Why over Bush on the supposedly spy scandal when Clinton and Carter did the same thing?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

So your argument is that because we had two former dirty presidents we shouldn't give a hoot if the current president may be doing dirty things?

Did you give a hoot when those two former presidents were in office? Besides, the more important question is can you prove it’s “dirty”?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

So it is your argument. Or rather non-argument. Yeah, I gave a hoot whenever I was aware. And I probably gave a disproportionate amount of hoot when compared to leaders of my "same color".

And nice try on the "can you prove" question. The concern is to watch and look at the facts of something that "appears" dirty. To discern if it is or not.

Your post is an attempt to diminish the importance of that.

A blatant attempt.

Originally posted by UFObeliever
Bush should be impeached for violating the 4th amendment and abusing his executive powers.

You wouldn't happen to be sympathetic for Islamic extremist causes would you? President Bush is acting on powers granted to him by Conress in the wake of 9/11.

Does anyone here understand the importance of the orders that was issued by President Bush? Does anyone care if terrorists walk among us planning their next attack against us?

If there wasn't any surveillance and we were to come under attack again, the same people here who are critical of these orders would be condemning him for not doing something to stop the attack!

So what's it going to be? Stop them at any cost, even if it means some of the American peoples liberties are restricted or watch our women and children DIE!? It would be my belief that most Americans can grow accustomed to being "watched" than to bury innocent little children. Or is this what most Americans want? I don't think so!

[edit on 21/12/05 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by UFObeliever
Warrentless searches are illegal. Searches include wire tapping American citizen's phone conversations. Problem solved it is illegal. Hope it clears things up.

Not sure what your winking at, but obviously you missed this section of the memo?

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(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—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.

US Code: Title 50, 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order...

Also, see here:
Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls

Innocent till proven guilty......







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
First off, you are not the president of the United States, therefore, you really have no clue as to what Bush had no need to do or what he did have need to do, especially in relation to the war on terrorism and national security.

Bill of rights

Amendment IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Tell me how many people got arrested after been spy on.

I’m quite aware of what the 4th amendment says. It is also quite important to know that there are circumstances in which amendments in the Bill of Rights can be limited. These provisions were placed legally by courts, and until those very same courts say that those provisions were broken or violated, your claim to such is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Intelearthling

You wouldn't happen to be sympathetic for Islamic extremist causes would you? President Bush is acting on powers granted to him by Conress in the wake of 9/11.

Does anyone here understand the importance of the orders that was issued by President Bush? Does anyone care if terrorists walk among us planning their next attack against us?

If there wasn't any surveillance and we were to come under attack again, the same people here who are critical of these orders would be condemning him for not doing something to stop the attack!

So what's it going to be? Stop them at any cost, even if it means some of the American peoples liberties are restricted or watch our women and children DIE!? It would be my belief that most Americans can grow accustomed to being "watched" than to bury innocent little children. Or is this what most Americans want? I don't think so!

[edit on 21/12/05 by Intelearthling]

People like you amuse me and concern me. So if I disagree with what the government is doing I am labeled a terroist? Glad there wasn't more people like you in Germany durring WW2....o wait. Watch out 15 year old on computer is a terroist.

This is suppose to be the United States which was meant to stand for liberty and when that liberty is gone we stand for nothing. I am for stopping terroists but when it violates the constitution it is illegal and the person who issued it, relieved of their job.

I don't get it what is there that is hard to understand? The 4th ammendment protects from warrentless searches(wire tapping) and when it is violated it is against the law of the land. Guess the constitution is null and void now a days.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by UFObeliever]

[edit on 21-12-2005 by UFObeliever]

And nice try on the "can you prove" question. The concern is to watch and look at the facts of something that "appears" dirty. To discern if it is or not.

I am very aware of the facts, what I am trying to do is make other members aware of them as well so that they don't try to discern this case with incorrect facts. I’m not trying to make decisions for other people, all I want is for them to make an informed decision on their own.

Your post is an attempt to diminish the importance of that.

A blatant attempt.

As I have stated above it is quite the contrary.

I guess anybody that dare to step out and question the government is deemed a terrorist and treat to national security or just a radical Islam in disguised.

I guess we should be ashame for exercising our constitutional rights.

Right westpoint.

Is not point on keeping a debate civil.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by marg6043]

I guess anybody that dare to step out and question the government is deemed a terrorist and treat to national security or just a radical Islam in disguised.

Have I asserted such thing? I don't believe I have, what I have said however is that if you’re going to claim that the President broke the law, you should have proof and evidence.

I guess we should be ashame for exercising our constitutional rights.

Just like certain government officials have to be afraid to exercise their constitutional rights.

Right Marge?

Originally posted by Intelearthling
So what's it going to be? Stop them at any cost, even if it means some of the American peoples liberties are restricted or watch our women and children DIE!? It would be my belief that most Americans can grow accustomed to being "watched" than to bury innocent little children. Or is this what most Americans want? I don't think so!

[edit on 21/12/05 by Intelearthling]

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THING OF THE CHILDREN!?!

Yet another anti-american diatribe by yet another Red Coat. Why exactly do you hate the constitution so much? That you would feel the need to give your full throttled support to those who would chip away at its foundation, and remold it an image more fitting of Stalin, than Washington?

So, again I ask, why do you hate your country?

Hrm...

www.globalnewsmatrix.com...

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

and...

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

This is the same ol' crap from Druge. He's a shill, and you all know it.

Originally posted by brimstone735
Why exactly do you hate the constitution so much?

Can you show me when and where at any time did I say I hated the Constitution of the United States of America? You can't. That's because I've never said it, public nor private. I regard the Constitution as one of the most important documents that can be granted to man.

Originally posted by brimstone735
So, again I ask, why do you hate your country?

As in the above. Show where and when I've ever said that I hate the United States of America? You can't. That's because I've never said no such thing in public nor private. Besides, Where've you been for the past 4 years, 3 months and 10 days? Do you not realize, that as Americans, we have an important duty to be performed for future generations?

As a friend of mine who graduated first in his class from Georgetown law says:

"There is nothing illegal about what Bush did. And I am the biggest Democrat I have ever met."

This is just another example of the liberals trying to smear Bush.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Can you show me when and where at any time did I say I hated the Constitution of the United States of America? You can't. That's because I've never said it, public nor private. I regard the Constitution as one of the most important documents that can be granted to man.

And yet, strangely, you feel inclined to ignore selective portions of it as it suits you. You're more than happy to throw out the fourth amendment, and probably the first amendment, because those pesky things keep getting in the way of our never ending war with Oceania.

You can't claim to love something that you don't have respect for, and you can't respect something that you actively attempt to destroy.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
As in the above. Show where and when I've ever said that I hate the United States of America? You can't. That's because I've never said no such thing in public nor private. Besides, Where've you been for the past 4 years, 3 months and 10 days? Do you not realize, that as Americans, we have an important duty to be performed for future generations?

See, that's where you and I differ. You casually throw away freedoms, and support domestic spying on our fellow citizens. You sacrifice liberty for security, and by doing so, you piss on the graves of our forefathers. You support torture, and secret prison camps, and abductions, and holding suspects without trials, or lawyers for that matter. You support the poisoning of our skies, and the water we drink. You support misogyny and fear mongering as rational public discourse.

Nary a single one of these things I would consider patriotic values. These aren't the actions of a Patriot, those are the actions of scared, whimpering child, cowering under the covers because of the boogeyman in the closet.

The only thing you're teaching our future generations is how to live life as pathetic, simpering cattle - waiting to be herded into a corral, and slaughtered by their masters.

Well, no thank you.

You can keep your brand of anti-American nationalism exactly to yourself, because I've had my fill of Red Coats willing to cast out the baby with the bathwater. I've had my fill of Neo-Carpetbaggers exploiting my nation's grief to line their own ham fisted pockets. I've had my fill of divisive wedge issues somehow giving people the mandate to recreate an era that never existed in the first place.

Basically, I've had my fill of insecure and overgrown children terrified of the world spinning around them. It's time to grow up.

Carter, Clinton, and Bush all gained surveilence
rights legally and correctly. These rights were
necessary. Nothing illegal was done and I am
VERY glad that they are (and were) taking proactive
steps to keep America safer from terrorist attacks.

If part of keeping America safe is having the NSA
listen on on calls made between America and known
terrorist countries ... that's just fine with me.

Heck ... they can listen in on my phone calls too if
they like. I don't do anything illegal and if they
were to feel the necessity to listen in .... that's fine
with me.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Bush was caught in a lie! How can you trust him? Last year he said that searches still needed court ordered warrants but now we know those statements were lies.

It might interest you to know that the current debate and thread is not about illegal searches, but about phone calls conversations. I do hope you can get your facts straight.

Question for people on the Bush bandwagon about illegaly spying on Americans.

And it might be a moot point, but I’ll try on more time, can you please show me where President Bush broke the law? You can say it as much as you want, but words are cheap you know?

Bush gets slagged because he's a bad President and doesn't do good things for the nation.

That is a subjective view, you know that don’t you? It also might interest you to know that “bad” Presidents don't get re-elected by the majority of the American Citizens.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

It might interest you to take a close look at the election results from the last two elections. I'm glad Bush won over Kerry, but I don't think that he won those elections in the traditional sense. The majority of American Citizens voted for the other guy in 2000. How the majority of American Citizens voted in the most recent election for president will most likely never be known. When there are the kinds of assaults on the American Electoral Process that we are having today, who can say? So your contention that Bush was re-elected by a majority of American Citizens is merely a subjective view. In fact, all views expressed here are necessarily subjective views, coming to each of us through the same channels and filtered through the same bias, prejudice, and discernment that we acquire through our varied experiences. Life is a big, big thing, WestPoint23, bigger than the scope of even your intellect can encompass. Diversity of opinion and viewpoint is important and necessary for reasoned discourse to take place.

As to what this thread is about...I thought it was a comparison of public reaction to the news that Bush ordered domestic spying, when Carter and Clinton did the same thing. Whether Bush "broke the law" is certainly an important point, but not what this thread is about.

Thanks for your time...

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I guess anybody that dare to step out and question the government is deemed a terrorist and treat to national security or just a radical Islam in disguised.

Have I asserted such thing? I don't believe I have, what I have said however is that if you’re going to claim that the President broke the law, you should have proof and evidence.

I guess we should be ashame for exercising our constitutional rights.

Just like certain government officials have to be afraid to exercise their constitutional rights.

Right Marge?

First off, I don't think marg6023 was talking to you. And the question of due process in regards to these particular laws is clouded by the overwhelming number of suspicious events surrounding the 9/11 tragedy. If Dick Cheney and some other top administration officials were involved in either the 9/11 attacks or in covering it up, then the justification for the passage of those laws vanishes into thin air and a frenzy of public reaction. Not to mention the felonies involved, or the treason involved. I seriously doubt that even if it gets covered up in our current affairs, the long eye of history will not be fooled and this will be seen either as America's darkest days, or the days in which America fell. Both of those choices make my free American blood boil with rage. And if the day comes, I will stand and fight to save my country from enemies both foreign and domestic. And if that day comes, I will be happy to see you there with me, whichever side you choose to be on.

Thanks for your time...

There are also plenty of suspicious events surrounding the "attacks" that happened on Clinton's watch, for example the first world Trade Center bombing in which the FBI was implicated, and the Waco and Oklahoma City attacks in which both the FBI and the ATF were implicated. These also make the justification for Clinton's domestic surveillance orders highly questionable.

Jimmy Carter is a member of the Trilateral Commission, so his signing a similar order also reeks of the kind of script and setup mentioned earlier in this thread.

So as a good American, I have to question both of these attacks on our basic civil liberties as well as find affront with the actions of our current president.

Thanks for your time...

On a side note of how this administration works:
The day of Saddam Hussein's capture there was an addendum added to a portion of the "Patriot" Act, that allowed the US government to access any and all medical, financial, or otherwise personal information of any citizen in the US. Furthermore, if there are queries if anyone has accessed information about you, the institution holding your info is required to tell you no one has viewed it. In my opinion, this is like an illusionists way of getting one to focus on one hand while the other is stealing your wallet and wristwatch! IF this admin. is so on the level, why does it have the most secretive, and closed white house in the history of our country, (and has been since the first swearing in of Bush.)?!? Someone on this thread said something to the effect of "I am not hiding anything, or doing anything illegal so if they want to tap my phone. Fine." If this admin. is not hiding anything... why so secretive?

Originally posted by curme
EDIT: To answer your question, previous Presidents made their activities known, look at the memos, so the courts, congress, and the senate had a right to challenge his decision. Bush did not.

Bush did not conduct these operations under cover of secrecy, curme:

Bush said that he authorized the surveillance more than 30 times, that it was reviewed about every 45 days by top legal officials, including his counsel and the attorney general, and that fresh intelligence assessments were part of each review. He also said the surveillance had been disclosed to congressional leaders in more than a dozen briefings.

Even Nancy Pelosi admitted prior knowledge:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, acknowledged in a statement yesterday that she had been advised of Bush's decision "to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities," and has received several updates. She said she had "expressed my strong concern" during those briefings.

NSA

Yet, in spite of the sensitivity of this information, it continues to be leaked and picked up by our enemies. We are all aware of the Washington Times leak about the sat phones being used by bin Laden which resulted in the loss of a source of valuable intelligence. No one was punished for that, as far as I remember.