| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
Comments:
<0> yea!
<1> no kidding, sure makes it hard for anyone to take them to court too.
<1> and challenge the law.
<0> hans: well, if you are never taken to court.. kind of hard to show damage
<2> http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:H0uQJ0MsVfgJ:www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/FISCR/20030129-02-001.pdf+FISA+court+or+review&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8
<0> however, there has been at least one case, where it was taken to court
<1> can't lose deal for them, they claim it's a war on terror, and you can't find out if you were wiretapped to stop it.
<3> hans--, most times that information is not used to prosecute a person to begin with
<1> then why do it?
<3> TO PREVENT ATTACKS **** head
<0> hans: stopping the deaths of 3000 innocent civilians is more important than securing a charge in the US court ysstem
<3> lets see whats more important? saving 3000 peoples lives or prosecuting a ****ing terrorist
<0> but there has been at least once case, tried in the courts where warrantless wiretaps were done: the guy who tried to blow up the brooklyn bridge
<4> `426Hemi: It's still giving enormous power to the government.
<3> Armon, they already HAD this power
<4> `426Hemi: Oh!
<4> Hmh.
<1> yah but how does that change the law? What was so wrong with just getting an warrant?
<4> In the land of the free and everything. :)
<0> armon: yes, authorization of the use of military force _is_ an awesome force
<4> You see, this is what looks bad, you're just not scared of your own government.
<2> 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002), in 1978.
<2> er
<0> hans: well, besides it being leaked everywhere..
<3> the legislative and judicial branch is trying to step on the toes of the executives authority UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
<2> its the first appeal ever since the p***age of FISA
<1> Lupine: funny people in the court knew of no leaks.
<1> You mean people in the court were letting known terrorist know they were being wiretapped?
<0> hans: _obviously_ there have been leaks.. we're talkign about it
<1> Funny that just came up in the Bush administration.
<1> Only after the NY times brought the entire process to light.
<3> Armon, I am more worried about terrorists taking out 1000's of people than I am of the government wrongfully arresting someone
<0> hans: um, the NY Times _is_ the source of the leak.. which is why they havn't demanded it be investigated
<1> so was the court leaking specific names?
<5> Nascar fans are racist
<4> `426Hemi: I'm much more scared of totalitarianism.
<0> hans: who knows, the NY Times has not been hauled infront of a grand jury to investigate that
<5> How many black people do you honestly see at a NASCAR (r) race?
<0> necro: how many white people do you honestly see at an NAACP convention?
<1> Lupine: answer the question: was the FISA court leaking names of suspected terrorists?
<3> Necrosan lots, in fact last week there was a BLACK competitor
<3> last year there was a WOMAN driver even!
<1> preventing the need of the govt enough to get warrants?
<3> don't be a ****head
<0> hans: we do not know that.. which is why it needs to be investigated
<1> Lupine: horse****.
<5> haha, you know those weren't real black people, `426Hemi.
<4> Chris Rock is real black people.
<0> how many white folks go to the Apollo?
<4> /ignore is bliss.
<6> yeah, they paint themselves black. They're actually of Irish descent.
<7> hans--, get used to it, Bush is within his authority.
<8> FISA is a dead end -- Collen Rowley (celebrated whistle-blower) couldn't get the FBI to obtain a wiretape authorisation from the FISA on a suspected al-qeaida terrorist because he wasn't an agent of a foreign country!
<1> TheTailor---you get used to it, just because you said so, doesn't make it law :)
<3> i will rely on the CO-Author of FISA
<3> if anyone knows FISA it would be him
<7> hans--, time will tell, lets see action taken against Bush for wht he's doing, won't happen :-)
<0> rusty: right, as well as the FISA court of review ruling, and the united states surpeme court
<6> What makes it law is that the Constitution grants the power to the executive branch and the judicial branch has repeatedly held so and the legislative branch does nothing meaninfgul about it.
<3> IMHO FISA is unconstitutional to begin with
<3> its not a constitutional ammendment
<0> Disco: right, if it is a constitutional power inherent to the office, then congress can't restrict it.
<1> TheTailor, weren't you the guy who said a few months ago Delay wouldn't be fingerprinted, or have a warrant served, much less resign, yeah. you're track record is .flawless in predictions <G>.
<1> er your.
<1> :)
<3> and it is trying to define the authority of the president... it is trying to change his constitutional rights and duties as president
<0> the strange thing is.. people fear an executive branch co-equal with congress. but I fear congress even more.
<3> Lupine thats what I don't get
<7> hans--, well no, I didn't say that but it's a nice incredible story, you should work for CNN. I may have said DeLay wouldn't be convicted, but that would be my guess.
<3> heh
<7> Oh, did hans-- run off?
<3> dude aint got the balls to stick it out as usual
<0> also, I fail to see "oversight" is provided by a secret court, made up of secret judges, who issue secret rulings..
<9> Lupine, thats backewards - one man with too much power is far worse. Bush has way too much power
<10> so what will they do with FISA now that it is useless.?
<3> compdoc who says?
<3> you?
<3> the president has his authority spelled out to him pretty god damned clearly in the Constitution
<9> yeah, I say
<0> blink: it is not useless. it is still a viable method for all the various agencies to use.
<0> blink: for example, if an operator in the CIA wants a warrant
<9> He shouldnt be allowed to wage wars without approval
<2> when has the supreme court repeatedly held do?
<3> Iraq was approved by congress
<3> NEXT!
<2> so*
<0> comp: it is the legislative branch that has all-but-wiped out the 2nd amendment
<0> war against terrorists was approved by congress
<3> *crickets*
<0> WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush blamed Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Saturday for the potentially fatal blow dealt to compromise immigration legislation
<0> But Bush -- echoing earlier complaints from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee -- sought to place all the blame on Reid, D-Nevada, who refused to permit votes on more than three Republican-backed amendments.
<0> "I call on the Senate minority leader to end his blocking tactics and allow the Senate to do its work and p*** a fair, effective immigration reform bill," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
<11> hey
<11> no one here?
<9> there was a point about that immigration legislation - they were rewarding ppl who slipped in and have been breaking the law the longest amount of time
<3> try a coherent sentence now
<0> swig: beware the magic sword "notwithstanding".. its being waved around wildly :-)
<3> hahaha
<11> lupine goes to church, believes in God, and takes care of his family. How can we trust someone like that!
<0> FISA court of review rules.. but skewered by "notwithstanding!"
<10> I still don't get it.. if the President has the authority to side step FISA why would the CIA need a warrant?
<2> We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.
<11> well my trip is shaping up
<0> supreme court allows ruling to stand.. but skewered by "notwithstanding!"
<2> look, they also said FISA is constitutional
<9> Swigert, where you going?
<0> blink: because it allows the CIA to get a warrant without the president's involvement
<11> compdoc: WV, VA, MD, DC and NY
<9> whew
<0> bmc: yes, it is constitutional for agents to use the FISA court
<10> sounds like a bunch'a tail chasing to me..
<0> blink: not all of the presidential powers are inherented by all members of the executive branch
<11> yeah long trip but lots of fun
<0> just like how all judges do not have the same power/authority as the cheif justice of the supreme court
<3> FISA needs to be thrown the hell out, is what it needs..
<0> jesus.. be careful in MD/DC/NY
<0> rusty: no, it serves a real purpose for individual agents to go to get a warrant
<11> lupine: been there before - lived in NY
<0> which is what it was designed
<2> Lupine i dont think FISA works that way
<3> Lupine, granted, then reword it so its not a political landmine every time a president wants to use his executive power to protect the country
<9> attacking Iraq wasnt protecting anyone
<3> at least make it so its not so constitutionally offensive to executive authority
<9> I think the prez's approval rating says it all
<11> How can we trust a man who loves his family? <--- liberal logic
<12> The NYPost is involved in a huge scandal. It is going to affect the integrity of so called journalists who believe "we can destroy people. It's what we do"
<3> compdoc apparently, the majority of senate and congress felt that Iraq was a threat....
<0> bmc: ah, but FISA court added "notwithstanding".. so that skewers your logic
<2> no
<2> you cant spin it to mean whatever you want
<12> they are really going to go after that guy .. he is going to go to prison for extortion as well as being personally sued.
<3> compdoc, I think Bush winning 2 elections says it all
<0> bmc: You don't understand the power of the dark side!
<2> despite anything to the contrary, the President, through the Attorney General
<12> and if they can show the newspaper knew about it .. they will have their ***es on the line too
<9> and attacking without UN approval was just stupid. turned everyone against us. the whole affair was stupid. But then, what can you expect from Bush?
<2> thats notwithstanding
<12> that newspaper may as well close the doors
<11> cometbaby: if the president deliberately leaks some information, is it really a leak?
<12> swigert .. leaking is not illegal.
<9> Bush won because the Dems backed the wrong candidate
<12> leaking cl***ified information is illegal.
<11> cb: they seem to be making a big deal out of this
<12> leaking grand jury testimony is illegal.
<9> and the first election wasnt won in a landslide
<12> if the president gives the information out .. it is no longer cl***ified.
<12> so it is not illegal.
<13> compdoc dislikeing the Iraq war is one thing... but to blame Bush 100% but place 0 blame on congress is just missguided
<3> ahh yes revisionism, such a grand thing for democrats, huh compdoc?
<12> swigert they have nothing else to do. Nothing else to go by. They are dying for a smoking gun, and they are grabbing at straws.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#debian
#cisco
#firebird
hla in lebnan
#freebsd
mount katami
graffiti fontsT 2.0
#hardware
#politics
#mirc
|
|