| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
| Date: |
21 Mar 2006 02:45:59 PM |
| Object: |
=?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
EDITOR’S NOTE: On Monday, when Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold
introduced a resolution to censure President Bush, he said, "When the
President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held
accountable." Bush, Feingold continued, "authorized an illegal program
to spy on American citizens on American soil and then misled the
Congress and the public about the existence and the legality of that
program." Although few Democrats have joined Feingold's call for
censure, nearly all of them agree with Feingold's contention that the
surveillance program is illegal. But the president's adversaries
overlook the solid legal basis for the administration's actions outlined
in Byron York's recent article on a little-known court decision in a
matter called In re: Sealed Case.
In early September 2002, just before the first anniversary of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, a group of lawyers gathered in a heavily
protected, windowless room in the Department of Justice building in
Washington. There were three federal appeals-court judges, Laurence
Silberman, Edward Leavy, and Ralph Guy. There was Theodore Olson, the
U.S. solicitor general. There was Larry Thompson, the deputy attorney
general. And there was John Yoo, the Justice official who had closely
studied questions of war powers and presidential authority. Rounding out
the group were a few other department staffers, one official from the
FBI, and David Addington, Vice President Cheney's top lawyer.
The purpose of the meeting was to argue a case whose details remain so
classified that they are known by only a few people, but whose outcome,
a decision known as In re: Sealed Case, has become one of the key
documents in the hottest argument in Washington today: the fight over
what President Bush calls the "terrorist surveillance" of persons with
known al-Qaeda connections, and what the president's opponents call
"domestic spying."
The three judges made up what is known as the FISA Court of Review. It
was created in 1978 by the now-famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. The act required that the president go to the so-called FISA Court
to seek a warrant for surveillance in top-secret foreign-intelligence
cases. For any disputed decisions that might arise, Congress also
created the Court of Review, a sort of super-secret appeals court.
But in all the years between 1978 and 2002, there had never been
occasion for the Court of Review to actually meet. Not until Sealed
Case, and the three-way collision between the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches that it involved. Today, a look at the
circumstances of the case provides not only an insight into the
administration's rationale for the secret, warrantless surveillance
program but also important clues to the mystery of how the whole thing
got started in the first place.
The conflict began with the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001.
The act tore down the "wall" that had arisen in the Justice Department
that blocked intelligence officials and criminal investigators from
working together and sharing information. That wall had been cemented by
a set of internal department guidelines written in 1995, in which
then–attorney general Janet Reno outlined the department's constricted
surveillance procedures.
The Patriot Act was designed to fix that problem. But a month after the
act was passed, when the Justice Department submitted surveillance
requests to the FISA Court under the new, looser standards passed by
Congress, the FISA Court in effect rejected the Patriot Act, and instead
reaffirmed the old 1995 Clinton-era standard.
A standoff ensued. In early 2002, the Justice Department adopted new
surveillance procedures based on the Patriot Act. In March 2002, the
department informed the FISA Court that it would use those new standards
in surveillance applications. In May, the FISA Court said, in effect,
not so fast, and ordered modifications in the procedures. Among other
things, the FISA Court ordered that "law enforcement officials shall not
make recommendations to intelligence officials concerning the
initiation, operation, continuation or expansion of FISA searches or
surveillances" — a reasonable facsimile of the old wall. The FISA Court
also ordered that the Justice Department include certain staffers in all
surveillance debates, an order that quickly became known in the Justice
Department as the "chaperone requirement."
The Justice Department resisted, and in July 2002 filed a surveillance
application — the details are still a secret — using its new procedures,
without the FISA Court's mandated changes. The Court approved the
application but insisted that the modifications be made according to the
court's dictates. And then, in August, the FISA Court took the
extraordinary step of making its decision public, accusing the Justice
Department of habitually misrepresenting evidence and misleading the
court. That's when the department decided to take the matter to the
Court of Review, leading to the September 2002 session in that secure
room in department headquarters.
"We're here today," Theodore Olson said as the secret In re: Sealed Case
court argument began, "because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court's May 17th order . . . has perpetuated a serious and increasingly
destructive barrier which has hamstrung the president and his
subordinates" in their work to protect "the United States and its
citizens from attack and from international terrorism." The FISA Court's
ruling, Olson continued, was "inexplicable."
Olson and the judges went back and forth over the history of the wall.
Nobody really knew how it first came into being; the judges later said
its origin was "shrouded in historical mist." They went over what
Congress intended when it passed the Patriot Act. And they went over the
question of whether the FISA Court had the power to tell the president
how to conduct investigations.
The answer was no, Olson said. "To the extent that the FISA Court is
purporting to reorganize the executive branch, the so-called chaperone
function, I don't think Congress could constitutionally tell the
executive or the attorney general that he could not talk to this
subordinate without involving that subordinate," Olson told the judges,
"and I certainly don't think the court can do so."
The entire session lasted just a few hours, and the Justice Department
waited for the Court of Review's ruling. When it came, in November 2002,
it was a slam-dunk win for the government.
In its opinion, the Court of Review said the FISA Court had, in effect,
attempted to unilaterally impose the old 1995 rules. "In doing so, the
FISA Court erred," the ruling read. "It did not provide any
constitutional basis for its action — we think there is none — and
misconstrued the main statutory provision on which it relied." The FISA
Court, according to the ruling, "refus[ed] to consider the legal
significance of the Patriot Act's crucial amendments" and "may well have
exceeded the constitutional bounds" governing the courts by asserting
"authority to govern the internal organization and investigative
procedures of the Department of Justice."
And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has
repercussions in today's surveillance controversy. Not only could the
FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of
Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under
the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any
warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier
case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was
passed, the 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, assuming that is so, FISA could not
encroach on the President's constitutional power."
It was a clear and sweeping statement of executive authority. And what
was most likely not known to the Court of Review at the time was that
the administration had, in 2002, started a program in which it did
exactly what the Court of Review said it had the power to do: order the
surveillance of some international communications without a warrant.
Read today, In re: Sealed Case does more than simply outline the
president's authority. It also puts the administration's
warrantless-surveillance decision in some context. What was going on at
the time the president made the decision to go ahead with the
surveillance? Well, first Congress passed the Patriot Act, giving the
administration new powers. Then the FISA Court refused to recognize
those powers and attempted to impose outdated restrictions on the
administration. Then the White House, faced with the FISA Court's
opposition — and with what administration officials believed were some
inherent weaknesses in the FISA law — began to bypass the FISA Court in
some cases. And then, in In re: Sealed Case, the administration received
irrefutable legal support for its actions.
After the decision was handed down, the American Civil Liberties Union,
which had submitted a brief in support of the FISA Court's actions
restricting the administration, asked the Supreme Court to review In re:
Sealed Case. The justices declined to take any action. That is not the
same as the Court's upholding the ruling, but it does mean that the
justices looked at the decision and chose not to intervene.
Today, the opinion stands as a bedrock statement of presidential power.
And ironically, it came from a case that was not about whether the
president had overstepped his bounds, but about whether the courts had
overstepped their bounds. The Court of Review ruled strongly in favor of
the president, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider that
decision. Reading the opinion, it's no wonder that George W. Bush has so
strongly defended the surveillance program. If the FISA Court of Review
is right, he has the Constitution on his side.
.
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: It’s Legal |
21 Mar 2006 05:22:49 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Legal |
21 Mar 2006 09:11:31 PM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dV%Tf.15963$S25.14517@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It's Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
You wish, loser.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Legal |
21 Mar 2006 10:41:10 PM |
|
|
"Jim E" <YD653126@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:48btfaFj6h6rU1@individual.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dV%Tf.15963$S25.14517@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It's Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
You wish, loser.
Pretty obvious that Bush broke the law. He's already broken other laws (like
having his agencies produce propaganda) so I don't see why you're being
defensive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Legal |
21 Mar 2006 11:40:49 PM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gz4Uf.8897$sL2.6470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Jim E" <YD653126@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:48btfaFj6h6rU1@individual.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dV%Tf.15963$S25.14517@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It's Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
You wish, loser.
Pretty obvious that Bush broke the law. He's already broken other laws
(like having his agencies produce propaganda) so I don't see why you're
being defensive.
Cite the law broken loser.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Legal |
22 Mar 2006 07:01:12 AM |
|
|
"Jim E" <YD653126@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:48c679Fj4av6U1@individual.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gz4Uf.8897$sL2.6470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Jim E" <YD653126@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:48btfaFj6h6rU1@individual.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dV%Tf.15963$S25.14517@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It's Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
You wish, loser.
Pretty obvious that Bush broke the law. He's already broken other laws
(like having his agencies produce propaganda) so I don't see why you're
being defensive.
Cite the law broken loser.
See above - the administration has used taxpayer money to make propaganda,
which is against the law.
Do you care if he breaks the law?
If you don't, why are you worried when Bush is accused of breaking other
laws, like the FISA law?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: It's Legal |
22 Mar 2006 09:46:30 PM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sUbUf.8868$k75.4285@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Jim E" <YD653126@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:48c679Fj4av6U1@individual.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gz4Uf.8897$sL2.6470@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Jim E" <YD653126@sea.edu> wrote in message
news:48btfaFj6h6rU1@individual.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dV%Tf.15963$S25.14517@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It's Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
You wish, loser.
Pretty obvious that Bush broke the law. He's already broken other laws
(like having his agencies produce propaganda) so I don't see why you're
being defensive.
Cite the law broken loser.
See above - the administration has used taxpayer money to make propaganda,
which is against the law.
Cite, loser.
Do you care if he breaks the law?
Not if it kills muzlims.
If you don't, why are you worried when Bush is accused of breaking other
laws, like the FISA law?
What, me worry ?
Bwaaahaaahaaaaa
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
21 Mar 2006 05:26:15 PM |
|
|
abracadabra wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
What are you fucking 6 yrs old?
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: It’s Legal |
21 Mar 2006 05:28:49 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rY%Tf.9221$w86.4562@tornado.socal.rr.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
Yes it is!
No, it isn't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: It’s Legal |
21 Mar 2006 09:12:33 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rY%Tf.9221$w86.4562@tornado.socal.rr.com...
abracadabra wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
What are you fucking 6 yrs old?
He's just trying to communicate in a way that you can understand.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: It¹s Legal |
21 Mar 2006 06:13:08 PM |
|
|
In article <rY%Tf.9221$w86.4562@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It¹s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
What are you fucking 6 yrs old?
What, trying to prove you're at least seven?
The LAW says it's not legal. The EDITORIAL in the right-wing
propaganda sheet, "The National Review" says it's legal.
Get the difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?It=B9s_Legal?= |
21 Mar 2006 07:31:05 PM |
|
|
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <rY%Tf.9221$w86.4562@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It¹s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
What are you fucking 6 yrs old?
What, trying to prove you're at least seven?
The LAW says it's not legal. The EDITORIAL in the right-wing
propaganda sheet, "The National Review" says it's legal.
Get the difference.
The President said today, bring it on assholes, if you have the balls.
They're not stupid. It will be a political suicide. They know they're
wrong and the law is not on their side. It it were, it would have
happened already. I hope they proceed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G" |
|
| Title: Re: It¹s Legal |
21 Mar 2006 08:49:46 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:tN1Uf.10900$%d.6362@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <rY%Tf.9221$w86.4562@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
YankFan® <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It¹s Legal
No, it isn't legal.
Better luck next time.
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
Yes it is!
What are you fucking 6 yrs old?
What, trying to prove you're at least seven?
The LAW says it's not legal. The EDITORIAL in the right-wing
propaganda sheet, "The National Review" says it's legal.
Get the difference.
The President said today, bring it on assholes, if you have the balls.
They're not stupid. It will be a political suicide. They know they're
wrong and the law is not on their side. It it were, it would have happened
already. I hope they proceed.
Bush broke the law. Bush is not a Monarch with "Absolute" law or above the
law.
If Bush wants to act like Richard Nixon then Bush can be kicked out and
imprisoned.
Bush should be indicted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G" |
|
| Title: Re: It’s Legal |
21 Mar 2006 08:47:43 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be indicted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
21 Mar 2006 10:44:02 PM |
|
|
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ" |
|
| Title: Re: It’s Legal |
22 Mar 2006 11:21:45 AM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
22 Mar 2006 12:53:40 PM |
|
|
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel so
strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ" |
|
| Title: Re: It’s Legal |
22 Mar 2006 07:49:37 PM |
|
|
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:U2hUf.13154$%d.550@tornado.socal.rr.com...
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel so
strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
Bush didn't say that. Bush stamped his feet, cried, banged his head on the
wall and called his Mommy, Barbara "Ma Barker" Bush and asked why 90% of
America doesn't like him.
She told him, "It's bacoz yer a fuggin *****, is whaa".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
22 Mar 2006 01:51:20 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that has
fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to prevent
the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable. Hell, it was
Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury closed, to retract
previous testimony, that kept him away from an indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel so
strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
22 Mar 2006 08:14:31 PM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that has
fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to prevent
the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable. Hell, it was
Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury closed, to retract
previous testimony, that kept him away from an indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel so
strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the way
to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do, Then
let's have the debate. In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
22 Mar 2006 09:04:17 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that
has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to
prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable.
Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury
closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him away from an
indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel
so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the way
to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do, Then
let's have the debate.
Didn't it occur to you that he was setting up a straw man defence.
Implying that there are those who do not want to protect the American
Public. Hell, it's easy to attack that position, trouble is no one is
taking that.
Many have written more eloquently that I on that, here's one:
<URL:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/president_bush__1.html
This is a Rovian tactic used over and over with great success, and I
have written on past straw man attacks. What you will find is the
American public is waking up to this, much as they are waking up to the
past statements of how how things are running in Iraq, and the reality
of what actually happened.
Jeff
In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 12:32:33 PM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that
has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to
prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable.
Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury
closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him away from an
indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel
so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the way
to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do, Then
let's have the debate.
Didn't it occur to you that he was setting up a straw man defence.
Implying that there are those who do not want to protect the American
Public. Hell, it's easy to attack that position, trouble is no one is
taking that.
Many have written more eloquently that I on that, here's one:
<URL:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/president_bush__1.html
This is a Rovian tactic used over and over with great success, and I
have written on past straw man attacks. What you will find is the
American public is waking up to this, much as they are waking up to the
past statements of how how things are running in Iraq, and the reality
of what actually happened.
Jeff
Well if you and your party feels that strongly about it, let's get a
move on the indictments. What's the hold up? Bark and no bite. Another
***** propaganda without any fortitude to go forward and do something
about it. Typical of the left. Throw little fire bombs and then run like
cowards.
In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 02:00:42 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that
has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to
prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable.
Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury
closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him away from an
indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel
so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the
way to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do,
Then let's have the debate.
Didn't it occur to you that he was setting up a straw man defence.
Implying that there are those who do not want to protect the American
Public. Hell, it's easy to attack that position, trouble is no one is
taking that.
Many have written more eloquently that I on that, here's one:
<URL:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/president_bush__1.html
This is a Rovian tactic used over and over with great success, and I
have written on past straw man attacks. What you will find is the
American public is waking up to this, much as they are waking up to
the past statements of how how things are running in Iraq, and the
reality of what actually happened.
Jeff
Well if you and your party feels that strongly about it, let's get a
move on the indictments. What's the hold up? Bark and no bite.
I can see why you would think that way. But our side has those old 1776
values, you know the ones with the checks and balances and the three
branches of government.
I realize your side just sidesteps all that and really believes that
everything should be handled in a partisan manner. That the other two
branches have no power over a Republican White House (a Democratic White
House being an entirely different manner).
We'll wait for the judiciary to do it's job, that is the American way.
Sorry to disapoint you.
Jeff
Another
***** propaganda without any fortitude to go forward and do something
about it. Typical of the left. Throw little fire bombs and then run like
cowards.
In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 07:57:59 PM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild
be indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency
that has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly
fought to prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was
inevitable. Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the
Grand Jury closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him
away from an indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you
feel so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the
way to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do,
Then let's have the debate.
Didn't it occur to you that he was setting up a straw man defence.
Implying that there are those who do not want to protect the American
Public. Hell, it's easy to attack that position, trouble is no one
is taking that.
Many have written more eloquently that I on that, here's one:
<URL:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/president_bush__1.html
This is a Rovian tactic used over and over with great success, and
I have written on past straw man attacks. What you will find is the
American public is waking up to this, much as they are waking up to
the past statements of how how things are running in Iraq, and the
reality of what actually happened.
Jeff
Well if you and your party feels that strongly about it, let's get a
move on the indictments. What's the hold up? Bark and no bite.
I can see why you would think that way. But our side has those old 1776
values, you know the ones with the checks and balances and the three
branches of government.
Blah,blah,blah... Yeah, ok
I realize your side just sidesteps all that and really believes that
everything should be handled in a partisan manner. That the other two
branches have no power over a Republican White House (a Democratic White
House being an entirely different manner).
Yeah, ok
We'll wait for the judiciary to do it's job, that is the American way.
Sorry to disapoint you.
Ohhhh, ok. Disappoint me? I know by the way the judiciary is running
over each other and salivating over this issue. Who the ***** are you
trying to sell that ***** to? Go preach that ***** to the left.
Jeff
Another
***** propaganda without any fortitude to go forward and do
something about it. Typical of the left. Throw little fire bombs and
then run like cowards.
In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 09:23:40 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild
be indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency
that has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly
fought to prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was
inevitable. Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the
Grand Jury closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him
away from an indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you
feel so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the
way to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do,
Then let's have the debate.
Didn't it occur to you that he was setting up a straw man defence.
Implying that there are those who do not want to protect the
American Public. Hell, it's easy to attack that position, trouble
is no one is taking that.
Many have written more eloquently that I on that, here's one:
<URL:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/03/president_bush__1.html
This is a Rovian tactic used over and over with great success, and
I have written on past straw man attacks. What you will find is the
American public is waking up to this, much as they are waking up to
the past statements of how how things are running in Iraq, and the
reality of what actually happened.
Jeff
Well if you and your party feels that strongly about it, let's get a
move on the indictments. What's the hold up? Bark and no bite.
I can see why you would think that way. But our side has those old
1776 values, you know the ones with the checks and balances and the
three branches of government.
Blah,blah,blah... Yeah, ok
I realize your side just sidesteps all that and really believes that
everything should be handled in a partisan manner. That the other two
branches have no power over a Republican White House (a Democratic
White House being an entirely different manner).
Yeah, ok
We'll wait for the judiciary to do it's job, that is the American way.
Sorry to disapoint you.
Ohhhh, ok. Disappoint me? I know by the way the judiciary is running
over each other and salivating over this issue. Who the ***** are you
trying to sell that ***** to? Go preach that ***** to the left.
Maybe in your vision of an ideal right wing state, the legislature
indicts, but in this country it can't. Thank God for that.
Scooter's and Delay's trials are coming and the people will speak in
November. That's the way it works in this country. You'll have to take
your facist dreams elsewhere.
Have you heard what Libby's defence is turning to? You'll see more of
this during the trial, which is, surprise, after the midterm elections.
Here's an old list of just the big republican boys that are in trouble.
<URL: http://www.paa-tx.org/node/823 >
Note the big sell off of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham's ill gotten
gains in the news.
The list of *convicted* lesser operatives is rather staggering. You
don't really want me to post that, do you?
It took only 10 years of power for the republicans to far surpass
what the dems did in 40, I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.
Christ, I never took you for a fascist before this.
Jeff
Jeff
Another
***** propaganda without any fortitude to go forward and do
something about it. Typical of the left. Throw little fire bombs and
then run like cowards.
In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 09:48:25 PM |
|
|
Jeff wrote:
Ohhhh, ok. Disappoint me? I know by the way the judiciary is running
over each other and salivating over this issue. Who the ***** are you
trying to sell that ***** to? Go preach that ***** to the left.
Maybe in your vision of an ideal right wing state, the legislature
indicts, but in this country it can't. Thank God for that.
Scooter's and Delay's trials are coming and the people will speak in
November. That's the way it works in this country. You'll have to take
your facist dreams elsewhere.
I know Delay is in big trouble in getting reelected in his state. We
really know how the people are felling about him. Don't we?
Have you heard what Libby's defence is turning to? You'll see more of
this during the trial, which is, surprise, after the midterm elections.
I'm pretty sure you have his file and all the prosecution's notes on all
this, right?
Here's an old list of just the big republican boys that are in trouble.
<URL: http://www.paa-tx.org/node/823 >
Note the big sell off of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham's ill gotten
gains in the news.
The list of *convicted* lesser operatives is rather staggering. You
don't really want me to post that, do you?
Go ahead, is that going to impeach this president or change the minds of
the people as to elect Democrats to these seats? A Big No! They are very
well aware as to Hillary, Dean, Kerry.... are. They are not going to get
fooled.
It took only 10 years of power for the republicans to far surpass what
the dems did in 40, I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.
Well lets roll and we'll see, wont we?
Christ, I never took you for a fascist before this.
Nah. just a realist.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 10:38:17 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Ohhhh, ok. Disappoint me? I know by the way the judiciary is running
over each other and salivating over this issue. Who the ***** are you
trying to sell that ***** to? Go preach that ***** to the left.
Maybe in your vision of an ideal right wing state, the legislature
indicts, but in this country it can't. Thank God for that.
Scooter's and Delay's trials are coming and the people will speak in
November. That's the way it works in this country. You'll have to take
your facist dreams elsewhere.
I know Delay is in big trouble in getting reelected in his state. We
really know how the people are felling about him. Don't we?
Forget reelection, he is sooo deep into the Abramoff thing....
Have you heard what Libby's defence is turning to? You'll see more of
this during the trial, which is, surprise, after the midterm elections.
I'm pretty sure you have his file and all the prosecution's notes on all
this, right?
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could
become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing
on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to
justify the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Just Google it up, it's in the public record.
Here's an old list of just the big republican boys that are in trouble.
<URL: http://www.paa-tx.org/node/823 >
Note the big sell off of Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham's ill gotten
gains in the news.
The list of *convicted* lesser operatives is rather staggering. You
don't really want me to post that, do you?
Go ahead, is that going to impeach this president or change the minds of
the people as to elect Democrats to these seats? A Big No! They are very
well aware as to Hillary, Dean, Kerry.... are. They are not going to get
fooled.
You want Bush impeached? Hell, there's enough trauma as it is. And as
mad as republicans have gotten with Bush, I really doubt a majority
would vote to start the proceeding, remember this takes a majority of
the House.
It took only 10 years of power for the republicans to far surpass
what the dems did in 40, I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.
Well lets roll and we'll see, wont we?
So, you enjoyed the last impeachment trial so much that you want to do
it again?
But we know what the real reason is, Clinton's favorability stayed high
during his trial (~70%) and you are looking for a bounce for W. Well it
ain't gonna happen.
<URL: http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm >
Christ, I never took you for a fascist before this.
Nah. just a realist.
You may want to rethink that.
What W really needs to save his sorry ***** is for something to go right.
Why you are supporting his lame ***** is beyond me.
Jeff
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 09:39:49 AM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that
has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to
prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable.
Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury
closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him away from an
indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel
so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the way
to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do, Then
let's have the debate. In other words, "lets roll". But you know as well
as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after the
American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you want.
That, of course, is not how most of the American people feel.
uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207600.htm
Ipso Wiretap Poll : Half Believe Wiretap Warrants Necessary
News reports are echoing the press release headline issued by Ipsos:
"Public More Accepting Of Domestic Eavesdropping After Bush Campaigns
For Controversial Program." But they are wrong, according to Journalism.org.
Here are the data, and question, from PollingReport.com -- the margin of
error is +/- 3.1 percent and 1,000 American adults (not just voters)
were polled:
Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a
judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between
American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or
should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without
a warrant?
Date Warrant Without Unsure
Required Warrant
Feb 6-8 50 48 2
Jan 3-5 56 42 2
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 12:29:07 PM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that
has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to
prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable.
Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury
closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him away from an
indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel
so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the way
to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do, Then
let's have the debate. In other words, "lets roll". But you know as
well as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it, after
the American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap all you
want.
That, of course, is not how most of the American people feel.
uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207600.htm
Ipso Wiretap Poll : Half Believe Wiretap Warrants Necessary
News reports are echoing the press release headline issued by Ipsos:
"Public More Accepting Of Domestic Eavesdropping After Bush Campaigns
For Controversial Program." But they are wrong, according to
Journalism.org.
Here are the data, and question, from PollingReport.com -- the margin of
error is +/- 3.1 percent and 1,000 American adults (not just voters)
were polled:
Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a
judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between
American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or
should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without
a warrant?
Date Warrant Without Unsure
Required Warrant
Feb 6-8 50 48 2
Jan 3-5 56 42 2
Well let's start the debates and the indictments. If your party feels so
strongly about it and think that the American people would back them up.
Whats the hold up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 01:33:03 PM |
|
|
YankFan® wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild be
indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency that
has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly fought to
prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was inevitable.
Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the Grand Jury
closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him away from an
indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you feel
so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the
way to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do,
Then let's have the debate. In other words, "lets roll". But you know
as well as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch it,
after the American People feel that if it keeps them safe, wiretap
all you want.
That, of course, is not how most of the American people feel.
uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207600.htm
Ipso Wiretap Poll : Half Believe Wiretap Warrants Necessary
News reports are echoing the press release headline issued by Ipsos:
"Public More Accepting Of Domestic Eavesdropping After Bush Campaigns
For Controversial Program." But they are wrong, according to
Journalism.org.
Here are the data, and question, from PollingReport.com -- the margin
of error is +/- 3.1 percent and 1,000 American adults (not just
voters) were polled:
Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a
judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between
American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or
should the government be allowed to monitor such communications
without a warrant?
Date Warrant Without Unsure
Required Warrant
Feb 6-8 50 48 2
Jan 3-5 56 42 2
Well let's start the debates and the indictments. If your party feels so
strongly about it and think that the American people would back them up.
Whats the hold up?
It will be much more effective in the October timeframe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?windows-1252?Q?YankFan=AE?=" |
|
| Title: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?It=92s_Legal?= |
23 Mar 2006 07:59:55 PM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
Jeff wrote:
YankFan® wrote:
The People -Ä$$xoÃ-¥LxS£Æ§RÐ wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mC4Uf.7725$WK1.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
£Æ§-E A R T H L I N G wrote:
"YankFan®" <YankFan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bCZTf.7043$WK1.2347@tornado.socal.rr.com...
It’s Legal
The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance
program.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp
It's legal when you get warrants. Bush didn't. Bush shouild
be indicted.
Bring on the indictments. First dust off the balls.
So it's okay with you for Presidents to break the law?
Like he (Bush said) If he broke the law
When did Bush ever say anything like that? Here's a presidency
that has fought to prevent overvue of it's actions. Certainly
fought to prevent the 9/11 commission from forming until it was
inevitable. Hell, it was Karl Rove going back in just before the
Grand Jury closed, to retract previous testimony, that kept him
away from an indictment.
I wouldn't be wishing for indictments, if I were on your side.
Jeff
and you feel like the American
People agree, bring it on. Let's start the indictments, if you
feel so strongly that he did brake the law. It's that simple.
He said it in his last press conference. "If anyone feels that the
way to protect the American people, was not the right thing to do,
Then let's have the debate. In other words, "lets roll". But you
know as well as I, that the Democratic Party is not going to touch
it, after the American People feel that if it keeps them safe,
wiretap all you want.
That, of course, is not how most of the American people feel.
uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207600.htm
Ipso Wiretap Poll : Half Believe Wiretap Warrants Necessary
News reports are echoing the press release headline issued by Ipsos:
"Public More Accepting Of Domestic Eavesdropping After Bush Campaigns
For Controversial Program." But they are wrong, according to
Journalism.org.
Here are the data, and question, from PollingReport.com -- the margin
of error is +/- 3.1 percent and 1,000 American adults (not just
voters) were polled:
Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from
a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between
American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or
should the government be allowed to monitor such communications
without a warrant?
Date Warrant Without Unsure
Required Warrant
Feb 6-8 50 48 2
Jan 3-5 56 42 2
Well let's start the debates and the indictments. If your party feels
so strongly about it and think that the American people would back
them up. Whats the hold up?
It will be much more effective in the October timeframe.
Ohhhhh, I see. You fucking fool. The judiciary is going to wait for
October, to prosecute the President. You fucking people are funny.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
