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.

 

Text of Gore's "Dangerous Breach" speech at Constitution Hall

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Once again some people want to shoot the messenger and Feed The White Elephant while ignoring the substance of the message. :shk:

Why aren't these things televised?

Was this on the nightly news?

If not, you need to think about why.
.


I tried watching Gore's speech on CSPAN.........let's just say he is not the most engaging speech giver. I could not help but start to close my eyes as he droned on. The speech reads better than it was given that's for sure.




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Now lets look a this sentence, “Illegal wiretapping is unconstitutional,” you don't say. The question really is how can you be sure it’s illegal in the first place without having all the facts surrounding it?


Of course the reason we don't have those facts in he first place is because they're "top secret" and would "aid our enemies", isn't that convenient...

Oh well I know my new duties as a post 9/11 American citizen. Back to keeping my head down and my mouth shut while my betters run the show.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
While there was not a declaration of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, is it still fair to say we are at war. Shots are being fired, people are dying, I'd say we're at war. Dont play symantecs games when its obvious were at war, just not in the traditional sense that the president sent a declaration of war bill to congress. If shots are being fired, its war. My opinion, but I just think that if there is exchange of fire going on, screw calling it a conflict, its a war.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Gores' speech was, IMO, wishy-washy. In one sentence he supports President Bush and his decisions and in the next he critisizes them.

It's obvious that the president knows one thing that the former vice-president doesn't: that the enemy's not going to willingly come forward and let the world know about their plans.

And what's MLK got to do with anything? If the truth were to come out about the man, there'd be riots in the streets.

25 years ago I'd read some documents on how he accepted funds from the former Soviet Union to cause ripples here in the United States. He may have not been a communist but he sure went to bed with them.

American hero!
What a farce!

[edit on 17/1/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Hello there Pot, meet Kettle! If I recall correctly (And on this matter I know I recall correctly) wasn't the Clinton administration, of which Mr. internet himself was the Veep, caught basically doing the same thing - but only for political purposes? Um, yeah it was. How interesting then that Mr. Gore would criticize and commit such hypocrisy when the current administration is doing this for security reasons!
I mean, after all, the FBI was Hitlary's own private little NSA.

You see it this continued hypocrisy and self-righteous fake indignation that continues to keep the Democrats from gaining any real traction. I guess that they never learned that when you point a finger at someone else, you still have 3 pointing back at you!



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I tried watching Gore's speech on CSPAN.........let's just say he is not the most engaging speech giver. I could not help but start to close my eyes as he droned on. The speech reads better than it was given that's for sure.


Yeah, not like Bush's speeches. At least you know you're in for a laugh then.

I think this is a tremendous speech, well though out and delivered. Hopefully some of the people responsible for upholding the Constitution are able to hear it. If not then this will change nothing and we'll continue down the slippery slope to total tyranny by the Bush regime.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Wow. Incredible speech. Little did we know that Al Gore would eventually look so alive and incredibly smart back then, did we?!

He's right, and i back his words a 100%.

He should give the presidency another try. OOOps, that wont work if Condaleeza is running...I forgot about the fraudulent votes...



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Way to go Gore!!


Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that can Read and Write, And Speak in office...

WooHoo come on 08



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

What war?

Congress didn't declare a war.



Umm... Congress has not given a formal declaration of war since WWII, are you telling me no wars since then have happened? A Formal Declaration of war has fallen out of favor, what is now given is an Authorization for use of Military Force.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for the use of Military Force (AUMF). Section 2(a) of the AUMF authorized the President to "use all necessary... force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 terrorist attacks." Seems to me to be pretty clear and self explanatory.

[edit on 17-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
That's a lot of power, is it not? To be able to sic the largest military in the world on anyone that you think (or say) was somehow connected to 9/11?

So, what if the current administration lies? Oh, it would never happen, I know, but what if it did?

Then all of your apparent trust and faith in the current administration, wielding all these new military powers, would be seem silly, no?

Either that, or you would applaud the slaughter of so many people, both soldiers and civilians, for fraudulent reasoning.

Or only pretend to be concerned, and not really care, of course.

But I'm guessing your trust in our government is unshakable; they can do no wrong, correct?

[edit on 17-1-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

But I'm guessing your trust in our government is unshakable; they can do no wrong, correct?


No its not, I’m just not the type of person to take opinion and personal views as fact. I’m also not the type of person to call President Bush a criminal, and to call what he’s doing illegal without making sure I have some solid proof behind me. Now I say solid proof because a matter of this significance deserves more then just outlandish allegations, and empty claims.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   


Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that can Read and Write, And Speak in office...

WooHoo come on 08

This is the problem. You want so badly for your side to win. Blue must defeat Red. It simply must. Blue is our only hope!

FACT: World Leader Al Gore sat by (just like World Leader Bill Clinton) and watched Rwandans hack each other up by the boatload. He watched thousands of FAMILIES die in pools of their own blood. World Leader Al Gore is a tool of those who propagate (and distract you from) actual world poverty and misery. Plain and simple.

Ask yourself what really matters. If you want to save America, maybe you have to save places like Rwanda first? Maybe it cannot be done through the current political structure. Maybe an essential part of the American spirit means being heroic when there really is a global problem. A million people hacked to pieces is not something we can close our eyes to.

Clinton and Gore should live with these deaths on their heads forever.

These are politicians, people. Al and Tipper and all their buddies/chums desire one thing alone and that is power over others. They may have the left-donkey-flavored-"I'm fighting for the little-guy" blankets draped over them, --and they may actually have deluded themselves that their petty lives actually are affecting America positively, but they are still just politicians slurping from the trough. Gore was invisible during his time in the white house because only Clinton had the Bush-stamped ticket to the kingdom.

The speech is patriotic, and I like him because he's an earth-loving grass-smoking human, but frankly Al Gore is like colored H2O in a bottle marked "Antidote".


[edit on 18-1-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
What war?

Congress didn't declare a war.


But Congress did vote to authorize the use of force. Splitting hairs, aren't we?


Kerry even voted more than once - once for and once against.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I thought it was a sensational speech. Unfortunantly as an Australian, i don't know enough about Mr Gores' history to know whether he is being completely hypocritical with what he says.

Either way, i know a alot of the international community has been unimpressed with the current administrations foreign policy decisions, and unfortunatly as mere non americans we have no say as to what the most powerful nation in the world does internationally.

IMO if this speech is an accurate sign of new measures of accountability in the American administration, then if i could vote, Gore would have mine.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
This is not a red vs blue discussion.

This is about the erosion of the fundamental balance of power within our system of government.

Are any of you capable of discussing THAT with any degree of intellect?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
".... The problem as I see it is thus: What are the limits of presidential power during a time of national crisis. Is he allowed to do what he feels is nessacary to protect the nation and its people, or is he obligated to bow to constitutional authority.?"

REPLY: The wiretaps are legal under: Title 50 U.S. Code Chapter 50, subchapter 1 section 1802, en-acted 1978, titled Electronic Surveilance w/o court order..

".... However, this same document gives him enourmous unstated power to do what is nessecary."

REPLY: True... there are powers delegated in peacetime, and others in time of war.

".... Someone once said and correctly I might add, "the constitution is not a suicide pact". A president must be allowed to do what he feels is nessecary to protect the nation."

REPLY: I must dis-agree with this somewhat. I'm tired of people saying the Constitution is a "living document." Most everything reqwuired to do the job is spelled out in one law or another.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
What war?

Congress didn't declare a war.


Congress has the power to declare war, but that does not lessen the Chief Executives Constitutional obligation to make war in response to aggression. It's there.... I just read it.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
"..... He should give the presidency another try. OOOps, that wont work if Condaleeza is running...I forgot about the fraudulent votes..."

REPLY:....... yeah... I wish the Dems would stop doing that. Gore, president? HA HA HA HA That's only slightly less funny (and dangerous) as Hitlary being in office.... again.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Hello there, Mate:

"... I thought it was a sensational speech. Unfortunantly as an Australian, i don't know enough about Mr Gores' history to know whether he is being completely hypocritical with what he says."

REPLY: Believe me.. totally, unabashedly hypocritical. Do a Google on Eschelon and Carnivore. Gore is the one who wanted ALL computers worldwide to have a code built into them so the NSA et-al could check out your computer on a whim, and also wanted the ability to read everyones Email, too.

"....IMO if this speech is an accurate sign of new measures of accountability in the American administration, then if i could vote, Gore would have mine."

REPLY: Everything Bush has done, including the wiretaps, are accountable and legal.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
"....You need to go back and read Section 1802. It expressly details that it is AGAINST THE LAW to eavesdrop on U. S. citizens (1802.(a).(1).(B)."

REPLY: No... it states the conditions as to when a court order is allowed and when it is not. It also states very clearly who is considered to be a candidate for wiretaps..... geez...

"....Also, did the Attorney General certify the need IN WRITING and UNDER OATH? If he did, I sure didn't hear about it."

REPLY: I'm soooo sorry that they didn't call you so you could witness it, or call you to tell you the process was completed in accordance with all applicable laws. You should write them and complain.

".... Was compliance reported to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?"

REPLY: I believe that responsibility falls to the FISA court head judge. Again.... they didn't call you?

"..... Was the certification transmitted under seal to a court as stipulated in 1802.(a).(3)?"

REPLY: I'm pretty sure that's what's been in the news. You REALLY should call and complain.

".... Its not enough to quote it.....you need to understand it too."

REPLY: I was just going to say that!

(edit for content)


[edit on 18-1-2006 by zappafan1]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join