Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon

reply to post by jsobecky

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.

Until the govt determines that something deemed legal for years is now illegal. Its easy to say, i'm not doing anything wrong so i dont care if i'm searched/wiretapped/etc. But there comes a time when an evasive govt can determine anything to be illegal. Or what if when wiretapping you, there is a mistake made and someone elses phone call is interpreted as yours and now you are the criminal. And with the assults on habeas corpus, you may not even find out why you have been detained or be able to attempt to prove you innocence.
This is the problem with searches like this, one mistake by the govt when searching people illegally, could absolutely ruin your life.

ofcourse if he served any time it would be in a nice cozy jail made just for him..but just think if he got tossed in a local prison somewere..id commit a crime just to be his cell mate..oh the things id do when the guards wernt lookin! can we say hung with a sheet? "idk officer i fell asleep and when i woke up he was just hangin there"

reply to post by jsobecky


Cell phones can be listened into in public easily, thats true. I'm not sure if intentionally listening in is a crime or not, but I would say it should be and probably is. However, home phones are not the same. If your interpretation is right, why does the government have to get probable cause before tapping? If you were right, I could freely tap your home phone right now, and it wouldn't be illegal

The CB example is ridiculous. That is broadcasting to a group of people, and that is its intent. I would be the difference of posting on the boards here as opposed to a U2U. The post is a forum to be read by many, but the U@U is private and should remain such. Now if one of the parties of a U2U (or a phone call) choses to release the info, thats a different story.

As for the rest of your post, good for you, I'm glad you have nothing to hide. Perhaps then you would be willing to videotape yourself 24/7 and post it for free. Don't forget you have nothing to hide, so be sure to take that camera in the wash room with you!

Despite what you think, the founding fathers thought we were entitled to privacy. As such, I fully intend to keep mine, and rightfully so. I have nothing to hide either, but that doesn't mean I want the government prying. If you can't see the potentials for government abuse in invading your privacy, then I feel you are a lost cause, and discussing it with you any further would be meaningless.

Excellent.

I seriously hope the world see the last of this man as he is led away to be dealt with to the utmost extent of the law.

I wonder of Chenney and others will wash their hands of him? Does this ruling cover them as being involved and part of the fact?

Does this also mean that Rove Runner (oops, sorry, I meant to say Rove goes on holiday after being subpeonad) will face the chop along with Bush...

Is this perhaps a slight small glint through the Ivory tower and the first crack of a crumbling foundation?

Why is there an argument about the propriety of assuming privacy?

Privacy is not right? To whom do I belong then, that they may usurp the direction and medium of my message's intended receiver, and claim it as their own to scrutinize and review at their whim? The government, you say? Does the government 'own' the ether between perceivable space too? If I develop my own language with which to communicate, must I therefore be obliged to teach it to them, that they may continue this practice? Or am I to be targeted by the cryptologic linguists at the NSA to determine my intent?

The presumed nature of one's communications should (legally I know it doesn't) carry the weight of my civil rights, and any intrusion into that communication, however it is done, must assume authority over me. In no case has a referendum shown that people allow this to occur. I disagree, personally, the passage of FISA, I simply lack a way to meaningfully affect it.

You know why your can't consider your communications private? I'll tell you why, it's because you have no means to protect them from intrusion. You cannot reasonably expect the government NOT to be spying on you at anytime. You will neither know, nor will you be told that it happened. And we cannot expect success in legally challenging this status any longer. Do you feel safer yet?

For all you who say "I've got nothing to hide, it's fine by me."

You ignore the fact that they CAN'T USE the warrantless wiretap evidence to convict them in a court of law.

How short sighted is that?


You can't break the law to enforce the law!


By ordering NSA warrantless wiretapping in the US, he was in fact committing an impeachable crime - a felony - pursuant to Section 1809(a) of the FISA.

It simply makes it easy for those arrested (and who may even be guilty I accept there's that possibility) to appeal the legitimacy of the prosecution's evidence because their constitutional rights were violated in its gathering.

The judge throws it out (rightly). The terrorist goes free.

Is that fine by you too?






[edit on 11-7-2008 by undermind]

Everyone here does realize that FISA is geared toward monitoring/gathering overseas intelligence. They are not "listening to everycall you make", contrary to what most here think.

They gather the calls and emails made to and from overseas and then sift by computer programs to sort out any activity that seems odd. Then a NSA specialist monitors and determines if more monitoring is needed. There are no local wiretaps until it has been determined and a warrant has been issued.

It seems the Senate agrees as they just passed a new FISA bill. Even Obama went along with it. www.upi.com... 2881215731544/

Originally posted by undermind

You ignore the fact that they CAN'T USE the warrantless wiretap evidence to convict them in a court of law.

Ummm, not completely correct. The info gathered can still be used by the government.

However, there are also several negative aspects of the bill aside from telecom immunity, and two of them stand out to me. First, the old FISA allowed NSA to conduct a wiretap for up to 72 hours while waiting for FISA approval. The new bill extends this to a week, allows the surveillance to continue during appeals, and permits the government to use any of the information it collects even if the FISA court eventually rules that the tap is unlawful. This pretty obviously opens the door to some fairly serious abuse in the future.

www.cbsnews.com... .shtml

Originally posted by jerico65
And you're giving the terrorists way too much credit. Yep, they know we listen to their phone calls. Probably doesn't stop them from using the phone, tho.

Actually, we were monitoring Bin Laden in Afghanistan just after 9/11 by his groups use of satellite cell phones. When word leak out and was published by the media, guess what? Al Qaeda stopped using satellite cell phones. If we broadcast every way we uncover information on terror groups don't you think they will pay attention to how we "listen in" on them?

Bush is not a Felon, there is no question about that except in the minds of the ignorant.

Once again, Bush has a 95% approval rating when retaliating against the 9-11 attacks.

I recall Democrats,Republicans,All other parties alike saying this after the bombings (oh hell no, we don't play that we need to bomb somebody.) All Americans and the UN agreed almost 100%.

I don't think there is any question that everyone encouraged Bush to do something. Then when he did it, people switched up on him. I remember I was there.

Remember 95% approval going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. No problem there.
But the paper and the mainstream did had to do something because if everyone agrees and Republicans have a 95% approval, then what will they do for the next election. Just say yup vote for them because they did the right thing. NO of course not.

So the answer is clear when in doubt lie about it.

Did it ever even occur to anyone that the reason you think the way you think is because thats the way they want you to think ?

Remember this question and ask you self a few things since it all began.
First impressions for some on the left was that Bush stole the election ? Remember ?

So the Demorcrats forced recounts and got 10,000 lawyers to demand recounts. Then what happened ? Remember You probably don't remember because the conclusion of the recount were never reported.

Well I'm happy to report after 5 recounts of hanging chads, partially punched chads, and even chads that were not punched at all in order to attempt to figure out the intent of the voter etc.
George Bush Won the election fair and square.

Thats just the begining but the history is clear. Also Democrats were meeting to go out at slash the tires of the Republican party car pools even though some of those SUV vehicles were taking elderly and handicapped Repuplican and Democrats to the voting booths.
So who tried to steel the election in reality ? well the Democrats appear to have tried.

But look you don't remember because like I said did it ever occur that you think the way you think because thats what they want you to think.

UN approved military force unanimously, but they still say it was some sort of Bush war or Illegal war. etc. etc.

And also what about oil, they say it's all Republicans fault and thats why prices are soo high, but without mentioning that Democrats have blocked every bill to drill for out own oil.
By the way with the high prices now I don't think there is anyone that does not want to drill for out own oil here in the US. Whats the big deal with this anyhow ?
As soon as the bill gets past the oil prices would drop like a rock because of speculators and also market setiment. I'm a trader I know how these new reports effect the market and the markets move on news even if the news is no news the markets can move.
Anyhow Don't believe anything, don't believe my post, or anyone elses for that matter. As master Yoda would say, Search your feeling Luke. Don't let the dark side cloud your judgement. God created smart people and I know anyone who uses their brain can figure things out. Let the cards fall where they fall don't make them fall the way you want them to fall. I challenge everyone to listen to Christian radio for 30 days. Wava FM East coast not sure what it is on mid or west,there are just too many topics to cover. One is the proof that evolution has no evidence whatso ever thats why it's still a theory, however why do they still teach in school now that we have DNA and have disproved just about all the evidence they claim they have. They still use the disproved evidence in teaching it LOL. This says a lot.
Well happy blogging to all.

reply to post by pavil


Sounds interesting, I would like to see some evidence though (not accusing you of lying, I just would like to look into it). If this is true however, then no terrorists would be using these phones anyways. Again, no one is suggesting they tell us they are monitoring someone before they catch them, only afterward. If releasing this info would be so damning, then why has this leaked info not about Al Qi'ada already ruined the program.

Heres how it could go down. They monitor 3 people in X country, and stop them from blowing up some building. Once they are arrested, the government comes out and tells us the waranttless wiretaps were a success, and tells us how they couldn't have stopped the attack without it (maybe they could release some of the info on what exactly was said).

They wouldn't have to say what kind of phones were tapped, where they were tapped, etc. This would prove to people hoe successful the program is, and would not hurt any other investigation anymore than the leak you mentioned or the fact that it is public knowledge that this policy exists.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by undermind

You ignore the fact that they CAN'T USE the warrantless wiretap evidence to convict them in a court of law.

Ummm, not completely correct. The info gathered can still be used by the government.

However, there are also several negative aspects of the bill aside from telecom immunity, and two of them stand out to me. First, the old FISA allowed NSA to conduct a wiretap for up to 72 hours while waiting for FISA approval. The new bill extends this to a week, allows the surveillance to continue during appeals, and permits the government to use any of the information it collects even if the FISA court eventually rules that the tap is unlawful. This pretty obviously opens the door to some fairly serious abuse in the future.

www.cbsnews.com... .shtml

So you think if a FISA court ruled the tap unlawful, a Federal court is going to rule evidence from the unlawful tap admissable? In each case?

Originally posted by Fathom

Originally posted by johnsky
Okay, the US has been attacked how many times by Islamic terrorists in this century?
Once.

... when was the last time they were attacked?
September 2001, 7 years ago.

How many Islamic people in the states have blown themselves up since 9/11?

ZERO

clearly this administration has done a superb job of keeping this country safe as outlined so well in you post.
we may not be so lucky with the next batch that gets in office.

like i said, i have nothing to hide, spy away, i am very fre in the most free country in the world. i own land, horses etc.., ( yes i own, not the bank)
and I am very happy to be an American.

what is so terrible about living here?

where else would you rather live?

NO WHERE THAT'S WHERE

Why don't you try to use some logic, this type of statement never ceases to amaze me.

What is more likely?

1. Homeland security has stopped a bunch of Islamic terrorists from successfully launching any attacks in our huge free country with literally thousands of potential targets. They have managed to do this even though the terrorists are so motivated they will commit suicide while attacking.

Our government has refused to secure the borders despite it being widely known it is very easy to cross illegally.

They have been a hundred percent successful thwarting attacks, due to perfect intelligence, in the process miraculously defying the inefficiency inherent in all government bureaucracy and fixing all problems with intelligence communication that existed pre-911.

Homeland Security must be even more successful preventing attacks then the US military in Iraq because the military are killed on a somewhat frequent basis there despite being heavily armed and expecting to be attacked - thus they are a much more difficult target then US citizens.



2. The threat is largely a myth and there are few if any terrorists who desire or have the ability to attack us on US soil.

Islamic terrorists are only being used as an excuse to justify all military actions in the middle east / protect isreal with the added bonus of further controlling the US population.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by proximo]

Originally posted by pavil
Everyone here does realize that FISA is geared toward monitoring/gathering overseas intelligence. They are not "listening to everycall you make", contrary to what most here think.

Yes, and by ordering NSA warrantless wiretapping of US citizens he was in violation of Section 1809(a) of that Act, as well as the Fourth Amendment - a FELONY.

The Executive Branch and law enforcement needs to realize that to blame DUE PROCESS for their not being able to catch terrorists is a complete living in a movie, misguided, short-sighted load of reverse-engineered horse # which allows terrorists all sorts of legal loopholes during the trial process.



[edit on 11-7-2008 by undermind]

reply to post by proximo


You summed this up perfectly.
I will use the following example:

I have a dog that fends away Lions, Tigers and Bears with 100% efficiency. My proof is that i have yet to encounter any of them anywhere near my dog.

Originally posted by Fathom


they can spy on me all day long, i have nothing to hide...(no cameras though)

Just wait until what you like to do is made illegal. Or a political criminal because you don't step to the cadence of the jack boots getting louder everyday.

Only then will you realize how precious privacy is.

Originally posted by RRconservative

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 think that the Gov has kept terror from happening? How? They have done nothing but stir a hornets nest in the M.E. and yet we still do not have any terrorists blowing themselves up on our street corners.

You think that is because the Gov has stopped it from happening? Not hardly. Think about how easy it would be to do that and think about the million reason we have handed Islam for doing this.

We have lost 3,000 to a terror attack. You could have a 9/11 every month and it would not equal the fatalities on American freeways every year. Maybe you should give up driving instead, its way too dangerous.

Leave this country to the FREE and the BRAVE.

reply to post by Fathom


I don't understand how anyone can say that this administration has kept anybody safe. They did a great job on 9/11.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You think that the Gov has kept terror from happening? How? They have done nothing but stir a hornets nest in the M.E. and yet we still do not have any terrorists blowing themselves up on our street corners.

Well, one theory is that the Middle East is a giant "bug zapper" for terrorists. We kill them there, they aren't here.

Originally posted by LoneGunManWe have lost 3,000 to a terror attack. You could have a 9/11 every month and it would not equal the fatalities on American freeways every year. Maybe you should give up driving instead, its way too dangerous.

So, we should outlaw cars?

reply to post by Maxmars


Interesting that we are consumers and now the services we pay private companies for is going to be use against us.

The irony, the big fat rats actually believe that they have this nation grab by the balls.

Actually everything is an illusion and illusion of control and an illusion of allowing to be controlled.


[edit on 11-7-2008 by marg6043]