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.

 

Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon

page: 3
56
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Grambler
Well if wiretapping has been so effective, how come the administration has yet to inform us of even one attack it has stopped?


They've stopped several attacks, but they never really came out and said how they did it or where they got the information.

Reason being, if they told people how, the enemy would change their methods. If the US government got the info thru wiretaps, the enemy would change tactics and use something else.


Chalk another one up for the media masters!

'The enemy' - all pervasive, super intelligent, ever watchful, planning, waiting, watching for the next moment to strike! Why? Because they hate that we are 'free'.
Can you believe that? Evidently so.

Sorry to tell you, the 'enemy' was manufactured to peddle fear. Fear is the fuel of fascism. The government can't protect you and they are NOT trying to. Open borders remember? Soon to be even MORE open, which means we'll need MORE protection, but don't worry, it's all part of the plan.

But I promise you this, this government will always and forever hold the 'presence of the hidden enemy' over our heads. Forever.




posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fathom
clearly this administration has done a superb job of keeping this country safe as outlined so well in you post.


They did a great job of protecting this country? When did they catch the anthrax mailer? When did they stop all gang violence in the US? When did they catch Osama Bin Laden? When did they catch the Olympic park bomber? When did they find the WMD in Iraq? When did they stop funding terrorist groups in Iran to overthrow their goverment? When did they stop taking away our constitutional rights?

They scare you enough to where you freely give away your rights, so they have control of your life, then when nothing happens, they can say "See we're protecting you, but you can't know what we're doing, or if we even stopped an attack because then you would pose a threat to us."

[edit on 11-7-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Just waiting for Cali to drop out of the union.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


No really, when was the last time you talk to the help desk from microsoft
they will be doing the surveillance from the comfort of their nations homes, everything in American is for sell, even our telephones comunications.

Got to give it to the greedy rats they are making a killing.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Since when are conversations private? If they enter the public domain you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I've been in telephone switching offices in NYC where particularly "juicy" telephone numbers are broadcast over large speakers for the entertainment of the techs.

Besides, I like the response someone gave in another thread: The gov't doesn't care where you hide your stash, or who's boffing who. Bor-ing.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler

Originally posted by RRconservative
With all the talk about impeachment. Well I have one for you.

You can look at the results since 9/11 and determine that attacks were prevented because of this practice. If he refused to monitor communications, I would be the first to call for his impeachment.

You can't restrict gathering of battlefield intelligence. Since we were attacked on American soil on 9/11, America is a battlefield.

[edit on 11-7-2008 by RRconservative]


Well if wiretapping has been so effective, how come the administration has yet to inform us of even one attack it has stopped?



Wouldn't a public admission like this also be a security breach? It would tip off the remainder of the terrorist organization not to use that particular line of communication anymore.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Well if it real great... I can honestly say that this is the best news I have read so far this year...



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Chalk another one up for the media masters!

'The enemy' - all pervasive, super intelligent, ever watchful, planning, waiting, watching for the next moment to strike! Why? Because they hate that we are 'free'.
Can you believe that? Evidently so.

Sorry to tell you, the 'enemy' was manufactured to peddle fear. Fear is the fuel of fascism. The government can't protect you and they are NOT trying to. Open borders remember? Soon to be even MORE open, which means we'll need MORE protection, but don't worry, it's all part of the plan.

But I promise you this, this government will always and forever hold the 'presence of the hidden enemy' over our heads. Forever.


I'm all for closing the borders tighter than an eskimos nad-sack. I don't see anyone working to do that lately.


Remember an attempt to blow up a fuel tank farm at JFK airport? What about the clowns they rolled up that were going to attack Fort Dix and see how many soldiers they were going to kill?

You know, the "enemy" that doesn't exist.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Actually when I read that the ruling came from a judge in California I wasn't surprised. This is the same state whose judges decided to overturn the gay marriage ban even though 60% of the state's voters had voted in favor of the ban the year previous.

The judges took it upon themselves to make law, not interpret it. This ruling will get thrown out. How do I know this? Because you had a MAJORITY of Democrats as well as Republicans who backed FISA!



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Fathom
 


well anyone can be considered a terrorist.
What's to say that a 20 year old white ultra christian woman can't go up to an abortion clinic and blow herself up just to kill the doctor that works there?
And no, the government wont stop at just Islamic organizations. You'll regret your ignorance when the government does have you under their sights, and that the slightest hint of dissent is seen as an act of terrorism. Keep in mind that you're dealing with power-mongering individuals who manage to sleep at night knowing what they know.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
I've heard this schtick before, and I'm not impressed. How do you know this information. Can you at least post what the attacks were that were stopped?

Look, there has been massive public complaints about the wiretapping program. If they have been successful, Bush would have showed the public how they are working. Your claim that it would lead to terrorists changing their tactics is absurd. Do you honestly think that any terrorists organization out there doesn't know that they calls can be tapped by the US government.? Thats laughable. Its not as if they are calling the Bush's bluff, until he announces that it worked, and then they'll change tactics.


Hmmm, "schtick". Well, why do we even have a classification program to begin with? Confidential, Secret, Top Secret. According to you, it's unnecessary, right? It's just "schtick".

Let's keep this simple. Ever see "Black Hawk Down"? Know why the Rangers got hit so hard? It's because they were using a template for their missions, and the enemy (opps, used that word again!!) recognized the tactics. That's the reason you don't go to CNN and start yelling, "Hey, we got 'em!! We found out by listening to their phone calls!!!!!!"

And you're giving the terrorists way too much credit. Yep, they know we listen to their phonecalls. Probably doesn't stop them from using the phone, tho.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Since when are conversations private? If they enter the public domain you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I've been in telephone switching offices in NYC where particularly "juicy" telephone numbers are broadcast over large speakers for the entertainment of the techs.

Besides, I like the response someone gave in another thread: The gov't doesn't care where you hide your stash, or who's boffing who. Bor-ing.


Um, even post the FISA that just passed it would still be illegal to listen in on people without probable cause. So I guess you could say, all of the law makers and judges (as corrupt as they may be) would still say that the situation your talking about would be illegal.

But I'm glad you posted it. It really goes to show that once your under surveillance, nothing is private. Maybe "the government" doesn't care who your "boffing" but individuals with listen in and invade your privacy.

This also raises another problem. The CIA has admitted that one of the intelligence devices they use is blackmail. All throughout the cold war, both CIA and KGB officers would set people up by talking photos of people cheating on their wives, etc. and then use those photos to blackmail people. Whose to say that if someone is an outspoken critic of the government, that these wiretaps could be used to blackmail them?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


well what's wrong with gay marriage? and what does that have to do with a federal judge ruling on GWB?
The point is if we're going to start blaming someone for stepping the boundary on power abuse I'm sure as heck going to start pointing at Bush and his administration. Since when is it ok for the Executive to overrule everyone else,, oh wait, it's ok if the head of state is a monarch or a tyrant. So don't go around claiming that because a Judge overturned a gay union ban or because he accuses GWB of being a felon automatically makes it a matter of power abuse, its their job to counter both the legislation and the executive is it not?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

And you're giving the terrorists way too much credit. Yep, they know we listen to their phonecalls. Probably doesn't stop them from using the phone, tho.


Exactly! Then why would these same terrorists that already know that we ar monitoring their calls and still continue to use phones suddenly stop after the US announced that a totally unrelated terror group got caught using wiretapping.

You see, I'm not suggesting that in the middle of an investigation the government say "hey, we are monitoring them right now, and we will probably get them" I'm saying that after the bust up a supposed attack by a terror cell (which people are claiming they have done) they then say that the wiretapping caught them. If current knowledge of wiretaps is not deterring terrorists, then this certainly wouldn't.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


You say that the govt wont tell when they catch people via wiretapping because that would tip off the terrorists but that is exactly what they did with regards to the situations you post. So the admin is willing to compromise national security only when it benefits their illegal program, but they wont talk about the people who were wrongfully tapped because this will compromise national security.

Washington Post Quote Regarding Fort Dix-Washington Post
"Much of the evidence in the case was obtained with the help of two paid informants, including one described as an Egyptian military veteran who befriended one suspect about a year ago and surreptitiously taped many of their conversations. The defendants were also tripped up by information obtained from computers and cellphones, according to records and officials."

CNN Quote regarding JFK plot- CNN
"A wiretap transcript given to CNN by the FBI indicates the alleged plotters targeted the airport because of the popularity its namesake, John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963."

I'm not saying that these events didnt happen but there have been two foiled terrorist plots in 7 years. And in the Fort Dix event it states that much of the evidence was obtained via an informant.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grambler
Exactly! Then why would these same terrorists that already know that we ar monitoring their calls and still continue to use phones suddenly stop after the US announced that a totally unrelated terror group got caught using wiretapping.


No clue. If I were a terrorist, I wouldn't use a phone or computer for anything. I wouldn't even trust the postal service. But, they still do stupid things like talk to each other over the phone. I guess that it's easy and they get lazy like anyone else would.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus24
reply to post by sos37
 


well what's wrong with gay marriage? and what does that have to do with a federal judge ruling on GWB?
The point is if we're going to start blaming someone for stepping the boundary on power abuse I'm sure as heck going to start pointing at Bush and his administration. Since when is it ok for the Executive to overrule everyone else,, oh wait, it's ok if the head of state is a monarch or a tyrant. So don't go around claiming that because a Judge overturned a gay union ban or because he accuses GWB of being a felon automatically makes it a matter of power abuse, its their job to counter both the legislation and the executive is it not?



No. It's the job of the judicial branch to interpret the existing law and apply it not to counter anyone or anything. Since FISA was passed today, the ruling should have been in favor of the government based on the existing law which was signed by the president, regardless of what this judge's personal belief was, regardless of how many people believe it violates their civil rights.

I'm not crazy about FISA either, but seriously what's going to change? Obama voted for this thing, proving he's a typical politician. The only true change will happen when people get tired of partisan politics and go with something unconventional. The closest we've come in recent history was Ross Perot. It can happen again, but right now people are so blinded by Obama the Messiah and trusting him to deliver them from all evil when you and I know that's not going to happen.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Thanks for the sources. To be honest, I wasn't sure how they caught those guys. And I was also a bit lazy to do a search.


Sure, it was only two attempts (I THINK there were more, but I can't remember) but who knows how many people might have been hurt or killed.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Thanks for the sources. To be honest, I wasn't sure how they caught those guys. And I was also a bit lazy to do a search.


Sure, it was only two attempts (I THINK there were more, but I can't remember) but who knows how many people might have been hurt or killed.


That is the problem with this kind of spying, you have to violate the privacy of thousands to nab one guy. So according to documented sources, there has only been one terrorist attack that has been prevented and there is no way to prove that they wouldnt have caught them anyway with the prevous FISA bill(pre-9/11).

The original FISA bill worked well for 30+ years and then when the admin ignores the intel obtained without violating the privacy of thousands, it claims that the current systems failed. There is a lot of information out there to show that Bush and co., failed to act upon many warnings of a possible attack from Bin Laden(August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing) and then after they failed, they claim that the system is broken.

This administration has done everything in its power to erode the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is example after example of them violating our own laws and then changing it after the fact or choosing not to abide by laws via Presidential Signing Statements. Bush has set a precident for signing statements that has abused the entire system, thus bypassing the other branches of govt.

Bush is without a doubt a criminal.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grambler
 



Originally posted by Grambler
Um, even post the FISA that just passed it would still be illegal to listen in on people without probable cause. So I guess you could say, all of the law makers and judges (as corrupt as they may be) would still say that the situation your talking about would be illegal.

Really? What about cell phone calls? Who owns the airways?Show me the law where it is illegal to listen to a public conversation.

By your reasoning, it would be illegal to listen to a CB radio.


Originally posted by Grambler
But I'm glad you posted it. It really goes to show that once your under surveillance, nothing is private. Maybe "the government" doesn't care who your "boffing" but individuals with listen in and invade your privacy.


That's life.


Originally posted by Grambler
This also raises another problem. The CIA has admitted that one of the intelligence devices they use is blackmail. All throughout the cold war, both CIA and KGB officers would set people up by talking photos of people cheating on their wives, etc. and then use those photos to blackmail people. Whose to say that if someone is an outspoken critic of the government, that these wiretaps could be used to blackmail them?


Nobody. Solution? Keep your pants zipped up, your veins drug free, and neither the gov't nor your next door neighbor will have that to blackmail you with.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join