just look at what gore and clinton did while in office, the Echelon program, look it up. Its something that the media failed to make a big deal out of like say nsa or the patriot act, and it was domestic eavesdropping as opposed to international.


the Patriot Act has yet to interfere with my liberties, if anything its secured them. Take the Brooklyn Bridge that would've been blown up without it and international phone call wiretapping and the financial impact on our liberties hits to our economy like that do to all of us. 9/11 was a $1 Trillion dollar economic hit.

now my economic liberties have been suppressed since before I was born and something that interfers with my life in a negative way every time I pay taxes, especially income. Yet, I keep from getting too infuirated by analyzing the subject and realizing since Ronald Reagan dramatically reduced the tax rates the GDP has tripled and our lives continue to improve.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:It seems there has been more government intrusion/watching of late that there ever might have been with Gore at the helm. Patriot Act anyone? That is one of my big problems with Bush and of course his immigration stances.

Patriot Act was bi-partisan. Funny how some forget that. Not to mention we are at war, whether you choose to admit it or not. As for his immigration stance, well, you will get no argument from me there.

The patriot act was produced by a republican administration and congress with the backing of lazy legislators including democrats. Many have admitted they didn't read it before voting "yea". That burns me up than honestly supporting bad legislation. No excuse for laziness when it comes to our laws.

GGniner Wrote:just look at what gore and clinton did while in office, the Echelon program, look it up. Its something that the media failed to make a big deal out of like say nsa or the patriot act, and it was domestic eavesdropping as opposed to international.


the Patriot Act has yet to interfere with my liberties, if anything its secured them. Take the Brooklyn Bridge that would've been blown up without it and international phone call wiretapping and the financial impact on our liberties hits to our economy like that do to all of us. 9/11 was a $1 Trillion dollar economic hit.

now my economic liberties have been suppressed since before I was born and something that interfers with my life in a negative way every time I pay taxes, especially income. Yet, I keep from getting too infuirated by analyzing the subject and realizing since Ronald Reagan dramatically reduced the tax rates the GDP has tripled and our lives continue to improve.

The echelon program utilized the FISA court to actually obtain warrants, that is the issue with Bush and the domestic wiretapping is they don't want to obtain warrants. Personally I'm not opposed to the program as long as they obtain warrants from the FISA courts which are almost never denied.

JTiger Wrote:The echelon program utilized the FISA court to actually obtain warrants, that is the issue with Bush and the domestic wiretapping is they don't want to obtain warrants. Personally I'm not opposed to the program as long as they obtain warrants from the FISA courts which are almost never denied.

So you think needing a wire-tap for something like a RICO investigation should be handled the same way as a terrorist cell that's out to blow up a Nuke in Memphis?

JTiger Wrote:The echelon program utilized the FISA court to actually obtain warrants, that is the issue with Bush and the domestic wiretapping is they don't want to obtain warrants. Personally I'm not opposed to the program as long as they obtain warrants from the FISA courts which are almost never denied.

the Echelon program DID use Warrantless searches, and it was far more reaching than anything we have now. It was even tapping baby monitors.

Warrantless searches happened under both Clinton and Carter administrations yet now, and in the wake of 9/11 amazingly enough, its suddenly a 'big deal', hmm wonder why. And what bush has done is international calls into the US, not domestic to domestic calls. Although with modern technology a terrorist can sit in a cave in Al-Qaidastan and spoof their address to be US and call via VOIP to their cell in USA, thus the dilemma we are confronting with modern technology and our laws.[/quote]

Quote:These include the obscure nature of the Agency’s authority, the many classified exemptions which permit it to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance, and the lack of (visible) restrictions on what the agency does internally with a huge volume of “incidentally” intercepted and stored communications of U.S persons.

........

Although NSA’s interception operations should be limited by its “one foreign terminal” rule, the direct interception of some U.S. domestic links is permitted. Embassies and some other premises on U.S. territory are nevertheless as foreign territory, and their communications may be targeted or intercepted without a warrant

.................

http://cryptome.org/sigint-hr-dc.htm
above from a CBS 60 Minutes report, which like what little reporting occurred at the time was framed around the need for such uses. The complete opposite of how they are framing the debate now.

warrantless searches in the modern era of technology, going back to atleast Carter is nothing new its just suddenly focused on and faux outrage can be found there. pure politics.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:The echelon program utilized the FISA court to actually obtain warrants, that is the issue with Bush and the domestic wiretapping is they don't want to obtain warrants. Personally I'm not opposed to the program as long as they obtain warrants from the FISA courts which are almost never denied.

So you think needing a wire-tap for something like a RICO investigation should be handled the same way as a terrorist cell that's out to blow up a Nuke in Memphis?

The warrants are obtained from different courts, so yes I don't see why not. The constant chipping away of rights doesn't end until we say it does and the need for LEO's to obtain a warrant prior to eaves dropping is a pretty f'n big deal. Where does it end next? They take our guns?

GGniner Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:The echelon program utilized the FISA court to actually obtain warrants, that is the issue with Bush and the domestic wiretapping is they don't want to obtain warrants. Personally I'm not opposed to the program as long as they obtain warrants from the FISA courts which are almost never denied.

the Echelon program DID use Warrantless searches, and it was far more reaching than anything we have now. It was even tapping baby monitors.

Warrantless searches happened under both Clinton and Carter administrations yet now, and in the wake of 9/11 amazingly enough, its suddenly a 'big deal', hmm wonder why. And what bush has done is international calls into the US, not domestic to domestic calls. Although with modern technology a terrorist can sit in a cave in Al-Qaidastan and spoof their address to be US and call via VOIP to their cell in USA, thus the dilemma we are confronting with modern technology and our laws.

Quote:These include the obscure nature of the Agency’s authority, the many classified exemptions which permit it to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance, and the lack of (visible) restrictions on what the agency does internally with a huge volume of “incidentally” intercepted and stored communications of U.S persons.

........

Although NSA’s interception operations should be limited by its “one foreign terminal” rule, the direct interception of some U.S. domestic links is permitted. Embassies and some other premises on U.S. territory are nevertheless as foreign territory, and their communications may be targeted or intercepted without a warrant

.................

http://cryptome.org/sigint-hr-dc.htm
above from a CBS 60 Minutes report, which like what little reporting occurred at the time was framed around the need for such uses. The complete opposite of how they are framing the debate now.

warrantless searches in the modern era of technology, going back to atleast Carter is nothing new its just suddenly focused on and faux outrage can be found there. pure politics.
[/quote]
Interesting article. No matter who is in the WH, IMO, it should be conducted with a warrant. Like it or not, US citizens have rights and should not be listened to without a warrant from the courts. Otherwise it opens up law enforcement up to all kinds of abuses.

JTiger Wrote:Interesting article. No matter who is in the WH, IMO, it should be conducted with a warrant. Like it or not, US citizens have rights and should not be listened to without a warrant from the courts. Otherwise it opens up law enforcement up to all kinds of abuses.

I don't think we're talking about US Citizens.

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:Interesting article. No matter who is in the WH, IMO, it should be conducted with a warrant. Like it or not, US citizens have rights and should not be listened to without a warrant from the courts. Otherwise it opens up law enforcement up to all kinds of abuses.

I don't think we're talking about US Citizens.

In other words, if we do it on foreign soil......WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAWS!

the other Greg Childers Wrote:In other words, if we do it on foreign soil......WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAWS!

So I guess terrorists should be afforded protection by the US Court system.

....and you guys think you can protect this country.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:In other words, if we do it on foreign soil......WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAWS!

So I guess terrorists should be afforded protection by the US Court system.

....and you guys think you can protect this country.

And you think that laws, rules, & official procedures are irrelevant.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:In other words, if we do it on foreign soil......WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAWS!

So I guess terrorists should be afforded protection by the US Court system.

....and you guys think you can protect this country.

And you think that laws, rules, & official procedures are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant if the people involved aren't citizens of the United States (i.e., have not claimed allegiance to the system of laws we follow...either by vow or birth).

blazr Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:In other words, if we do it on foreign soil......WE DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY LAWS!

So I guess terrorists should be afforded protection by the US Court system.

....and you guys think you can protect this country.

And you think that laws, rules, & official procedures are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant if the people involved aren't citizens of the United States (i.e., have not claimed allegiance to the system of laws we follow...either by vow or birth).

And that's what gives us the right to invade a sovereign nation, depose it's leader, and destroy its infrastructure.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AMERICANS.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:And that's what gives us the right to invade a sovereign nation, depose it's leader, and destroy its infrastructure.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AMERICANS.

No. We were granted that right after the fool signed a treaty he wouldn't commit to.

....or are you talking about Afghanistan? As for Iraq, their infrastructure WAS destroyed PRIOR to us going in....and we're building it back up daily.

IMO, your father...if you're telling the truth, is very ashamed of you and your moonbat politics. You are apparently close to Memphis, so I'm assuming he's a Marine...so no DOUBT he's ashamed.

BTW, this poll is bull****. "Would you vote for Bush again"? The people that voted no never voted for him in the first damn place.

I would vote for any Republican candidate. Except Paul of course. Who doesn't have a snowball's chance in H...

RebelKev Wrote:BTW, this poll is bull****. "Would you vote for Bush again"? The people that voted no never voted for him in the first damn place.

i voted for bush in 2000. i had a lot of hope for him. i loved his foriegn policy and domestic(sans NCLB) stances throughout the election. however, once the first budget of presidency came out, he lost my support. the passage of NCLB, the creation of DHS, prescription drug benefit, and the invasion of iraq just cemented my stance. in 2004, i voted in every election on the ballot except for president. i couldnt support any candidate on the ballot so i boycotted that election. so no kev, not everyone on the list is a straight DEM

aTxTIGER Wrote:i voted for bush in 2000. i had a lot of hope for him. i loved his foriegn policy and domestic(sans NCLB) stances throughout the election. however, once the first budget of presidency came out, he lost my support. the passage of NCLB, the creation of DHS, prescription drug benefit, and the invasion of iraq just cemented my stance. in 2004, i voted in every election on the ballot except for president. i couldnt support any candidate on the ballot so i boycotted that election. so no kev, not everyone on the list is a straight DEM

My apologies. I edited to put "Most" in there, but apparently it didn't take. I'm up in the bonus room over the garage and I get sorry reception from my router.

RebelKev Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:i voted for bush in 2000. i had a lot of hope for him. i loved his foriegn policy and domestic(sans NCLB) stances throughout the election. however, once the first budget of presidency came out, he lost my support. the passage of NCLB, the creation of DHS, prescription drug benefit, and the invasion of iraq just cemented my stance. in 2004, i voted in every election on the ballot except for president. i couldnt support any candidate on the ballot so i boycotted that election. so no kev, not everyone on the list is a straight DEM

My apologies. I edited to put "Most" in there, but apparently it didn't take. I'm up in the bonus room over the garage and I get sorry reception from my router.

wifey mad at you?

aTxTIGER Wrote:wifey mad at you?

Laptop went down. Have to replace HD. Only other two PCs are in the Bonus room and the Master bedroom. Mad at me? She would be if she heard a buncha typing on a keyboard.