| |
| |
| |
|
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 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Comments:
<0> o_O
<1> and there are 9 on the table in the House right now
<2> Lupine that neat or what???
<3> Lupine: again you're speculating, we don't know that that has been the case with the people who have been spied on
<2> Nikie you see query box?
<4> its nice the ILLEGAL mexicans can STAND UP here in the states. Damn shame they can not STAND UP back home to their own Government.
<5> cry, yeah..but u cant
<4> Speaks volumes, right there.
<3> Lupine: and again there is no need to dodge the court if that's the case, why not get the warrant?
<6> Bok: No, I am not spectulating.. I said, show me a case where it was not legit
<5> cry, unigore it..u nut
<3> It's cl***ified so we don't know
<1> DarthBurg: their government encourages them to come here and do so
<6> Bok: if it is power inherent to the executive branch, I would be upset if they did go thru the FISA court
<2> its not being ignored :)
<3> that's the whole point WE DON'T KNOW
<1> DarthBurg: makes them *our* problem and not theirs
<4> MeatHook I got the cure.
<1> pull the programs, the welfare, etc
<4> oh I was way off.
<1> stop pandering to people who break the law
<3> if it goes through the FISA court then someone knows whether or not they are spying on people because their number was found in a terrorists cell phone or if they are just doing it without cause
<7> The Bushee's have been quiet lately
<6> Bok: when 100 law abiding citizens get ruined because of mistakes by experian.. that is far worse to me, and a greater afront upon their liberties.. than eavesdropping on a phonecall to an international terrorist cellphone
<3> You are speculating damn it, you don't know they are listening to phone calls to terrorists
<6> Bok: red herring.. someone already knows that. In either case, YOU do not know. Nor do the american public. We're talking about a _SECRET_ court
<3> if that was the case there is no need to dodge the court
<6> you don't ****ing ensure liberties by _SECRET COURTS_
<1> I'm fine with our government tapping every single call made to the middle east, pakistan, or any other muslim majority state
<3> the only reason to dodge the court is because they don't have cause for the taps
<1> not that we'd have the resources to do so... but still
<6> Bok: No, the reason is that FISA court was acting unconstitutionally, and illegally.. and the FISA court of review found they were wrong, and bush was right
<7> Problem is....if Bush can listen without a court....what can he...or any other president...do without a court order?
<1> or incoming calls from those areas as well
<3> The point is, it's a COURT it's the judicial branches job to grant warrants and when we sidestep them it's a breach of power
<8> Lupine -- Only your opinion
<6> bok: you trust 3 secret judges, appointed secretly.. acting secretly? I don't.
<1> Bokavitch: maybe it's a bit of payback for the legislative side-stepping that is judicial activism =]
<6> The FISA Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, ***uming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
<6> We take for granted that the President does have that authority
<3> when was that written?
<8> Lupine -- As you stated correctly : foreign intelligence which does not have one party being domestic
<9> rofl constitutional power
<9> thats pretty funny
<10> the judicial branch cannot constitutionally limit the power off the Executive, unless they amend the Constitution
<10> *of
<8> Lupine -- Foreign intelligence does not involve Americans domestically
<10> FISA is unconstitutional in that respect
<6> Bok: heard Sept 9, 2002 Decided Nov 18,2002
<8> Lupine -- There are no Constitutional protections to foreigners not in this country
<3> MeatHook: i hate judicial activism as much as anyone else, but why should their abortion decisions give the right to the president to spy on citizens without a warrant?
<6> the full ruling is censored, but here is the released excepts that I just quoted from: http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf
<3> it's a non sequitor
<8> Lupine -- You have just proved nothing
<4> makes one wonder why the donks are pushing it
<11> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh
<6> AAAman: i don't give a flying **** what ignorant believe you have. I'll take the FISA court of review ruling, which the US supreme court allowed to stand, over what ever crap you jack off over.
<1> Bokavitch: I'm just being a prat =P
<8> Lupine -- Read it correctly then
<6> AAAman: I did. you havne' teven read it
<2> AAAMan - read period
<6> I agree with the FISA court of review.
<8> Lupine -- No. The Senate Juduicary Chair says you have not
<6> AAAman: really? he said that?
<6> he said that Lupine on #politics [ or my real name ] have not read it correctly?
<3> lol
<3> i believe it
<3> hehe
<8> Lupine -- Because he said spying on Americans is illegeal without a warrant
<6> now, I would be _flattered_ if he said that.
<8> Lupine -- The opinion you quoted has no connection to domestic spying
<0> calling syria is domestic?
<6> AAAMan: hmm.. does he sit to the left or the right of Judge Roberts?
<11> so
<8> Lupine -- The opinion you quoted has no connection to domestic spying -- no amount of BS will cover this up
<0> man i need to talk to my phone provider
<4> bud, no Syria calling the US is Just Like Domestic Spying.
<6> I am looking at the picture of the current united states supreme court. which chair does the senate judiciary chair sit in?
<1> heh
<7> He should start searching the homes of the people he's tapping
<8> Senate Judciary writes the law
<6> The governments application for a
<1> and the supreme court interprets it
<6> surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who
<6> is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international
<6> terrorism.
<0> DarthBurg I just have a hard time I guess understanding, when I send a letter to X country, or receive a letter from X country, customs can rip it open, read it, seal it up and put it back in route. How the frick is that different than listening in to phone calls
<8> Lupine -- Most of the ex Fisa Judges say it is illegal too
<10> Senate is not part of the Judiciary
<10> FISA is illega
<10> l
<6> AAAMan: who is a United States person
<8> Lupine -- Current judges are not allowed to testify
<6> oh ****, the ruling is about united states persons
<3> lupine: the government requested a surveillance order in that quote
<4> bud, well, see, Bush is a republican, and the Donkeys can not beat him at the ballot box, so the only choice they have, since they hate america, is to make perfectly legal things ILLEGAL when a republican does them.
<6> AAAman: and yet strange.. the FISA Court of Review [ who si the BOSS of the fisa court } ruled differently.
<3> requesting surveillance orders is not the same as NSA arbitrarily tapping phone calls
<12> i see there is no intelligent discussion here as usual
<6> and the US Supreme Court is the FISA court of review's boss
<10> Bush doesn't give a flying **** what loony Democrats say =)
<7> US You're right...FISA is already an abomination and these guys are going beyond that
<9> doesnt really matter what who says tapping US Citizens homes without due process is unconstituional
<10> and neither should you
<6> notG: ah, but what is "due process"?
<8> Darth -- Demos need to do nothing. Bush is doing it for them -- Bush Approval Rating Hits Low
<4> Bush is tapping americans without a warrant? where is that court case?
<4> oh thats right, there isn't one.
<6> AAAMan: so, so much for the ruling not being about US citizens
<13> notG, who is tapping US Citizens homes?
<6> Darth: actualy, there is
<9> the person has to have commited a crime is being investigated for a crime or there is a legal warrant and or just case
<4> Lupine really?
<6> Darth: forgot the guys name, who tried to blow up the brooklyn bridge
<9> TheTailor the United State Government
<7> gotta go ....get up early....thanks
<13> AAAman, why are liberals fixed on approval ratings? They mean absolutely nothing, Bush isn't going anywhere.
<6> which they first learned off.. from eavesdropping without a warrant. and the court ruled.. the evidence is "in"
<9> thetrail: bush is gone in 2008 and i bet you he will leave the country
<13> notG, international calls
<9> TheTailor so no one kills him
<6> TheTailor: I can tell you which president ordered the police to break in and search a US citizens home.. does that call ;-)
<9> TheTailor but either its being called by or too a US Citizens home
<3> The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [2a]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1(a)(1),(2),(3) [4] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a part
<13> notG, Bush isn't going anywhere
<9> lol
<9> ya right
<9> your insane
<6> AAAman: open your mind and thick for a second: why did the democratic leadership drop a push to investigate these FISA actions so damn fast? Because they were informed of the case ruling already on teh books.
<14> Bush will leave just as soon as the Baldwin family moves
<13> notG, you don't know they are US citizens
<9> rofl
<0> if a president doesn't cause controversy and debate then he's a ****ty pres.
<0> we got a good one
<9> if the call is being received by a US Citizen is not hard to know weather it is or not
<3> "and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party"
<6> Bok: ah.. but a court ruling upheld by teh US supreme court, trumps any laws.
<9> TheTailor what do you mean by he is not going anywhere?
<13> notG, again, you don't know they are citizens.
<9> lol
<14> The Call The Call
<13> notG, Bush isn't leaving the country, haha, good grief :-)
<4> Bush is leaving the country? why?
<9> if they have phone service in the US at a residence you must treat them as such
<4> is that your FEELING?
<1> "so he doesn't get killed"
<1> hahaha
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#computers
#netbsd
#computers
#computers
#delphi
#politics
#politics
#hardware
#politics
|
|