Wire taps

Old Man G Funk · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
Ive read the thread and seen nothing other than heresay. Document it or retract it.

1. Comment #34.

2. Jose Padilla.

I guess we can add illiteracy to your list of shortcomings?

Reactor · Jan 10, 2006

N8 said:
Oh, I think the ACLU would be all over the place if there was a victim...

If the victim were allowed to call a lawyer, that is.

Reactor · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
Ive read the thread and seen nothing other than heresay. Document it or retract it.

Says the man that posted a ann coulter editorial?? Heal thy self, hypocrite.

DRB · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
Which fact is she wrong on?

There are some opinions in her piece, and some of them are presented in a rather bombastic fashion (as I stated in my post). But which of the FACTS is she wrong on?

All I'm asking for is some documentation on the hearsay that the wire tapping was used against PETA or Greenpenis or anti-war groups.

Do you have that, or are you going to continue to make personal attacks to divert the conversation away from the topic?

You're stupid and you're momma dresses you funny.

The thing that worries me is that there is no way to find out if it is being abused. When these things pass thru the FISA court that they provide a reasonable level of oversight to avoid widespread abuse. However when the court is bypassed then all real oversight is eliminated.

ghostrider · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
It seems the Bush administration being a group of sane, informed adults...

The editorial loses all credibility right about here.

ohio · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
merely assertions that it "could" have happened.

Tell you what, I'll dangle a baby in front of a hungry pitbull and wait to see what happens. The vast majority of pitbulls are actually very gentle and friendly creatures, but somehow this still seems like a bad situation....

PonySoldier · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
..
If they were tapping Cindy Sheehan w/o a warrant then that is absolutely wrong.

I wouldn't tap it even with a warrant

ohio · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
I like dogs and babies.

Again. Did it happen?

If it didn't, and the practice was only used for tapping terror-connected targets I have no problem with it.

If they were tapping Cindy Sheehan w/o a warrant then that is absolutely wrong.

So it's okay to have a law that allows, say, feeding babies to pitbulls, as long as no one actually uses it?

Changleen · Jan 10, 2006

3 Bush warrants were rejected (first times ever) for being "wildly over-reaching". Doesn't that bother you at all?

MikeD · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
Seriously now do you really have a problem with wire tapping people who were calling or were called by known members of Al-Queda?

Again...that's a leading and evasive dodge of the issue. Not one person in the US besides AQ members has an issue with this.

THEY SHOULD BE WIRETAPPED, CAUGHT, AND HUNG OUT TO DRY. We ALL know that.

But why, specifically, must it be done without a warrant? I know FISA warrants probably aren't as simple as your average search warrant, but

1) this is top executive-level stuff in which the President is personally involved...who could better expedite it?

2) The taps can be run for 72 hours without a warrant. If you can't get one together in 3 days, with top-secret well-paid spymasters working round the clock, you probably don't have anything like probable cause.

So, then, what's the real deal? This can't be as simple as avoiding red tape. When you're on Osama's speed dial, a warrant's not going to be the issue. Are they actually using this as cover for programs that sweep all of our communications for mention of certain keywords or whatever? If so, I don't necessarily think that's wrong...but I heartily disagree with the way they're going about getting it done. Such a program needs to be set forth within the context of checks and balances and a given situation, like the suspension of certain civil rights or the writ of habeas corpus in the civil war.

In any case, Ohio's 100% on the mark as far as why we have separation of powers and the potential for abuse.

MD

Reactor · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
Which fact is she wrong on?

There are some opinions in her piece, and some of them are presented in a rather bombastic fashion (as I stated in my post). But which of the FACTS is she wrong on?

Which alleged facts have you documented?

Damn True said:
Do you have that, or are you going to continue to make personal attacks to divert the conversation away from the topic?

Calling you a hypocrite for demanding documentation, when you have provided none isn't a personal attack, it's a fact.

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify — much less reject — one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

This is what I like to call factopionionspinification. It starts with a fact, well half a fact, She gives detailed numbers on the number of requests and rejections after 9/11, but a vague "fact "of "before 9/11". The same 12 judges handled the majority of the requests, Who here think article III judges, confirmed by the senate, and recommended by the president, suddenly sided with the terrorists after 9//11? That seems to be her point, suddenly after 9/11 the judges started denying requests, supporting terrorists.

O.K. how many people think the Bush Administration submitted more requests in the last two years, than all previous presidents combined? How many people think, given this, that there were bound to be some bogus request among the 5,645 requests? So three percent were rejected, and 3 percent modified, so 94% of the time the Bush administration got what it wanted. But they wanted more, and they didn't like to justify their actions, and they didn't like the law. So they chose to ignore it and remove those troublesome judges that had the audacity to reject 3% of their requests. But reading Ann Coulter's mix of fact, omission, spin , and opinion you'd think Article III judges were card carrying members of Al Qadea.

Changleen · Jan 10, 2006

Damn True said:
Don't divert.

I'm not. It's a fact we know about the actions of the court that tends to suggest Bush is (once again) over-reaching.

Who were the subjects of the taps?

We'll never know without a leak, it's a secret court, remember? Nice and transparant.

So when the DOJ does something good (outing Abramoff) Bush has nothing to do with it.

When the DOJ does something iffy, it's Bush.

Interesting.

When the Bush administration authorises wire taps without a warrant, guess what, it's BUSH!

Reactor · Jan 10, 2006

MikeD said:
In any case, Ohio's 100% on the mark as far as why we have separation of powers and the potential for abuse.

MD

Exactly. Bush and Cheney have made no secret of they fact they want to win back bower for the chief executive. However, the founding fathers wisely divided power between the three branches of government. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch signs them and enforces them, and the judicial branch adjudicates the executive branch's accusations of violations of the law laws to ensure the constitution, and personal rights of the involved are respected.

Bush wants to ignore the law passed by the legislative branch, signed by a prior president, and avoid having to explain his reasons for wiretapping to the judicial branch. In all likelihood his wiretaps will violate the law, and be unexplainable to the judicial branch, so he chooses to ignore them. Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn't envision a scenario where the chief executive, who controls the law enforcement agencies, would also be the one violating the law.

Changleen · Jan 10, 2006

Isn't that what the right to bear arms is about? Shooting up your corrupt government?

Reactor · Jan 11, 2006

Changleen said:
Isn't that what the right to bear arms is about? Shooting up your corrupt government?

I can't answer that, my current job requires that I not be a member of any group the advocates the violent over throw of the American government, nor can I advocate the overthrow of the American Government.....Besides that would probably put me out of a paycheck, At least for the next week or two.

Old Man G Funk · Jan 11, 2006

Damn True said:
Illiteracy? Oh sweet, back to the insults. The article says:

I will retract that and go even further. I am the illiterate one apparently. You asked for specific examples of illegal wiretaps on PETA, Greenpeace, etc. and I provided examples of spying on those groups, but not specific wiretaps. The wiretaps are secret, so we don't know who was being tapped. When I'm wrong, I say it, and I was wrong about that specific fact.

...and last time I checked Padilla is being held because he was plotting to use a "dirty bomb" in the US.

Padilla was in response to who is a victim of the Patriot Act. He definitely is, whether he is guilty or not. He's an American citizen that has been held without counsel and without being charged for years.

Old Man G Funk · Jan 11, 2006

Damn True said:
...because if it was common knowledge that we were tapping their conversations they'd most likely find other ways to communicate...

That's why the FISA act allows for them to obtain secret warrants, but it has to be done before the court. They can't simply bypass the court.

Old Man G Funk · Jan 11, 2006

Damn True said:
I like dogs and babies.

Again. Did it happen?

If it didn't, and the practice was only used for tapping terror-connected targets I have no problem with it.

If they were tapping Cindy Sheehan w/o a warrant then that is absolutely wrong.

Again, the act provides for the expedited warrant process so that they can get warrants without any hassle and quickly. There is no reason for them not get a warrant to wiretap a terror-connected target. It's wrong no matter who they do it to if they circumvent the law in order to do it.

MikeD · Jan 12, 2006

Old Man G Funk said:
Padilla was in response to who is a victim of the Patriot Act. He definitely is, whether he is guilty or not. He's an American citizen that has been held without counsel and without being charged for years.

Patriot act or no, Padilla (and lots of others, Americans and non-Americans) should not be considered a mere criminal. He's an individual who, as a member of a larger group, is at war with America, both by self-definition and as established by the circumstances. And traditional methods of dealing with EPWs (holding until war is over, then returning them to their country of origin) just won't work...there is no national entity to 'end' the war for him, plus in this case he's American. Putting him in prison for a few years to learn even better ways to evade authority and hurt people is a bad, bad idea. He's just going to return to his jihad once he's out, and even probably try and prosecute it while he's in.

He and others like him do need to be dealt with in a way that's not necessarily traditional criminal justice. What this is, I don't yet have an answer. Whatever the case, there needs to be a formal decision and a relatively open system for dealing with such people...top-secret unseen processes with no oversight are not a good thing for America or America's image.

valve bouncer · Jan 12, 2006

MikeD said:
He and others like him do need to be dealt with in a way that's not necessarily traditional criminal justice. What this is, I don't yet have an answer. .

I know, maybe they can be secretly sent to countries that have slightly looser definitions of "interrogation" and dealt with there?...Oh wait....nevermind.

Reactor · Jan 12, 2006

MikeD said:
Patriot act or no, Padilla (and lots of others, Americans and non-Americans) should not be considered a mere criminal. He's an individual who, as a member of a larger group, is at war with America, both by self-definition and as established by the circumstances. And traditional methods of dealing with EPWs (holding until war is over, then returning them to their country of origin) just won't work...there is no national entity to 'end' the war for him, plus in this case he's American. Putting him in prison for a few years to learn even better ways to evade authority and hurt people is a bad, bad idea. He's just going to return to his jihad once he's out, and even probably try and prosecute it while he's in.

He and others like him do need to be dealt with in a way that's not necessarily traditional criminal justice. What this is, I don't yet have an answer. Whatever the case, there needs to be a formal decision and a relatively open system for dealing with such people...top-secret unseen processes with no oversight are not a good thing for America or America's image.

By US law Padilla is accused of plotting a terrorist act, which is a
crime. Padilla, is an American citizen accused of a crime against the American state, his ties to any terrorist organization are speculative have to be proved, and constitutional due process observed. And no one can argue that the founding fathers, having fought a guerrilla war against the British empire, didn't foresee terrorists. They did. Padilla should be punished, if proven guilty before a court of law.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea that one man, without any oversight or counter balance, can suddenly designate an American citizen as an enemy of the state, and therefore an "enemy combatant". Suddenly taking away all constitutional and due process rights, hold the person in question incognito and possibly subject them to torture. You have to wonder how long before it gets applied to other inconvenient people, like Washington post reporters, Cindy Sheehan.... It smacks of Pinochet, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and a thousand other leaders who found abiding by the law inconvenient, and so just ignored it.

I don't have a answer either, but the course we're on leads to the dark side.

MikeD · Jan 12, 2006

Reactor said:
I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea that one man, without any oversight or counter balance, can suddenly designate an American citizen as an enemy of the state, and therefore an "enemy combatant". Suddenly taking away all constitutional and due process rights, hold the person in question incognito and possibly subject them to torture. .

Not suggesting this should be the case, just that we need to look at this situation and actually form a legal framework, with oversight and balance, to deal with it.

I agree that Padilla and his ilk can be dealt with Consititutionally, but I think the Founding Fathers did lots of smart things with the Constitution in anticipating those things that they couldn't anticipate, if you will.

The idea of extra-national terrorist groups may not be entirely new, but the power given to such groups through technology and communication is new and different.

In any case, treason is a crime at the moment, and Padilla should be charged and hopefully executed ASAP. But I think that just because things are one way now, we shouldn't look at things a new way.

MD

MikeD · Jan 12, 2006

valve bouncer said:
I know, maybe they can be secretly sent to countries that have slightly looser definitions of "interrogation"

Japan, perhaps?

Rextlodinarily lendition?

Reactor · Jan 12, 2006

MikeD said:
Not suggesting this should be the case, just that we need to look at this situation and actually form a legal framework, with oversight and balance, to deal with it.

I didn't intent to give the impression that you agreed, with some of the unsavory things currently happening. So I hope you aren't offended. I'm just expressing my concern that the current situation, left unchecked, leads to a very dark place. A place many countries have gone much to their detriment.

MikeD said:
I agree that Padilla and his ilk can be dealt with Consititutionally, but I think the Founding Fathers did lots of smart things with the Constitution in anticipating those things that they couldn't anticipate, if you will.
MD

The founding fathers did an amazing job with the constitution. It's very important, we in the haste and passion of the moment don't throw it away because it's inconvenient.

We and the other governments of the world need to come to an agreement of how to handle and classify terrorism. It's not a war, but it's not a simple criminal matter either. Currently the buzzword terrorist is being applied very haphazard manner, and many times to people or causes that are unpopular, as well as legitimate terrorist organizations. There should be an agreement to the status of captured terrorists and basic level of treatment and due process they can expect, an most importantly a way for them to protest their status to prevent abuses of the system.

ohio · Jan 12, 2006

Damn True said:
Which fact is she wrong on?

Are you really that uncritical a reader that I have to do this for you?

Extremo She-man said:
WHY WE DON'T TRUST YOU WITH NATIONAL SECURITY
January 4, 2006

It seems the Bush administration being a group of sane, informed adults wrong has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al-Qaida Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory like convicted al-Qaida associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al-Qaida members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden WRONG. They have supported wire taps. They have expressed indignation at circumventing the law even though it allows for such wiretaps. Since it is this premise that the entire article is based on, there's really no point in continuing. She's arguing against something non-existent... a pretty common right-wing pundit tactic, by the way . If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people WRONG. All the reasons mentionedwith Osama's cell phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictionsWRONG. The existence of the court and the process was not classified. If by "classified," she means "things Bush was doing above and outside the law" then she is correct. Any respectable journalist should do exactly that. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.

Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.

The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.

Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.

Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never beforeWRONG. An absolutely idiotic conclusion to draw from the fact that follows.. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify much less reject one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al-Qaida operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al-Qaida were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.

Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

It's easy to win an argument when you make up the opposition to it.

Really DT, this was pointed out to you several times before you askde Reactor to refute the facts. Did you just skip over the whole first page of your own thread?

1000-Oaks · Sep 27, 2010

Ahh, time to resurrect this old thread...I knew this day would come:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

Bush was nothing compared to the loss of individual rights we're in for under Obama and his ilk...but this time around the media is somehow okay with it.

Bring on the hypocrites! Let's hear why was it was an outrage when Bush did it, but it's okay when Obama takes it ten steps further.

kidwoo · Sep 27, 2010

No it's just as annoying when someone else does it, dumbfvck.

Sorry.

sanjuro · Sep 28, 2010

Silver · Sep 28, 2010

Go suck a bag of dicks, 1000-Oaks.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217199
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215654
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227954

You're late. We didn't really miss you.

Wire taps

Monkey Pimp

Choir Boy

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Monkey Pimp

Monkey Pimp

unemployed bum

Monkey Pimp

7034 miles, still no custom title

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Pimp

Monkey Pimp

Monkey

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Pimp

Monkey Pimp

Monkey Pimp

Paranoid Member

Monkey Pimp

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Turbo Monkey

Paranoid Member

Turbo Monkey

Paranoid Member

Turbo Monkey

Choir Boy

Choir Boy

Choir Boy

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Master Dildoist

Turbo Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Turbo Monkey

The Fresno Kid

Monkey

Artisanal Tweet Curator

Tube Smuggler

find me a tampon