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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
"....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]

1802.(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;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person 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 ...


"....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.


There is no need to be condescending about your responses. I wouldn't do it to you, and I don't expect you to do it to me. My point was that if this had indeed happened, it would be big news and I wouldn't be the first one to point it out.

Plain and simple, Gore has pointed out that the law has been broken and no one is lifting a finger to do anything about it.

Clinton has an affair and they try to impeach him...Bush violates Federal law and the whole country is quiet.




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
A "United States person" is a citizen or permanent resident only. Not someone on a travel, work or student visa. It's not a matter of simply being In the US.

Second, what is "substantial likelihood"? What percent constitutes “substantial likelihood”? It's arguable that if only a small percent of the surveillance targets turned out to be legitimate "United States persons", that this falls underneath the definition of "substantial likelihood".

Also, I cannot find any hard information about the legal standing of those people targets by this surveillance.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I repeat - this is NOT about politics or whether or not war was declared - THIS IS ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

Can someone discuss this aspect please?

As for me, I've always believed that the ONLY reason our democracy has succeeded as long as it has is because of the fundmental balance of power between our three branches of government.

Comments?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

I repeat - this is NOT about politics or whether or not war was declared - THIS IS ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT.


Umm... if you want to discuss why checks and balances are important to our government, then by all means lets all do that. However, if you want to imply that the Bush Administration has somehow eroded those balances then you're getting involved in the political aspect of it, and would be contradicting yourself. So, which one is it?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I repeat - this is NOT about politics or whether or not war was declared - THIS IS ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT.


Umm... if you want to discuss why checks and balances are important to our government, then by all means lets all do that. However, if you want to imply that the Bush Administration has somehow eroded those balances then you're getting involved in the political aspect of it, and would be contradicting yourself. So, which one is it?


You're right - and I apologize. I guess I assumed that because former Republican Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr is saying the same thing as former Vice President Al Gore - that the idea that this is truly "political" was mute. My apologies.

www.prisonplanet.com...

I am dismayed that our country is so divided politically. People seem to be unable to look beyond finger pointing at WHAT is happening.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by Shawnna]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I repeat - this is NOT about politics or whether or not war was declared - THIS IS ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT.


Umm... if you want to discuss why checks and balances are important to our government, then by all means lets all do that. However, if you want to imply that the Bush Administration has somehow eroded those balances then you're getting involved in the political aspect of it, and would be contradicting yourself. So, which one is it?


ummm.......are you implying that throwing that balance of power out the window is part of any particular party's agenda. I mean, there's quite a few republicans raising their voice about this also ya know. are they traitors to their party?

and can you, or anyone, honestly assure us that it was just "suspected terrorists" that were eavesdropped on? I mean let's say, one of the committees in congress that routinely dealt with national security matters (just can't think of the name of them off hand) were to request some details for this assurance......who would they turn to? Bush? the intelligence community?? attorney general? who could honestly assure them that it was only those suspected of having links to terrorism? This was FISA's role, to assure congress, as well as the american people, that the president's and the intelligence community weren't abusing this technology. only, bush decided that FISA was too much of a hassle to deal with. as a result, he has lost more credibility in many peoples eyes. and all the bush supporters can do is point to the one that revealed the facts to the public and let them know what was happening. Well, if Bush was playing by the rule book, he would now have FISA standing up and vouching that this wasn't being misused! The law not only protected the american citizens from an abusive government, if one happened to turn up. but it also protected the integrety of the government in the public's eyes! you add to that the pretty pictures of abu garib, the redefining of torture, the blatant disregard for treaties signed by Bush's predicessors, the misleading to get to war, the scandals, k street, ect. ect. ect. and quite frankly, I can see why some might be a little worried about having Bush ordering electronic serveilance on anyone he wishes!! And, well, in my opinion, he'll probably go down in history as the most inept president in history......

he didn't have to disregard FISA,
he didn't have to redefine torture, or ignore the Geneva Convention, he didn't have to lie about the reasons for the war. The "your either with us or against us" attitude extended well beyond just foreign countries and half the population was alienated, as well as congressmen and women and lobbyist who didn't quack like the duck that the republicans wanted to hear!! The sick thing is, there is a real threat, real people would love to place real bombs in select spots in our country and kill real people, lots of them!! all the torture, all the electronic servalience, and all the silencing of those opposed to bush's policies wouldn't be half as effective in dealing with this threat as having a population undivided in it's support that are kept well informed of the FACTS, not the spin, not the religous, political, philosophical dogma, just the plain unadulturate facts. We don't have this, and well, the blame for that can go to every politician in washington as far as I am concerned!! if they aren't wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, they're signing 400 page bills without reading them, or throwing in stupid unrelated laws in at the last minute hoping no one will notice, or spouting a bunch of crap hoping for a politcal windfall, the last thing on their priority list is our national security!!!

I think Gore and Hillary both brought up some pretty good points about our nations current state. The question is, who is there bold enough to do anything about any of it!



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

I am dismayed that our country is so divided politically. People seem to be unable to look beyond finger pointing at WHAT is happening.


I’m looking, but I’m not seeing the same thing you are, why is that? Now as I said before, if you want to discuss checks and balances then by all means lets discuss them! If you however want to sit here and narrow you view to a particular president then you can do that on your own.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
BostonBill99..... my bad, and I apologise for being condescending. However, the president is all for the investigation, as am I. I'd bet a weeks pay that the law wasn't broken.
Gore has some nuts complaining about it, as he was the one who wanted everyones email be available to the government, and wanted a "key" built into every computer so the intel. agencies could peruse computers at their discression. Google "carnivore" and "eschelon."

Clinton WAS impeached, and he's lucky he isn't wearing prison orange along with his wife over treason, selling nuclear tech. to the Chinese, and a whole lot more.... I have links, but it doesn't pertain to this topic.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
".... bush decided that FISA was too much of a hassle to deal with...."

REPLY: Not true, in every case he went to at least one of the FISA judges.

".... all the bush supporters can do is point to the one that revealed the facts to the public and let them know what was happening."

REPLY: It's against the law

".... you add to that the pretty pictures of abu garib, the redefining of torture...."

REPLY: Yeah.... seeing those guys with panties on their head, and something akin to naked "Twister" are really something.... talk about the redefining of the word "torture." I've seen worse in college hazing parties.

".... the blatant disregard for treaties signed by Bush's predicessors...."

REPLY: Please name a few.... maybe with links?

"....the misleading to get to war...."

REPLY: Not true; You need to do more research on that one.

".... the scandals...."

REPLY: Scandals are not crimes. The previous admin. on the other hand.......

"....And, well, in my opinion, he'll probably go down in history as the most inept president in history."

REPLY: Your opinion. I'd say he'll be put on a par with Winston Churchill. We'll see.....

".... he didn't have to disregard FISA...."

REPLY: He didn't... wait for the results of the investigation(s).

".... or ignore the Geneva Convention...."

REPLY: Terrorists, in America or abroad, do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention:


International Rules About Soldiers:

".... combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians."

".... In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them."

".... The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers."

".... Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention."
Do the research!

".... he didn't have to lie about the reasons for the war."

REPLY: Again, research... he didn't.

".... The "your either with us or against us" attitude [u]extended well beyond just foreign countries...."

REPLY: What.... into space?

".... there is a real threat, real people would love to place real bombs in select spots in our country and kill real people, lots of them!!"

REPLY: Ummmmmm they DID, both here and abroad.... And it happened long before Bush was in office.

".... if they aren't wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, they're signing 400 page bills without reading them, or throwing in stupid unrelated laws in at the last minute hoping no one will notice, or spouting a bunch of crap hoping for a politcal windfall....."

REPLY: I agree with most of that.

".... Gore and Hillary both brought up some pretty good points about our nations current state...."

REPLY: You REALLY need to do more research on what happened when both of them were in office. IE: Eschelon and Carnivore. Oh... that's spelled Hitlary and Algore.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The same al gore that said these things?


(Source: Fox News 09/18/00; MSNBC 09/21/00 - The News with Brian Williams)

At an event in Las Vegas on Monday, Gore declared potential breast cancer victims faced "a long waiting line before they could get a biopsy or, uh, or a uh, another kind of, what am I looking for, a sonogram or...." People in the crowd shouted "mammogram."



(Source: NY Times, 08/12/00)

"When my sister and I were growing up," Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, "there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."



(Source: www.foxnews.com...)

Oct. 25 2000 JACKSON, Tenn. (Reuters) — Criticizing Bush's Social Security privatization plan at a rally in Tennessee, Gore said, "He is proposing to privatize a big part of Social Security and he's proposing to take $1 trillion, a million billion dollars out of the Social Security trust fund and give it as a tax incentive to young workers."

A trillion is one thousand billion, not a million billion



(Source: New York Post, October 5, 2000 "Gore's nose is growing again")

In the Presidential debate on October 3, 2000, Governor George W. Bush gave credit to the Federal Emergency Management Service (FEMA) for their work in Texas during fires and floods in Parker County. Vice President Al Gore said "I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out." Carl Cameron, of Fox News first reported that Gore had not, in fact, been to Texas with Witt to look at the damage in Parker County. Gore WAS in Texas, but FEMA officials said Witt never went to Texas to deal with the 1998 fires.
To say that he was traveling with Witt implies strongly that Gore was traveling to a location in an official capacity. Gore was on his way to a fundraiser, and happened to run into FEMA people at the airport. The purpose of his trip was to attend a fundraiser, NOT to see the damage, as Gore implies. While Gore has accompanied Witt on other occasions, Gore didn't on this occasion, AND the purpose of this particular trip wasn't even connected with the disasters. Some claim Gore just "forgot" that Witt wasn't with him on this occasion... did Gore also forget the purpose of this particular trip?
"If James Lee was there before or after, then you know, I got that wrong then," Gore said on ABC's Good Morning America on October 4, 2000.



(Source: Washington Post, Sept. 24 2000)

At a Sept. 22 press conference, Gore stated "I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established." However, President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman



(Sources: Sunday, June 18, Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Washington Post, June 14, 2000)

Milwaukee, WI - "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."

Hey! I am an expert in the hotel industry in several states - having spent more than one night there!



(Sources: Transcript www.wired.com... )

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.
Gore supported technological advances related to the advancement of the Internet, but to say that HE took the initiative in creating the Internet is a bit much. He wasn't even in office yet when the net was being used.



(Sources: The Toronto Sun, 11/19/95)

"A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.




Is this the same al gore everyone is saying is such a great speech writer and presenter...this al gore?

hmmmmm

- One Man Short



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawnna

I repeat - this is NOT about politics or whether or not war was declared - THIS IS ABOUT THE EROSION OF THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

Can someone discuss this aspect please?

Hello Shawnna. Sure, I'll discuss that aspect.

You sound very excited by it. seeing the executive branch take over. Yes, they have congress, the supreme court and the executive branch all locked up and are driving the country over a cliff. Essentially that's right?

The thing is, I (and others like me) believe that when dems (blue) are in power, the same crap keeps coming down the trough. You see?

America is being sovietized. You realize this, right?

The show of politics is designed to keep the masses docile and eating taco bell. Commerce is the way to communism, or didn't you know?

Communism was invented by capitalists. They funded it, they hid Leon Trotsky in the US, and then sprung him into Russia when the time was right.

You think voting matters? It does not. I still do it, of course, because it could matter some day in the future, and I'd like to develop the habit in the meantime. I vote for whomever I like best. I voted green party this last time around because I wanted to give the finger to both red and blue, but I realize none of it matters anyway.

Commerce is all that matters. Debt. World debt and usury in the form of bank notes and a fed chairman who is carefully seen as having his hand on the accelerator and handbrake of the economy.

There's only one thing going on right now in the US, Shawnna, and that is confiscation of property. The middle class is being systematically eliminated through what can only be termed, "designed political stupidity". I call it this because there is no way in hell, that Bill Clinton (for example) believes even HALF of what he says. No way in hell. That guy is smart.

But he has to play stupid see? Don't you see he has to play dumb because the middle Americans want someone they can understand? Being president has nothing to do with Leading America. It's a movie!

Bankers own the country through the birth-certificate, "implied contract" snatching of your very soul. The whole nation's labor (that is, all your productive work, from birth to death) was floated as a bond, which the world bank had enough capital to buy. They bought the USA, which was incorporated, as were all the states. They are corporate entities. You are an asset of those corporations. Not a voter, or anything like that.

Your labor buoys the dollar (ostensibly) but what happens to the debt? It grows. If there is a surplus, Chairman Greenspan is nervous and wonders "This surplus may affect the economy in a negative way" --That's really what he said! I saw it on CSpan, back then.

Think about this: When you get a loan from a bank, do they give you cash? No. They give you a check, don't they? And then what? They quickly say "Sign here." ...What's happening, in that moment?

Why does a bank want you to sign a check when you're supposed to be borrowing money? Why do they want your signature? Ask the bank manager, "Can I have cash instead, and not sign this check?" and watch her face turn red.



As for me, I've always believed that the ONLY reason our democracy has succeeded as long as it has is because of the fundmental balance of power between our three branches of government.

Comments?

Do you really want to spend your time thinking about politics? It sucks, and frankly, technology is to a point where it can release humanity from a lot of the drudgery that we consider to be "necessary". I've written about technology replacing politicians entirely, here on ATS. Only a few members have replied so far. I'll find the link if you want.

The balance of power? Yes, it's basically built for the corporate interests. These were slave-owners, as you'll recall. The average citizen or indentured servant was not party to the constitution and it didn't protect them from much. Still doesn't. Indentured servitude has a different form, but I think the scales are dropping from people's eyes.

So Bush is a bad guy. What now? Al Gore? I'll admit he's a great actor, but please. There are better leaders at any hardware store in the USA.

Clinton was controlled. They knew what sort of guy he was. That's why they let him run. And make no mistake, what he did in the oval office was planned to be revealed so as to weaken the US and cause disgust and revulsion. Yes I do believe this. They outted his shenanigans knowing it would divide Americans. The point is, they knew who they had, as president.

Well, I'm rambling, but you get my point. We all see what we want to see, I guess.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Whaa, I thought I could skate by using the s-word with an "e"... Oh well. I like your way better, DTOM.


..oh and by the way, I do eat and enjoy, taco bell's fine line of food products.



[edit on 2-2-2006 by smallpeeps]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join