Is this enough for impeachment? - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-27-2005, 12:22 AM   #226
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:41 PM
save only a few lone voices gathered here and a small bashion of paranoids and agenda oriented hacks nationally, this movement has no traction.

i would encourage those miserable hopefuls to continue to persevere, it's comedic entertainment.

keep it up.

bravo
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 12:47 AM   #227
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
save only a few lone voices gathered here and a small bashion of paranoids and agenda oriented hacks nationally, this movement has no traction.

i would encourage those miserable hopefuls to continue to persevere, it's comedic entertainment.

keep it up.

bravo
And I would encourage you to get your facts straight. Patience not pictures.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 09:30 AM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:41 PM
sometimes your posts are comedic entertainment too diamond

bravo
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 10:09 AM   #229
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Here is the reason Bush bypassed the FISA court!

[Q]Secret court modified wiretap requests
Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel

By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."

Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.

To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.

Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida suspects inside the United States.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least 18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches from five presidential administrations since 1979.



The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's history.


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized NSA surveillance of overseas communications by U.S.-based terror suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.

The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some judges on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a classified briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush administration agreed to brief the judges after U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest Bush's spying program.

Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies.

NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all international telegrams to and from the United States for decades during the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the program ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked 75,000 Americans whose activities had drawn government interest between 1952 and 1974, including participation in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like we're going back to the bad old days again."

[/Q]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ml?source=mypi

Read the bold again and again....

This administration was denied more than ANY administration since FISA was formed.

Clearly there is something wrong with their requests. Clearly there is something wrong. Clearly Americans need to get knowledgeable about this, because it is wrong and it is SCARY.

I am now rattling off another letter to my representatives about this.

The Patriot Act, if I am not mistaken, still holds the Administration accountable to FISA.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 10:11 AM   #230
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
save only a few lone voices gathered here and a small bashion of paranoids and agenda oriented hacks nationally, this movement has no traction.
You do know there was a holiday and that the COngress in in Recess.



But I digress.....

Let me sum up your opinion....

We were attacked.
The President should be abled to do everything and anything laws be damned to fight terrorism.
Because there has been no big issues about this for s few days...it must be over.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 10:22 AM   #231
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
.01% of the warrents were modified over the first twenty-two years!


Under this administration...

3.17% Under this administration over four years.


Denied in the first Twenty-two years 0..

Under Bush denied 6
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 03:36 PM   #232
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
[Q]"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order," he says. "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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think `Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."[/Q]


Something really smells like shit.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...l=chi-news-col
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 05:00 PM   #233
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
[Q]THE KEY QUESTION ABOUT BUSH'S WIRETAPPING PROGRAM.
Listening Skills
by Spencer Ackerman


ince The New York Times broke the story of post-9/11 warrantless domestic eavesdropping, the debate over the controversial program has centered on whether the president acted illegally. Senior administration officials--led by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at a fiery press conference last Monday--have insisted on the measure's legality, while civil libertarians have claimed the administration has unconstitutionally expanded executive authority, with senators of both parties promising full investigations early next year. There's no doubt that the question of whether Bush broke the law is crucial. But the scandal's most important question is a different one: What are the administration's criteria for eavesdropping, and why didn't they satisfy the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's criteria for probable cause? Don't expect administration officials to answer as long as they can avoid it. But what little is known about the program thus far suggests a standard so lax as to permit searches for practically anything.

If there's one point the administration and its allies have labored to emphasize, it's that the program only spied on people clearly connected to terrorism. In a press conference last week, President Bush insisted that warrantless surveillance applied to "people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." Gonzales said that for surveillance to go forward, "we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of Al Qaeda, affiliated with Al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with Al Qaeda, or working in support of Al Qaeda." Later, Senator John Cornyn of Texas insisted that "in fact, this was narrowly applied to agents of Al Qaeda operating in the United States." Bush cited the ease with which two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al Mihdhar and Nawaf Al Hazmi, escaped surveillance as justification for circumventing the FISA court.

Don't believe them. As many have argued since the story broke, if the administration truly possessed "reasonable basis" that the targets of such surveillance were connected to Al Qaeda, it could have obtained warrants from the FISA court, which has rejected only a handful of warrant requests in its entire history. And as the Los Angeles Times pointed out, the failure to track Al Mihdhar and Al Hazmi was a failure of bureaucratic coordination between the NSA and the FBI, not a result of the FISA court setting the probable-cause bar too high. So why would the administration choose for four years to shunt the deferential FISA court aside if it could connect surveillance targets to Al Qaeda? The program only makes sense if the administration doesn't have the "reasonable basis" for searching that Gonzales insists it always does. That was the contention that one administration official made to The Washington Post on Thursday. "For FISA, [the administration] had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," the official told the Post. "They couldn't dream one up." According to the paper, "the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious." In other words, contrary to everything the administration has said about the program, the warrantless surveillance only makes sense if the administration is casting a massive electronic net for anything that sounds remotely suspicious.





How solid a connection to a known Al Qaeda member is required to trigger surveillance? How solid a connection should be required? The sad truth is that we still know far too little about the increasingly diffuse jihadist movement's organizational structure, to say nothing of its specific operatives. But from what we know about the surveillance program so far, the NSA appears to be surveilling targets before it knows of any such connection. Perhaps the administration wants to argue that gaining a picture of Al Qaeda depends on listening in on as much international communication as technology allows in the hope of finding something to prevent a future attack. That would at least give the lie to the protestations of Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer, who argue that the administration could have satisfied its probable-cause problem by getting Congress to pass a new law: "My guess is we would have given them what they wanted." Unfortunately, it's practically impossible to square such a standard with the Fourth Amendment, and as deferential as Congress has been to the president--even in the wake of September 11--it almost assuredly wouldn't have gone that far. The acrimonious debate ahead of us will revolve around whether the scope of the jihadist threat is so grave that Bush or any other president is obligated to act unconstitutionally.

Expect Bush and his surrogates to dodge that politically dangerous question as long as possible. Already last week they drove down their first rhetorical off-ramp. Before he took reporters' questions, Gonzales pivoted to reiterate a central argument made by the administration since September 11: "We also believe the president has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as commander-in-chief, to engage in this kind of activity." Under this dubious contention--which lies at the heart of administration actions from establishing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to authorizing brutal interrogations to declaring American citizens enemy combatants who can be detained indefinitely without charge--the administration simply circumvented the FISA court because it felt the president has the right to act as he pleases during wartime. According to Gonzales, former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington, and other current and former administration officials, it is congressional and judicial fetters on commander-in-chief powers, not presidential action unauthorized by statute, that are presumptively unconstitutional. It says a lot about the Bush administration that it considers the most exculpatory argument available in the warrantless surveillance scandal to be one that portrays it as merely power-crazed. [/Q]

From the liberal NEW Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051226&s=ackerman122705

Hmmm... The Right saying DO not believe the administration.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 05:26 PM   #234
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:

I am now rattling off another letter to my representatives about this.
[/B]
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 08:43 PM   #235
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
[Q]"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order," he says. "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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think `Patriot Act,' constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."[/Q]




Something really smells like shit.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...l=chi-news-col
"DON'T GET STUCK ON STUPID"-General Russell Honore's kindly advice.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 08:44 PM   #236
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
"DON'T GET STUCK ON STUPID"
So many punch lines on to that comment.

Let's start with I know where you get your news.



http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/20/stuckonstupid/

I know how you remember quotes...you study them.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-27-2005, 11:51 PM   #237
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
catlhere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5,664
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Hey posting chums.

I've never posted in this section of interferene before. I don't really have a comment on the thread at hand, but I just wanted to know. Is this a place where everyone hates on Bush and posts threads about how much Republicans suck. I never seem to see much people who think like me (i.e. conservatives). So I don't know if I'd fit in here. Anyway, if someone can clue me in as to what this forum is mostly like, I'd like to know. -goes back to lurking-
__________________
catlhere is offline  
Old 12-28-2005, 12:30 AM   #238
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Let's start with I know where you get your news.



http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/20/stuckonstupid/

One funny site.

But then again so are most political blogs.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-28-2005, 08:42 AM   #239
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:41 PM
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-28-2005, 08:56 AM   #240
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by catlhere
Hey posting chums.

I've never posted in this section of interferene before. I don't really have a comment on the thread at hand, but I just wanted to know. Is this a place where everyone hates on Bush and posts threads about how much Republicans suck. I never seem to see much people who think like me (i.e. conservatives). So I don't know if I'd fit in here. Anyway, if someone can clue me in as to what this forum is mostly like, I'd like to know. -goes back to lurking-
Hi! You're most welcome here. There are those who seem to have not a lot to say expect that Bush sucks, or that it's really all Clinton's fault. But there are even more really intelligent, warm and funny people who care about important issues. Things can get rough at times, but FYM's an interesting and informative place, and I hope you'll stick around!
__________________

__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com