diamond
ONE love, blood, life
my words cut thru the nonsense,
and splice at the intellect's core
ever so succintly.
db9
and splice at the intellect's core
ever so succintly.
db9
Is this enough for impeachment?
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2Girl1978
Blue Crack Addict
MrsSpringsteen said:
That's incredibly frightening. What's next bugging your damn house, telling you what to do? This should be big enough reason to impeach this s.o.b. I don't know how he is getting away with this bullshit. It's unbelievable. And yet people continue to support this scumbag and think he's the best thing ever.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
That we haven't had any terrorists attacks on our soil post 9-11 -01 makes this policy worthwhile.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress were informed this was happening in 2002, and didn't stand in the way.
Lastly with the intellegnce collected thru this process some terror activity was derailed and the country was spared another catastrophe in 2002 and 2003.
Nobody complained then.
Also the govt only was montoring trans Alantic calls on suspected terrorists.
It's not like they were snooping around in PLEBA.
You whiners need to get over yourselves.
This is only polictical oppurtunism blow-horned by the Left as thy have no concrete plan to defeat Terrorism.
To not admit this, is disingenious.
And Dread shame on you for posting this drivel.
2 Christmas knoogies for you in one week.
thank u,
db9
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress were informed this was happening in 2002, and didn't stand in the way.
Lastly with the intellegnce collected thru this process some terror activity was derailed and the country was spared another catastrophe in 2002 and 2003.
Nobody complained then.
Also the govt only was montoring trans Alantic calls on suspected terrorists.
It's not like they were snooping around in PLEBA.
You whiners need to get over yourselves.
This is only polictical oppurtunism blow-horned by the Left as thy have no concrete plan to defeat Terrorism.
To not admit this, is disingenious.
And Dread shame on you for posting this drivel.
2 Christmas knoogies for you in one week.
thank u,
db9
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
~Benjamin Franklin
Terrorists want to take away our freedoms so what the hell lets give up our freedoms and they won't hate us anymore
~Benjamin Franklin
Terrorists want to take away our freedoms so what the hell lets give up our freedoms and they won't hate us anymore
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Oh they will still hate you regardless of your state of freedom, but the point rings true. There is a line that hampers efforts to fight terrorism, it is a line that an amoral society may be willing to tread but given the abuses that inevitably occur it cannot be tollerated.
Why with mad quote skillz like that you could be some sort of a leader person
Why with mad quote skillz like that you could be some sort of a leader person
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Scarletwine
New Yorker
I'm not surprised at all by this. A good description.
If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years
by John in DC - 12/16/2005 02:14:00 PM
This new domestic eavesdropping scandal has nothing to do with September 11. Rather, it has everything to do with George Bush thinking he's living an episode of the hit spy show "24," where a fictional US anti-terror agent regularly breaks the law in order to catch the bad guy.
Unfortunately, George Bush isn't Kiefer Sutherland, and 24 is only a TV show.
We now know that for the past 3 years the Bush administration broke American law in order to spy on American citizens. Why? Bush says it's because the current law was so onerous that our spy agencies couldn't find the terrorists in a moment's notice.
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.
But, if the president of the United States thinks US civil rights and privacy laws are too onerous and are hampering the war on terror, maybe - MAYBE - he breaks the law the first time the issue comes up - let's face it, he's afraid Osama is running out the door and Bush doesn't have time to call a judge. Okay, it's possible.
But Bush didn't do this once. He did it for the past 3 years.
The first time you break the law to catch a terrorist who is fleeing, I might forgive you. But after that incident passes, you go to Congress and you ask them to change the law to address this urgent need. You do NOT just shrug your shoulders and break the law repeatedly for 3 years because you're just too proud to ask Congress - to ask OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS - to weigh the case for and against your radical proposal to spy on the American people.
This is incredibly serious. Bush did what a dictator does, not what an American president should have done.
In America, when the president has a problem with the law he goes to Congress and presents his case, and asks our elected officials to weigh the merits of the case and then vote on changing the law. Only dictators say to hell with Congress, to hell with our laws, to hell with our democratic process.
This isn't just wrong what Bush did, it isn't just criminal, it violates the most basic tenets of our democratic form of government. We have a man in power in the White House who thinks he is above the law. Bush's holier than thou snubbing of the rule of law, the will of the American people, and the truth needs to stop now. From the invasion of Iraq to this current scandal, we see a disturbing pattern of a rather-average man who's thinks he's too good and too smart to be honest with the American people.
We need an immediate independent investigation, and if this story is confirmed, Bush should resign or be removed from office.
If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years
by John in DC - 12/16/2005 02:14:00 PM
This new domestic eavesdropping scandal has nothing to do with September 11. Rather, it has everything to do with George Bush thinking he's living an episode of the hit spy show "24," where a fictional US anti-terror agent regularly breaks the law in order to catch the bad guy.
Unfortunately, George Bush isn't Kiefer Sutherland, and 24 is only a TV show.
We now know that for the past 3 years the Bush administration broke American law in order to spy on American citizens. Why? Bush says it's because the current law was so onerous that our spy agencies couldn't find the terrorists in a moment's notice.
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.
But, if the president of the United States thinks US civil rights and privacy laws are too onerous and are hampering the war on terror, maybe - MAYBE - he breaks the law the first time the issue comes up - let's face it, he's afraid Osama is running out the door and Bush doesn't have time to call a judge. Okay, it's possible.
But Bush didn't do this once. He did it for the past 3 years.
The first time you break the law to catch a terrorist who is fleeing, I might forgive you. But after that incident passes, you go to Congress and you ask them to change the law to address this urgent need. You do NOT just shrug your shoulders and break the law repeatedly for 3 years because you're just too proud to ask Congress - to ask OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS - to weigh the case for and against your radical proposal to spy on the American people.
This is incredibly serious. Bush did what a dictator does, not what an American president should have done.
In America, when the president has a problem with the law he goes to Congress and presents his case, and asks our elected officials to weigh the merits of the case and then vote on changing the law. Only dictators say to hell with Congress, to hell with our laws, to hell with our democratic process.
This isn't just wrong what Bush did, it isn't just criminal, it violates the most basic tenets of our democratic form of government. We have a man in power in the White House who thinks he is above the law. Bush's holier than thou snubbing of the rule of law, the will of the American people, and the truth needs to stop now. From the invasion of Iraq to this current scandal, we see a disturbing pattern of a rather-average man who's thinks he's too good and too smart to be honest with the American people.
We need an immediate independent investigation, and if this story is confirmed, Bush should resign or be removed from office.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I think Ben Franklin while also being a great liberal of the age also invented the first bar thread.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This is the biggest bullshit argument I've ever heard. It's used to justify everything from spying, to the war, and even Bush's re-election.diamond said:
It's bullshit because you can't prove a thing. You have no idea if another attack was even planned, if there was you have no idea if it was this that stopped it.So spare me the bullshit.
No one complained when I was going 75 mph in a 65 mph, but I still broke the law. Complaint? Do you know anything about the law?diamond said:
Suspected terrorists? Diamond this could be anyone. It could be anyone that voted against Bush. It could be anyone of a certain religion. Hell it could be anyone who bought a ticket to F-911 with a credit card.diamond said:
You act as if our intelligence on this is reliable. It's not.
I assure you though, you are probably one of the few that I can assure won't ever by spied on, for your loyalty no matter what law he breaks or how horrible the policy he makes is duly noted.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I thought we'd learned something from Watergate. It was that no matter who you are, in the United States, if you break the law, you pay. In case you've ever wondered how the Democrats won the 1976 Presidential election, it was because of Watergate. Conservatives all over demanded impeachment after Watergate, and I expect it again this time. I read all of the Watergate books in college and thought it'd never happen again. Gosh was I ever naive!
diamond said:To not admit this, is disingenious.
And Dread shame on you for posting this drivel.
2 Christmas knoogies for you in one week.
thank u,
db9
The Patriot Act was supposed to be enough. If it was not the President should have gone through LEGAL channels to increase the power of the Patriot Act.
I am very serious that I am angry about this.
Bring it on!!!!!!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
mattgerth said:
U2Girl1978
Blue Crack Addict
mattgerth said:
That's really disgusting to say.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Dreadsox said:
The Patriot Act was supposed to be enough. If it was not the President should have gone through LEGAL channels to increase the power of the Patriot Act.
I am very serious that I am angry about this.
Bring it on!!!!!!
in 2002 things were different and both parties were informed.
this too shall pass-the latest attempt of weakminded politics.
most americans will see thru all as rubbish w much to do about nothing.
db9
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
rubbish? illegal activities approved by the president is rubbish?
i think not.
i think not.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
diamond said:
How is it you don't get it?
I will never know.
Scarletwine
New Yorker
Unfreakin believable. And he'll not be held accountable
Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
12/17/05 -- - WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.
''This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,'' he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.
''This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States,'' Bush said.
Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency without obtaining warrants from a court violates civil liberties. One Democrat said in response to Bush's remarks on the radio that Bush was acting more like a king than the elected president of a democracy.
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used ''consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.'' He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have ''a clear link'' to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.
Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.
The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.
Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.
''I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups,'' he said.
The president contended the program has helped ''detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad,'' but did not provide specific examples.
He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.
''The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9-11 hijackers will be identified and located in time,'' he said.
In an effort by the administration that appeared coordinated to stem criticism, Bush's remarks echoed -- in many cases word-for-word -- those issued Friday night by a senior intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The president's highly unusual discussion of classified activities showed the sensitive nature of the program, whose existence was revealed as Congress was trying to renew the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act and complicated that effort, a top priority of Bush's.
Senate Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans on Friday to stall the bill. Those opposing the renewal of key provisions of the act that are expiring say they threaten constitutional liberties.
Reacting to Bush's defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president's remarks were ''breathtaking in how extreme they were.''
Feingold said it was ''absurd'' that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.
''If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for,'' Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.
''As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have,'' he said. ''The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.''
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press
Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
12/17/05 -- - WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.
''This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,'' he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.
''This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States,'' Bush said.
Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency without obtaining warrants from a court violates civil liberties. One Democrat said in response to Bush's remarks on the radio that Bush was acting more like a king than the elected president of a democracy.
Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used ''consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.'' He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have ''a clear link'' to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.
Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.
The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.
Appearing angry at points during his eight-minute address, Bush said he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and plans to continue doing so.
''I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups,'' he said.
The president contended the program has helped ''detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad,'' but did not provide specific examples.
He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.
''The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9-11 hijackers will be identified and located in time,'' he said.
In an effort by the administration that appeared coordinated to stem criticism, Bush's remarks echoed -- in many cases word-for-word -- those issued Friday night by a senior intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The president's highly unusual discussion of classified activities showed the sensitive nature of the program, whose existence was revealed as Congress was trying to renew the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act and complicated that effort, a top priority of Bush's.
Senate Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans on Friday to stall the bill. Those opposing the renewal of key provisions of the act that are expiring say they threaten constitutional liberties.
Reacting to Bush's defense of the NSA program, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said the president's remarks were ''breathtaking in how extreme they were.''
Feingold said it was ''absurd'' that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.
''If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for,'' Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
The president had harsh words for those who talked about the program to the media, saying their actions were illegal and improper.
''As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have,'' he said. ''The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.''
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Scarletwine said:
Yes "under our laws and Constitution" George. Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with those.
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Scarletwine said:Unfreakin believable. And he'll not be held accountable
Why not? If he broke a law, there would be a line of special prosecutors a mile long to press the charges.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Scarletwine said:
Democracy works great in Washington this time. That´s something, don´t you think?
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
nbcrusader said:
and who would appoint these special prosecutors?
VertigoGal
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
well, he becomes more and more of an embarrassment everyday. It's not particularly surprising and I doubt anything will really be done about it, but it would be nice.
hiphop
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I read something about John McCain in our local newspaper today. Wouldn´t he suit the Republicans better for the next election? Than Cheney or Rice? Just wondering..
Last edited:
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
It is in the nature of bureaucracy to continually seek ways to expand itself and enhance its powers: that's why I'm a libertarian.
The USA probably has better controls and balances than most countries, as evidenced by the fact that it only took a year or two for this story to come out.
The USA probably has better controls and balances than most countries, as evidenced by the fact that it only took a year or two for this story to come out.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
U2democrat said:
No, it's grounds for impeachment.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
verte76 said:
You may be on to something my friend!
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
In all practicality, who is going to impeach? The worst that'll happen is censure and I'll lay odds against that happening too.
Similar threads
