It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Cheney Defends Domestic Spying

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
*MODS I once again ran out of Characters in my post the sources for the two external texts were:uscode.house.gov

and the constitutional quote is from:usconstitution.net


sorry for being a pain in the butt but I had to give the credit to my sources




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes I do, and I remember the times. Who brought an end to the VietNam war?


The Tet offense brought the turning point, from there it was just a matter of time before we ended the war, I dont credit Nixon for ending Vietnam because it would have ended without him anyway.



Nixon, tho misguided, was acting out of political motives, none of them against the American public. Clinton was just too weak to be a decent person.


He made a mockery of the US political system. Clinton, morally wrong, didn't cheat the people, he cheated his wife. If you think a guy who cheats on his wife is worse then a guy who cheat in politics (which by the way guide the country, so its more important then any personal morality) well then I can see why you support bush. A guy who cheats on politics is power hungry and he makes a mockery of our political system by trying to exploit it and ultimately destroy it, to me thats worse then a guy who cheats on his wife.



No they didn't. It was pure survival politics, and they got caught. And he did the right thing by resigning. Today's politicians (Jefferson and McKinney) would do well to take a lesson from him.


I agree, Jeerson should definately resign. McKinney case you and I both dont even know what happen. You and I both read a news paper and assumed what happen. There were no details of what occured.

Now trying to say it was just "survival politics" is BS. He tried to cheat in our system because he was too power hungry that he got paranoid. This same guy had laws made because his power hungry motive made him do actions the courts found to be unjust. Yea I would say this guy was a cheat at the system, and exploited it at every turn. That is by far the most shameful thing in the presidency.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

from grimreaper797
BUT anyway jsobecky, WHY did you even bring clinton into this, or was this just a blatent attempt to attack the former president again because you dont want to focus on the current one?

Read the entire thread, grimreaper, and you'll see that I have addressed the current issue.



REPLY: grimreaper79.....
Lets see.... it was Clinton/Gore/Janet (The Torch) Reno who approved and used Carnivore and Eschelon (which Bush refused to use), Clinton who used wiretaps against political enemies, Clinton who sold our entire patent database (which includes 40+ years of nuclear technology) to the Communist Chinese for campaign contributions? Is THAT the Clinton you're talking about?
The one who, along with ex-president peanut, signed the "Agreed Framework", which is why we have a nuclear north Korea? That both Clintons had the 600+ FBI files in the White House, which is illegal. Implementing the largest tax increase in American history..... on Social Security recipients? And he "didn't cheat the people or abuse the laws? It was "just a BJ?"

I could use all 8000 characters to describe his crimes, and not have enough.
He was impeached, but unfortunately the house managers refused to do their Constitutional duty; he was never tried for his crimes, even with over 18 BOXES of evidence in the Ford Building. If you had done the research, you wouldn't be griping about this administration.
As of yet.... no crimes have been commited; no laws broken, even where it pertains to FISA. Sorry!

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1] .... for added content.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   


original quote by:zappafan1
Lets see.... it was Clinton/Gore/Janet (The Torch) Reno who approved and used Carnivore and Eschelon (which Bush refused to use)


While I agree that the use of The above mentioned methods of "data mining" were and are inscrupulous; this topic is not about What they did. Rather, it is about what Actions are being done now. I complained about Echelon in the ninetees when I first found out. And we can do a thread on that anytime(if there isnt already five or ten).
I will not comment further on that portion of your post(in this thread).







original quote by:zappafan1
If you had done the research, you wouldn't be griping about this administration.
As of yet.... no crimes have been commited; no laws broken, even where it pertains to FISA. Sorry!


Earlier in this thread I illustrated exactly what the Presidents power(according to the Constitution) has at his disposal. Nowhere in these Constitutional powers does it imply that the President has any higher duty than to "defend and uphold" the Constitution. That means any law that violates a Constitutional law is null and void(thats the way it should be) but of course this is not the reality; I illustrated this in the WPA of 1973(earlier in this thread). Of course what should be and what is are two different things.

what should be:
Memebers of our govt have violated our Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in our papers and effects..etc. Those people, who are, responsible should be tried and convicted.
And in the world of should you would be dead wrong.

what is:
The many laws that exist today that violate one Amendment or another; are and have been in practice for a long time. These laws are binding. As such, as much as it turns my stomch to admit this, Is argueably legal.... ouch that hurt.
So zappa as much as I hate to say it, this statement:



original quote by:zappafan1
no crimes have been commited; no laws broken, even where it pertains to FISA. Sorry!


so far is correct



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: grimreaper79.....
Lets see.... it was Clinton/Gore/Janet (The Torch) Reno who approved and used Carnivore and Eschelon (which Bush refused to use), Clinton who used wiretaps against political enemies, Clinton who sold our entire patent database (which includes 40+ years of nuclear technology) to the Communist Chinese for campaign contributions? Is THAT the Clinton you're talking about?
The one who, along with ex-president peanut, signed the "Agreed Framework", which is why we have a nuclear north Korea? That both Clintons had the 600+ FBI files in the White House, which is illegal. Implementing the largest tax increase in American history..... on Social Security recipients? And he "didn't cheat the people or abuse the laws? It was "just a BJ?"

I could use all 8000 characters to describe his crimes, and not have enough.
He was impeached, but unfortunately the house managers refused to do their Constitutional duty; he was never tried for his crimes, even with over 18 BOXES of evidence in the Ford Building. If you had done the research, you wouldn't be griping about this administration.
As of yet.... no crimes have been commited; no laws broken, even where it pertains to FISA. Sorry!

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1] .... for added content.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]


lol right. Just because of how stupid clinton was, that excuses bushes utter stupidity? no I think not. maybe we should focus on the current president though? Im not bashing President Reagan for selling arms to saddam so that I can justify why its our fault that this all happened, making Reagan the bad guy and some left wing guy look better. Im stating the facts, they were both disgraceful, but Nixon was the biggest disgrace of them all.

I see hilary clintons name right next to his when reading the report about wiretapping and such and see it all falling into place. Hilary Clinton is to say the least, a disgrace as well. But I am seeing more about VAAPCON then anything else. Are those the enemies your refering to? christians? Well I would say monitering any religious group is wrong, but if an islamic group was doing something pontentially dangerous to peoples lives and claimed we shouldn't watch them because they are a religious group, would you let that slide? I wouldn't. There is a difference between being in a religious group and hiding behind a religious group.

Anyway I never said clinton was in anyway a good guy, but it seems that people defending the position "bush is bad, you should look at clinton" tend to see things in black and white. If I say that bush is worse, Im assumed a clinton supporter? Truthfully, I dont care what clinton did... because clinton is nothing more then a former president living out the rest of his days now. Im not going to play the blame game with some guy that isnt even involved anymore.

but for the sake of you guy, clinton was worse, now can we finally address the topic or was that your only defense?

ALSO, I noticed you said that the bush admin hasnt broke any laws. Until all the files are declassified, you are hardly one to say that unless you have inside access. Just because they haven't been convicted yet doesn't mean they haven't broken any laws yet.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Originally posted by grimreaper797


lol right. Just because of how stupid clinton was, that excuses bushes utter stupidity? no I think not. maybe we should focus on the current president though?


REPLY:I'm a centrist/Constitutional believer and somewhat of a Libertarian (although many of their beliefs smack of Socialism, Marxism, and are un-Constitutional). I get tired of the Bush bashing when Clinton got away with being the highest ranking spy in American history.
From 8 years of following the issues, Bush has been right concerning just about everything. If he's so stupid, the Left puts itself in a very harsh light by saying Bush fooled them. However, in every case, the appropriate members of congress, on both sides, were briefed and otherwise made aware of just about everything the administration has done.


Im not bashing President Reagan for selling arms to saddam


REPLY: Having served at the time, only intelligence and recon was given to Saddam; and yes, I've read the posts here saying otherwise.


I see hilary clintons name right next to his when reading the report about wiretapping and such and see it all falling into place. Hilary Clinton is to say the least, a disgrace as well. But I am seeing more about VAAPCON then anything else. Are those the enemies your refering to? christians? Well I would say monitering any religious group is wrong, but if an islamic group was doing something pontentially dangerous to peoples lives and claimed we shouldn't watch them because they are a religious group, would you let that slide? I wouldn't. There is a difference between being in a religious group and hiding behind a religious group.


REPLY: I agree with most of that. It gets my goat that there are people who complain about "racial profiling", but eventually it goes from that to being a "description of the perp, and their MO".


Anyway I never said clinton was in anyway a good guy, but it seems that people defending the position "bush is bad, you should look at clinton" tend to see things in black and white. If I say that bush is worse, Im assumed a clinton supporter? Truthfully, I dont care what clinton did... because clinton is nothing more then a former president living out the rest of his days now. Im not going to play the blame game with some guy that isnt even involved anymore.


REPLY: He's still in the game; he's no doubt looking to replace Mr. Coffee (Kofi Anan). Just think what it would be like with him there and hitlary as President. Of course she won't win, but still the thought is quite scary. One has to remember that Clinton was part and parcel the cause of much of what we are now going through, including 9/11.


ALSO, I noticed you said that the bush admin hasnt broke any laws. Until all the files are declassified, you are hardly one to say that unless you have inside access. Just because they haven't been convicted yet doesn't mean they haven't broken any laws yet.


REPLY: There have been many allegations made, and some have already been dismissed. It's easy to make allegations, and it takes much time and taxpayer expense to find in either direction. The case against Rove is a good example. The legal system for politicians is different than the average Joe. A grand jury should decide if a law was in fact broken before they begin the hearing process.
Yes. I do have ears in some rather high places.

Edit for content.


[edit on 26-6-2006 by zappafan1]




top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join