Reply With Quote
That's assuming two things...first, the searches were "unreasonable" and two, they are subject to fourth amendment protections.
You've shown no evidence nor have you provided any arguments to support either of those assumptions.
Once you put it on the air, especially on an international basis, you have
not rights, none, nil, Nada. Got it. Otherwise, others, not just the good
old USA would not be listening to your conversation, dummy. Which part
of international do you not understand? You think we are only ones
monitoring phone/internet transmissions? Damn, you are stupid as a
doorknob.
That's assuming two things...first, the searches were "unreasonable" and two, they are subject to fourth amendment protections.
You've shown no evidence nor have you provided any arguments to support either of those assumptions.
Here's a question for you. How do you know, since your President-King has seen fit to go around the Cons ution, that he is confining his "activities" to international and foreign en ies? Just blind faith and trust?Once you put it on the air, especially on an international basis, you have
not rights, none, nil, Nada. Got it. Otherwise, others, not just the good
old USA would not be listening to your conversation, dummy. Which part
of international do you not understand? You think we are only ones
monitoring phone/internet transmissions? Damn, you are stupid as a
doorknob.
It may be. But, considering the leakers didn't indicate any spying beyond what was reported in the New York Times, you can't point to anything that would make it suspect.
Do these types of statements really lend any support to your position?
because the burden is on the government to show that they either complied with the 4th or some valid exception to the normal rule. I say they didn't given the fact that they were so secretive about what they were doing as to not even avail themselves of a secret court that rubber-stamps 99.9999999% of the requests for warrants. You say they did and copied-and-pasted some googled articles.
Well, since the current and former NSA employees who leaked the information, clearly violated the law I'm assuming they would have had no problem exposing any operations that exceeded what has already been reported.
You're jumping to conclusions that are neither supported by the evidence nor by those who illegally leaked the program in the first place. Don't you think these traitors would have leaked the most egregious violations committed by the President?
Answer: They did.
Why? You've presented nothing that shows a violation of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches. Nor have you given any evidence any law was violated. Incidentally, neither have those that leaked the secret program in the first place.
I guess since he went to Congress many times with what he was doing.
I want to ask you a question. How come you aren't questioning the Clinton
administrations actions, since they went into a US CITIZENS home without
a warrant and searched it. Since they had 500 FBI files of citizens of this
country. Since they TOOK foreign money for political purposes. Since they
went before a Congressional committee and said the President had inherent
powers to do warrant less searches. Give me a break, People who live in
glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You can go back in history and find
all the Presidents exercised their authority.
super-secret spying on US citizens which occurs and originates in the US without a warrant (either before or after the fact) is the violation. There's not an exception for that.
Actually, I said it is likely they will argue they couldn't use FISA because of restrictive language.
But, clearly, it is futile to discuss national security issues on a forum in which none of the participants have (nor should have) access to the necessary information to make a conclusive judgement.
I'll rely on my point that those who leaked the program would have -- since they were clearly violating the law anyway -- given the New York Times the most egregious instances of Presidential excesses.
If they have, then that is to what we should confine our arguments. If they haven't, well, how stupid are they? Risk prison for revealing a secret program that turns out to be legal? That's pretty stupid.
Yeah, let's not question the King on the internets. Cuz that's how rumors get started
Where have you heard it said that the spying originated in the U.S.?
And, there is an exception. I've already explained them; but, for your benefit, 1) reasonableness of the search, 2) executed pursuant to article II Cons utional powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and responsible for the security of the country, and 3) Authority granted by Congress in the Use of Force in Afghanistan legislation.
Pay attention.
What are you, the ing debate police?Do these types of statements really lend any support to your position?
I was just saying neither you nor I have the requisite information -- nor do we even hope of having it -- to reach a conclusion.
But, even so; don't you think that the people who leaked this to the New York Times believed -- as you do -- that the President was doing something wrong or they wouldn't have leaked it? Further, do you believe that a person who is willing to stake their career and freedom on the premise that the public has a right to know about this program would bother to provide us with the most damning instances of abuse -- not those which have already been successfully argued to be legal and cons utional?
So, since the leakers didn't make an adequate case, you feel the license to start making up, like he was "probably" spying on regular people or "how do we know what he was doing."
Well, if he was doing those things, I'm presuming his opponents who actually were involved in the program and leaked the information to the press would have said so. Don't you?
Yeah, why?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.
I googled this and I will not take credit for its content. These are not my words.
Notice, Yoni, it doesn't say Americans overseas, it say Americans communicating with people overseas.
It is called "international calls". I N T E R N A T I O N A L. Not
domestic.
Where were the NSA agents and the surveillance equipment when the spying was being conducted?
We weren't talking about upon whom they were spying but from where they were doing the spying.
If they're sitting in an embassy in Moscow, they're not exactly originating in the U.S., are they Einstein?
Like I said, we don't know enough. But, we do know the traitors didn't make any allegations like those you've started spewing.
We don't know enough but we know that Dubya did nothing wrong and shouldn't be questioned? Wow.
No, I'm saying given what we do know, the general concensus is that he violated no laws or cons utional articles.
So, you've questioned. No one said you shouldn't. I believe the questions have been adequately answered and I've gone to great lengths to show why. You don't he's answered adequately but, you can't explain on what you base your disatisfaction other than a basic distrust of George W. Bush -- also on which you have provided no basis.
Where, on right-wing blogs and talk radio?
I gave my reasons but you disregard that. It's okay I've stopped taking anything you post seriously awhile ago.
No, the New York Times article and every legal opinion cited in my previous posts.
Really, list one reason you posted that shows what the President did was illegal or uncons utional.
nah, I'm bored. Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you too.
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12...A%20letter.pdf
Here you go Bush-haters. Can't wait to see your responses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions