Reply With Quote
Reps have no chance.
I signed up Feburary of 2003. Unfortunately I could not get in due my health record ( I contracted Mono on 4 seperate occassions within a 3yr span).
I wouldn't mind our taxes being raised if I knew our money would be spent on an offensive statagey combating terrorist, thus ensuring the safety of our nation and our freedom.
Reps have no chance.
I don't know about you, but I like my freedom:
- Without illegal government wiretaps
- With respect for justice and due process
- Without the presumption of being a terrorist before I show otherwise
- Without the fear mongering and plain FUD campaign.
I am now dumber for having read this.
Thanks, asshole.
Really...If your really concerned about your level of intellegence, then get off this board and read a book.
Your words of vulgarity have enlightened me.It's the vulgarity that I have recieved from those that identify themselves as liberal, which has contributed to my biased distain towards the democratic party. That's unfair to those democrats that actually want to work proactively for this nation. Unfortanety, the inconsideration of others, such as "Dark Reign", conitnue to hinder such progress.
You couldnt find "freedom" and "safety" with two hands and a flashlight on an island.Really...If your really concerned about your level of intellegence, then get off this board and read a book.
Your words of vulgarity have enlightened me.
Newsflash, your "taxes" being raised wouldnt pay for this "offensive strategy" to combat a moving target of ambiguous nature we call "terrorism" with your paltry $14 an hour job.
"If it weren't for that damn mono" says cheney.
So what if we had the wire tapping before 9/11 and were able to stop it. Would you give 2 s if the goverment listened in on a conversation between you and your boyfriend???
Besides now that the liberal media and ACLU got all up in arms about it, any potential terrorists living in the US have now has found an alternate means of communication. Thanks a lot.
they had the same information about the impending attack that they would have had with wiretaps.
what good is information if you don't act on it?
Thats right I forgot, Its that heathen George W. Bush, who planned 9/11,(thank you Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donell) so that we could eventually go to war with Iraq and take their oil.
Which accounts to 3.5% of all our imported oil.
Thats right I forgot, Its that heathen George W. Bush, who planned 9/11,(thank you Micheal Moore and Rosie O'Donell) so that we could eventually go to war with Iraq and take their oil.
Which accounts to 3.5% of all our imported oil.
it was the stockpiles of wmds dummy..
They may have been able to discuss that had the administration had a cabinet level meeting about terra between 1/20 and 9/4.
You missed the point by a mile. It doesn't matter when it started or wether you think it's stupid or not. The point is that this administration ordered companies to do something illegal, behind the back of congress, and now they want congress to clean up the act for them.
Further, they could have done everything legally, by sending to congress a law to approve the taps, and with a republican congress they probably would have had it approved. The problem is that such a law would have been declared uncons utional in a whim, and that's why it didn't happen that way.
Instead, in a display of the arrogance that has characterized these guys, they went the illegal route, and did it anyways. Now that they got caught red handed, not only they don't want to own up to it, they want congress to issue a get-out-of-jail-free card to their cohorts.
It's not that complicated: If you or I break the law, we will suffer the consequences. These guys want the pie and eat it too.
Exactly what law was broken?
There argument is they did everything legally...and, as far as I know, no court of competent jurisdiction has found otherwise and had their finding stand.
Again, what were they caught doing?
If the phone companies want to share their data with you, there's no law against it.
The have as good of a shot as they normally do. It all depends on who the Indy's go for. That won't be Clinton, and probably not Obama (at least not in force, purely due to his lack of experience). At the same time, some of the Rep candidates would have the same effect.
VP candidates could have a big effect as well.
If McCain gets the Republican nomination, he'll likely win unless he picks a real stinker of a VP candidate, since he's seen as a political middleman and few people have any real problem with him. Other than that, its probably which candidate gets the indy's to fall for their message.
AKA, there's no point in guessing what's going to happen in the election until we know who the candidates and running mates will be.
There were no illegal wiretaps. At least no more than any other president. There was a misguided law that allowed them that Bush acted other. He stopped when he got busted because it was ethically wrong, but it was legal (barely).
I'm hoping your referring to Gitmo, etc, about justice and due process. That I strongly dislike, but it really is quite true the place violates no treaties or laws, weirdly enough. If you aren't referring to that, I have no idea what you mean.
Dems are just as good at fear mongering btw.
The law they broke is US Code le 50, Chapter 36. Since I'm willing to bet you're not familiar with it at all, yet you decided to comment on it, here's a link so you can educate yourself:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch36.html
Specifically the portion where a FISA judge needs to approve a tapping request from a law enforcement agency before the tap starts or up to 48 hours after it started.
That's still being decided. Here are the case files:
https://www.eff.org/cases/att
The government attempted to throw out the case by calling on the 'State Secrets' doctrine, but the judge ruled it doesn't apply in this case (since Bush commented on it, thus it couldn't possibly be a secret).
Why do you think they're pushing so hard to give immunity to telecoms?
They were caught installing a tapping devices in the central nodes of the phone system. Basically, giving them the ability to tap on every and any call at will, not just foreign communications.
More here: http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2006/04/70619
BZZZZZTTT... Wrong.
You need to do more reading: Electronic Communications Privacy Act
http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html
See my reply to Yoni on the subject. You too need to read some more.
I am referring to Gitmo. And, it does violates the original treaty that leased the land to the US in the first place:
The ongoing detention of prisoners at the base is in itself said to cons ute a violation of the original treaty, which explicitly states that the base is to be used for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose." The treaty also explicitly prohibits the use of "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.", yet the base sports half a dozen fast-food concessions, including a McDonald's.
More here and here
Uh, you've got your wires crossed...
The NSA Surveillance program (over which the question is whether or not FISA can supercede the president's cons utional authority vis a vis foreign policy and intelligence gathering) and the data mining agreements between the administration and the telecoms (which did not involve wiretaps and, therefore, don't violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) are two different issues...
Care for a do over?
I gather you didn't even bother to read any of the links I provided.
First of all, the president is not above the cons ution or the laws.
There's no such thing as a 'presidential cons utional authority' codified in law or the cons ution (if there is, please feel free to link to the relevant law or article of the cons ution that grants such authority)
Now, the one that is confused about the wiretaps is you. Please go read both the eff.org site and the Wired article I referenced earlier.
And please, before you reply again, do some research and backup what you say with actual sources. We can all spew bull , but that doesn't make it right or true.
No one says he is. But, the legislature can't pass a law that subordinates the cons utional authority of the executive. That's the central question surrounding the FISA vs. NSA Surveillance program. Trust me, if a law had been broken, people would be dragged before Congress, a Special Prosecutor, or court...or all three.
The fact the question exists is the reason this has yet to be decided.
Article II
I don't think so, the telecoms are being accused of giving access to data, not actual conversations. They can sell that same data to you or me.
There's nothing new on either of these cases and, the fact that Congressional Democrats have failed to produce a case after millions of pages of do ents delivered, countless hearings, and witch hunts, only proves it. The only thing that's happened is that the New York Times has destroyed a valuable intelligence asset.
How so? First paragraph from US Code le 50, Chapter 36 section 1802:
Where does that override the "notwithstanding" heading? Where is it? I didn't see it, but I'm not about to read everything. Is there something that requires section 1802 to comply with that?(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
The case will be dismissed, or they will lose. Some judges are activists, and will allow cases to go on that shouldn't.
I would really like to understand this. I first worked on an AT&T DACS frame in 1992. The systems are built such that any call can be monitored, rerouted, etc., to and from any location. All it takes is a link to the computer of any node capable of the bandwidth you need. At the node, it's just keyboard commands. This means nothing more than having a circuit to the service channel of the system. This approach has been implemented in all newer equipment as well. No "tapping devises" are installed. Just wires. If the entire traffic is to be monitored, then only a tap into the 'baseband' is needed.
Have a valid non-propaganda source for this since all the switches already have this capability? Someone is just talking out their ass, and you believe it.
If you had the facts strait, I might believe there is something other than lies and propaganda at play here.
My God man... I was working on T3 circuits in the 80's. Our DACS frame would handle 120 full duplex DS1 circuits. Each DS1 was divided into several other circuits, from 1200 baud data to T1's. Even PCM30 and ISDN for digital telephone circuits.
Some old technology I found searching for the DACS I worked on:
AT&T Do ent, just less than 10 years old
Wow... This gets sillier than I thought...
The alleged system that the "tapping devise" was added to is a 4ESS, right? Well now, that is of the same era of the AT&T DACS III I worked on. It used the same computer, we called it a microsequencer. Care to see the manuals for the computer that is used in a 4ESS:
AT&T 3B2 Minicomputer manuals
Note, the newest ones are dated 1986.
Don't you think if there was some truth to it, that the government would tap into a system capable of more than a T3 baseband, and DS1 channels? , mine was a military version. It may have been a 4ESS since it used the same computer!
I was surprised that this class of system is still in use. However, plenty of phone conversations can be monitored from just one DS1 channel, at least 64 at a time, depending on compression.
Still.... If there was some big secret tap being installed, wouldn't it be on a SONET (Synchronous optical networking) system that has access to UDWDM (Ultra Dense Wave Division Multiplexers,) or better?
There's no question. The legislature can pass any law they deem necessary, and the president has the ability to either sign and enact the law, or veto it if he thinks it trumps his abilities. Furthermore, any new president vows to uphold the cons ution, including abiding by any laws enacted at the time he takes office. If a president believes a law might not pass cons utional muster, then he has legal options at his disposal:
1) Ask Congress to change the law
2) Challenge the law in court to have it declared uncons utional
Notice how there's no option '3) ignore there's a law'. As a matter of fact, only after this guy got caught by the NYT, he went for option 1, and obtained the Protect America Act of 2007.
Please go ahead and quote the part where it says the President has the authority to break the law. Don't look too hard. Even in the 'Hamilton and Madison' view, which is the theory that gives the Executive the greatest power under Article II, there's no such claim.
Here: Article II
It's even annotated.
When you tap into fiber, data and voice are the same thing. At least I see Wild Cobra understands that much. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act states that no personal information can be shared with anybody, for commercial purposes or otherwise.
I can see you didn't even bother reading. Both articles talk about the same case. I wouldn't expect Democrats to produce anything, in light that they don't want to appear soft on Terror. Is there anything this Democrat Congress did right so far?
...for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath
You must have missed that part. AG never sent any certification under oath to FISA about any massive wiretaps going from 2002 to 2007.
Well, thats your opinion. Certainly respectable, but backed up by no actual facts.
I'm actually glad you bring up the technical aspect, since I did a fairly good amount of work in the telecom business since the Dialogic era (AT&T DSP32 hardware) in the early 80's. It makes it easier to explain what was being done.I would really like to understand this. I first worked on an AT&T DACS frame in 1992. The systems are built such that any call can be monitored, rerouted, etc., to and from any location. All it takes is a link to the computer of any node capable of the bandwidth you need. At the node, it's just keyboard commands. This means nothing more than having a circuit to the service channel of the system. This approach has been implemented in all newer equipment as well. No "tapping devises" are installed. Just wires. If the entire traffic is to be monitored, then only a tap into the 'baseband' is needed.
Have a valid non-propaganda source for this since all the switches already have this capability? Someone is just talking out their ass, and you believe it.
If you had the facts strait, I might believe there is something other than lies and propaganda at play here.
My God man... I was working on T3 circuits in the 80's. Our DACS frame would handle 120 full duplex DS1 circuits. Each DS1 was divided into several other circuits, from 1200 baud data to T1's. Even PCM30 and ISDN for digital telephone circuits.
Some old technology I found searching for the DACS I worked on:
AT&T Do ent, just less than 10 years old
I'm actually going to clarify to you how the system was being tapped, so you can also take it as a response to the other (4ESS) post containing incorrect assumptions you made.
The NSA secure room in the SBC building in Folsom's street was next to the 4ESS switching room. That doesn't mean that the 4ESS were being tapped. In fact, they were not. What was tapped were the actual fiber optic lines, by means of splicing and connection to a splitter board (AT&T do ent "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated 12/10/02 ), that fed into the secure room which contained a bunch of Sun servers, Juniper M40e and M160 backbone routers, along with a Narus STA 6400 (STA stands for Semantic Traffic Analyzer, brochure here ), along with other switches and equipment (full list here, on Page 21)
The affected networks being actively tapped from that particular office include: ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, Abovenet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and MAE-West.
Notice that there might be more rooms like this on other AT&T offices, tapping additional networks.
Now, this guy (Mark Klein) didn't just write a blog with the story. He testified in front of a judge, under oath and under penalty of perjury. If it's so easy as you think to prove he's lying, why does AT&T calls on the government to throw the case away under 'State Secrets'? Why not let the case be judged on its merits and show the dude is a liar and have him locked up on perjury charges?
Further, their request of immunity from Congress make no sense. FISA already grants immunity to telecoms when they wiretap under the FISA act. If they didn't do anything illegal, then they don't need any immunity. They already have it.
The problem is, they didn't do this under FISA. So now they're liable for going around the law.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions