I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Payday loan faxless should be memorable concerning a financial predicaments. A possible interpretation to financial sponser surely is to move foward with a payday loans no fax in 1 minute.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Once more, and true to form, your post is inane and entirely besides the point.

I don’t know what you are trying to do when you fail to address the topic of the thread -maybe you think the President’s bypassing of the legal process is quite acceptable.

For what it’s worth:

1.) Let the electorate know that progressives candidates BELIEVE that GWB is a GREATER threat than Al Quaeda.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 22, 2005 @ 5:43 pm

I don’t know of anyone in this blog who has ever said anything resembling this. This type of statement is commonly known as a strawman. I would also call it a misplaced attempt at irony.

2.) Let the voters know that Progressive candidates believe military spending is grossly out of proportion with what is needed.

If you disagree with your statement, then you haven’t been paying attention to the military budget in the last few years. Not only is the US military budget out of proportion, it will get even bigger with the new “enduring bases” in Iraq:

The Military’s Bloated Budget

The Pentagon’s Outdated Budget Priorities

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building ‘permanent’ bases?

US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math

3.) Learning from VietNam anti-war activists, DO NOT call returning troops “baby killers”. ALWAYS begin the conversation with, “I support the troops, but….”

See my response to your point #1

4.) Let voters know that an OPEN border poses no security threat.

See my response to your point #1

5.) Let constituents know that progressives believe some wars are worth fighting – but add the caveat, “…but we have found one worth fighting in over two centuries.”

See my response to your point #1 – plus, if you think invading a country that had no WMD and that was no threat to the US is a just and moral war, then our disagreement is beyond you being a self-described “conservative”.

“(1) We would, but the electorate has finally figured it out….85% want him impeached based on 100,000 responses on MSNBC.”

Do you have the link to the poll?

Want to try a 3rd time?

“I love people who compare themselves to “the rest of the world” – weak-kneed leftist sycophants – too much fun!!”

I have no idea what your point is…I never mentioned anything about “the rest of the world”. But in my travels during in the 90s, Clinton (and, by extension, us) were the toast of the world. Now, we are pariahs. You really wouldn’t want to conduct a world-wide popularity contest between the two.

“It was written that way so law enforcement and intelligence operations could begin tapping on electronic conversations and apply for a warrant later. With that in mind; why would Pres Bush need to bypass the court?”

So what happens if the information from a certain wire tap is already obtained before a FISA judge can say yea or nea? What is the point of judicail review after the fact then? I still think that it’s a loophole.

I love people who compare themselves to “the rest of the world” – weak-kneed leftist sycophants – too much fun!!

“We would, but the electorate has finally figured it out….85% want him impeached based on 100,000 responses on MSNBC.” And you’re thrilled with those numbers?? All this demonstrates is that every whiny prog – you know the types – “un”real jobs, mom’s wallet or un-employment – allows them congregate at the protest d’jour during a workday. I can just picture Mr & Ms. Debtonator, RyANNe enlisting the assistance of his nanny and valet, Blessings, PP etc. feverishly hunkered down over their keyboards – send, send, send,send….

The following may be used without permission:

Aphrodite’s tips for Proressives to TAKE back the Congress:

1.) Let the electorate know that progressives candidates BELIEVE that GWB is a GREATER threat than Al Quaeda.
2.) Let the voters know that Progressive candidates believe military spending is grossly out of proportion with what is needed.
3.) Learning from VietNam anti-war activists, DO NOT call returning troops “baby killers”. ALWAYS begin the conversation with, “I support the troops, but….”
4.) Let voters know that an OPEN border poses no security threat.
5.) Let constituents know that progressives believe some wars are worth fighting – but add the caveat, “…but we have found one worth fighting in over two centuries.”

You are grappling at straws here. Pres Bush has admitted he signed and renewed the order over 30 times since he ordered the start of the operation:

“I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times,” he said. “I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.”
Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order

And Pres Bush still has to say he got a court order for any of these -he and his administration keep defending the operation on the supposed grounds of Pres Bush’s “constitutional authority”; which some constitutional scholars and the Senate’s Intelligence Committe say he does not have.

In that case the law says the operation(s) must shut down if either the information wanted is collected, a FISA judge rejectes the request to continue the wiretap, or the 72 hour time frame expires, which ever is earlier. These three (I consider them huge loop holes in the law) provisions seem allow for wiretapping without any judicial review.

Which makes Pres Bush’s operation the more egregious; if he could apply for a court order that would make the wiretapping legal retroactively, why bypass judicial oversight?

The 72hrs window is not a loophole. I will come back to this later.

As an aside -at this point you have conceded that the Bush administration has weasely used a “loophole” (which it is not, but let’s say it is for the sake of the argument); aren’t you mad? Don’t you think something smells rotten here?

Am I wrong or is there some other part of the law that has some other oversight provisions? In today’s world of lightspeed e-mails and satellite phone calls it seems to me that 72 hours is plenty of time to spy and collect information and then shut down the operation.

You are not wrong. The law makes the eavesdropping legal retroactively -it is not a loophole. It was written with expediency in mind.

The more I look at this it seems to me the the Bush adminstration was taking advantage of these loop holes in order to protect the U.S. from further terrorist attack.

It is not a loophole. It was written that way so law enforcement and intelligence operations could begin tapping on electronic conversations and apply for a warrant later. With that in mind; why would Pres Bush need to bypass the court? To make matters worse, we know the FISA court has rejected none or just a handful (depending on your source) of the thousands of applications it has received:
A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 2

President Carter apparently did the same thing that Bush is accused of, i.e. stating that he doesn’t need a court order for certain types of electronic wire tapping. It depends on what it’s used for.

1) Past wrongs do not justify current ones.
2) This story has already been debunked: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

Reading those two sites you might as well read the WSWS or The Nation. All four are biased liberal rags!
Comment by Tracy — December 22, 2005 @ 8:58 am

Then why are you here reading a “liberal rag” debating this issue?

In Bush’s response to the reporters question about not getting a follow up court order after a surveilence mission had been ordered: maybe the operations in question only lasted for less that 72 hours. In that case the law says the operation(s) must shut down if either the information wanted is collected, a FISA judge rejectes the request to continue the wiretap, or the 72 hour time frame expires, which ever is earlier. These three (I consider them huge loop holes in the law) provisions seem allow for wiretapping without any judicial review. Am I wrong or is there some other part of the law that has some other oversight provisions? In today’s world of lightspeed e-mails and satellite phone calls it seems to me that 72 hours is plenty of time to spy and collect information and then shut down the operation. The more I look at this it seems to me the the Bush adminstration was taking advantage of these loop holes in order to protect the U.S. from further terrorist attack.

Also please read the following from the U.S. Code:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802—-000-.html

The wire tapping instances that are in question, i.e. those made between people in the U.S. and other countries: Do we know that the person(s) who were spied on were American citizens? In any event look at 1801 (a)(1)(2) or (3) regarding who the surveillance can be directed at.

President Carter apparently did the same thing that Bush is accused of, i.e. stating that he doesn’t need a court order for certain types of electronic wire tapping. It depends on what it’s used for.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Reading those two sites you might as well read the WSWS or The Nation. All four are biased liberal rags!

Best to just stick with insults and smears, like wwallace, IRI, et al. The facts don’t support your opinions. I’d suggest reading the information TP provides or Media Matters…in a few months the Fox-Limbaugh-Hannity programming should wear off.

That’s the most jaw-dropping part of this whole mess: Pres Bush did go on to a radio adress and press conference to defend the secret wiretaps that were revealed by the New York Times. I provided the link to CNN before -here is the link to the White House’s own web site so you can read the transcript: Press Conference of the President

Which says to me that the reporter assumed that Bush needed a court order BEFORE ordering the wiretaps.

I will repeat: IF the reporter had his facts wrong, IF the president did indeed had obtained a court order within the 72hrs window, IF Pres Bush had followed all the procedures -how difficult was it for him to say “we did obtain the court order, here it is”? But he did not say that. He defended his decision -and has continued to defend it- on the basis that the Constitution allows him to do it; which is a tacit admission that there was no warrant.

That is what Pres Bush meant when he said “But FISA are for …”. He is juxtaposing FISA regulations that already allow for wiretaps before a court order is secured to his own, personal approval of secret surveillance.

In fact, Cheney has come to the defence of that decision along the exact same lines: Bush has right to authorize secret surveillance

Pres Bush also has defended himself by saying this operation was essential in the “war on terror” to protect Americans: Bush Addresses Uproar Over Spying

Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order

All the accounts, all the versions we have are consistent: Pres Bush has never said he ever secured a court order to make the eavesdropping legal.

So it’s not as if Pres Bush mispoke. He knew exactly what he meant to say and that is his administration’s line: He has the right to authorise secret wiretaps. No court order needed. 72hrs or beyond.

That is what has Congress and the Senate up in arms, and the reason why they want a probe into this matter. This is a very serious issue. Constitutional scholars question the legality of the operation and so do members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It is not just MY interpretation. There is simply no other reasonable way of reading what he said.

Aren’t you flabbergasted by the gall displayed by this administration?

“I was referring to the fact that you demand evidence but when asked for the same you deflect.”

I can’t do anything but deflect when the congressional inquiry hasn’t even started yet!

“My problem is that he admitted not applying for any warrant at all.”

“The question implied that the 72hr window had been bypassed. If Bush had a court order within that time frame he would have said so and you and I would not be having this discussion. Am I clear now?”

Now that is YOUR interpretation, because Bush has already come back repeatedly and said the warrants were obtained. I think what he was referring to was this question:

Reporter:

“Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?”

Bush: “…We use FISA still. You’re referring to the FISA accord in your question. Of course we use FISAs.

But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.”

Which says to me that the reporter assumed that Bush needed a court order BEFORE ordering the wiretaps. I don’t think that the reporter was aware of the provision that allows for wiretapping before a FISA judge can say yea or nea. Again whether Bush followed up with those FISA court applications is yet to be determined.

“I want a Congressional inquiry into this. And I do know -Bush already admitted he bypassed the courts and is claiming to have the authority when it is not clear at all he has it. As a matter of fact, constitutional scholars are saying he does not have that authority.”

Well I am glad you aren’t one of those who has already convicted Bush before ALL of the facts are known. It seems to me that Bush wouldn’t go on national television and admit to all of this (no president would BTW), if, along with his legal advisers, he did something illegal. It would be political suicide.

There you have Bush saying he does not need warrant at all, regardless of any time window.

Your evidence, i.e. what Bush said, is not supported in context with the law.

I was referring to the fact that you demand evidence but when asked for the same you deflect.

And what I have been trying to tell you all along is that he has admitted not applying for the warrant at all. 72hr window or not. My peeve is not about him not having the order for the initial approval -I thought I was clear about that. My problem is that he admitted not applying for any warrant at all.

I quoted Bush’s statement twice because it is supported by the context -he was explicitly asked “why did you skip the courts” and he replied “because I have the authority”. The question implied that the 72hr window had been bypassed. If Bush had a court order within that time frame he would have said so and you and I would not be having this discussion. Am I clear now?

You should be demanding one also and not stating today that Bush did break the law when you DO NOT know.

I want a Congressional inquiry into this. And I do know -Bush already admitted he bypassed the courts and is claiming to have the authority when it is not clear at all he has it. As a matter of fact, constitutional scholars are saying he does not have that authority.