would seem to me that a tap will hear all calls, regardless of their source. As long as the White House was eavesdropping domestically, it HAD to have a warrant to comply with the 4th Amendment and the laws that Congress has enacted to aid the Executive in obtaining warrants. Then again, the Cons ution continues to be a trifiling issue for this White House, so I can see why all of the parrots are repeating this "Bush broke no law" mantra. Say anything enough and you'll eventually begin to believe it.

They were not bugging a telephone in the US, they were monitoring the
international frequencies used in satellite communications. Calls
coming into/out of the US. No person is actually involved. The computer
uses a program that listens for certain words/phrases and earmarks
them for someone to actually listen to them. We and other governments
do it all over the world. More than likely the monitoring was not even
done in the US but some overseas listening post.

[boutons_]

"how one could bug a phone to listen in only on international calls;"

I not an expert on telephony or the state of telephone networks, but I'm pretty sure ALL voice is now digitized, and 1000s of conversations travel over a single strand of fiber, domesticaly or crossing oceans, travelling over the same pipes as computer traffic, which is, of course, digital.

What I understood was that the commercial telephone/data network operators were cooperating with the feds in allowing them to vacuum all data right out of the main network switches, essentially a fishing expedition, sucking in everything, and probably storing as much of it as possible, but it would be huge, many terabytes per day or hour.

We are not talking about the feds not/getting a warrant to drive over to your local branch exchange and placing a "bug" on the 2 telephone wires that go to your house.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Um I'm gonna call bull on xray's international calls theory, they issue is that Bush is using wiretaps on american citizens, domestic wiretaps, wiretaps that the administration has admited have been used for suspected terrorists and applied without hesitation on all calls comming in and out of the "suspects" phone.

And as for the inteligence, bush knew that the intellegence was unrealiable...because the breifs he had all had very large, boldface disclaimers.

THIS IS JUST SPECULATION: NOT A CERTAINITY

[SA210]

^^^ yes, but Xrays only response, much like Gtown's is to call you a traitor and tell u to get out of America because your against the troops, or he'll ignore it, go away, then come back tomorrow spewing the same garbage pretentding this all never took place.

[IceColdBrewski]

I really cant believe there are people who can defend this... tell me is there a reason for this blind loyalty to bush?

[Oh, Gee!!]

didn't you pick USC over TX?

[SA210]

Oh yea, that's why he won the election.

[Ocotillo]

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

"Here's my liberty, spare me death." - Bush apologists

[ChumpDumper]

I thought it was "Give me WMDs or give me a link to Osama or, give me any reason to invade Iraq. I'll buy the ribbons."

[SA210]

[xrayzebra]

^^^ yes, but Xrays only response, much like Gtown's is to call you a traitor and tell u to get out of America because your against the troops, or he'll ignore it, go away, then come back tomorrow spewing the same garbage pretentding this all never took place.

Who the did I call a traitor? You silly, silly person. I will call you what
you are, a silly twerp who has no sense of reasoning. You and your buddies
live in you dream world. You are so lucky you have some people of reason
protecting your rear end.

[SA210]

Well, Bush sure ain't protecting it.

[xrayzebra]

Well, Bush sure ain't protecting it.

Another silly editorial cartoon, posted by the the same silly person:
SA210=stuck under a bridge

[SA210]

Hey Xray, your post doesn't change the fact that it was just a Photo opportunity for Bush and staged.

Xray=Disgruntled selfish man

[RobinsontoDuncan]

^^

ha ha he answers your insults to him that were a response to what i wrote.... then he completelty ignores my post... wow he proved you right!

[SA210]

[RobinsontoDuncan]

bump til he answers my post

[Yonivore]

Well, you're the idiots who impeached him for a blowjob -- seems you should've gotten your together a little better. Too bad for you.

You're the idiot who doesn't know what perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice are. But, if you consider these lesser crimes than receiving a blowjob -- fine -- he was impeached for receiving a blowjob.

[Yonivore]

"Give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry

"Here's my liberty, spare me death." - Bush apologists

Name one liberty you've lost since President Bush was inaugurated on January 21, 2001.

"If Al Qaeda calls you, I want to know what you're talking about. I think that's reasonable." -- President Bush.

[Trainwreck2100]

What happened to blaming the Arabs????

[boutons_]

Mantras 1, 2, 3 should be "9/11".

And no "national security" mantra, the ancient catchall, coverall "reason" for any old thing they want to do illegally or secretly. This one goes way back, at least to Nixon.

[Ocotillo]

Name one liberty you've lost since President Bush was inaugurated on January 21, 2001.

"If Al Qaeda calls you, I want to know what you're talking about. I think that's reasonable." -- President Bush.

Bush claims he can listen to my calls without a warrant. If the calls are from al qaeda, FISA courts will grant him a warrant. When the executive branch is spying on our citizens without a check and balance, someone's liberty is being infringed upon. When one American's liberty is infringed upon, all of our liberty is infringed upon.

Bush's statements don't wash. The cons utional protections we have are to protect against what Bush is doing. If I am communicating with the enemy, any court will grant a warrant. Without the warrant, we have no idea who they are spying on and why.