NSA Ruling Proves Bush Was Right All Along....

[speedstream5621]

The release of this information by the New York Times does damage national security. How?

The program "...targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda (13)."

Since the release of this information to the public...the Plaintiffs "are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney Plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients. In addition, Plaintiffs have the additional injury of incurring substantial travel expenses as a result of having to travel and meet with clients and others relevant to their cases. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs need no additional facts to establish a prima facie case for any of their claims questioning the legality of the TSP (13-14)."

With the public in the dark about this program, there is no damage done to the attorneys and members of the media. However, since the release of this information, it quite obvious that these al Qaeda affiliates have stopped communicating through methods our government taps. Is anyone going to dispute that this hurts national security? Not being able to have access to communications from our enemy and whatnot....

I fully support the prosecution of the New York Times after having read this opinion. And don't get me started on the ACLU. They praise/support the release of the information about the NSA program and then represent the people damaged by the release of that same information
[/b]

 

[dmcowen674]

How much are you being paid?

 

[halik]

And any negative comments about GW hurts our resolve...

 

[AAjax]

boogie men RUN!!!

 

[dahunan]

And our Govt NEVER EVER thought terrorists could use an airplane as a missile

the excuses you are using will just give them an out when they let another attack happen
SCROLL DOWN and watch the video
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/lonegunmen.html

pay attention to the date it aired

keep trusting your politicians.. it is what destroys america

 

[speedstream5621]

Say whatever you want about the President. That is your prerogative. We fight for that from time to time.

So far I've had two dumb comments...anyone care to offer a substantive response? You might have to read the 44 page opinion to provide one.:Q

 

[speedstream5621]

What does our ability/inability to think of crashing a plane into a building have anything to do with the NSA case?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: speedstream5621
The release of this information by the New York Times does damage national security. How?

The program "...targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda (13)."

Since the release of this information to the public...the Plaintiffs "are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney Plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients. In addition, Plaintiffs have the additional injury of incurring substantial travel expenses as a result of having to travel and meet with clients and others relevant to their cases. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs need no additional facts to establish a prima facie case for any of their claims questioning the legality of the TSP (13-14)."

With the public in the dark about this program, there is no damage done to the attorneys and members of the media. However, since the release of this information, it quite obvious that these al Qaeda affiliates have stopped communicating through methods our government taps. Is anyone going to dispute that this hurts national security? Not being able to have access to communications from our enemy and whatnot....

I fully support the prosecution of the New York Times after having read this opinion. And don't get me started on the ACLU. They praise/support the release of the information about the NSA program and then represent the people damaged by the release of that same information
[/b]

Then they should have had no problem getting a warrant through the FISA court within the time allowed by the FISA law. SO why did they spit on the Constitution and their oath's of office?

If we prosecute the New York Times shouldn't we also prosecute Senator Santorium?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Join the conversation here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1912651&enterthread=y

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: speedstream5621
What does our ability/inability to think of crashing a plane into a building have anything to do with the NSA case?

Read between the lines .. They LIED TO YOU ... OK.. unless you believe they had no idea it was possible or that Osama wasn't PLANNING to use airplanes as missiles

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: speedstream5621
The release of this information by the New York Times does damage national security. How?

The program "...targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda (13)."

Since the release of this information to the public...the Plaintiffs "are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney Plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients. In addition, Plaintiffs have the additional injury of incurring substantial travel expenses as a result of having to travel and meet with clients and others relevant to their cases. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs need no additional facts to establish a prima facie case for any of their claims questioning the legality of the TSP (13-14)."

With the public in the dark about this program, there is no damage done to the attorneys and members of the media. However, since the release of this information, it quite obvious that these al Qaeda affiliates have stopped communicating through methods our government taps. Is anyone going to dispute that this hurts national security? Not being able to have access to communications from our enemy and whatnot....

I fully support the prosecution of the New York Times after having read this opinion. And don't get me started on the ACLU. They praise/support the release of the information about the NSA program and then represent the people damaged by the release of that same information
[/b]

Then they should have had no problem getting a warrant through the FISA court within the time allowed by the FISA law. SO why did they spit on the Constitution and their oath's of office?

If we prosecute the New York Times shouldn't we also prosecute Senator Santorium?

Huh? If we prosecute anyone shouldn't it be the president and cheney and gonzalez

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How much are you being paid?

Apparently not as much as you.

 

[smashp]

I agree.

Lets all riot and burn the NYT building in NYC to the ground, drag all the reporters out and beat them to death. next stop the LA times, the Wash Post, etc .........


We must do what is nessecary to protect our freedoms and way of life.

We wont let the Boogie man defeat us.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How much are you being paid?

Must be--notice how many senior members (who rarely post here) are coming out of the woodwork lately to defend the boy king?

Just like roaches (which are probably under the bed OP hides under cowering in fear)

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How much are you being paid?

Must be--notice how many senior members (who rarely post here) are coming out of the woodwork lately to defend the boy king?

Just like roaches (which are probably under the bed OP hides under cowering in fear)

cause ad hominem attacks make P&N go round. :roll:

 

[LegendKiller]

It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

 

[Darkhawk28]

When in doubt, repeat the same lame debunked lie.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

Proof?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

Proof?

no problem.

from The Washington Times

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.
The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

Oh for fvck sake...Not this again. The Clinton administration got their warrents retroactively, which FISA allows for. The Bush administration on the other hand has repeatedly bypassed the FISA courts, which makes one wonder wtf they are hiding.

For all we know the Bush administration might be spying on political opponents, much like Nixon did.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

Proof?

no problem.

from The Washington Times

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.
The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

There are two things I see wrong with this.

1. Just because it was done before doesn't mean it should continue. Justifying a murder by saying somebody else has gotten away with it does not make it lawful.


2. Vietnam was a foreign, sovereign, government. It could be targeted and the net not thrown about as a giant catch-all.

3. The definition of a "terrorist" is ever expanding.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

You just highlighted the part that proved this was BEFORE the FISA court was established. Which means it wouldn't have been illegal at the time. Thanks for disproving your own case.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

Proof?

no problem.

from The Washington Times

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.
The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

There are two things I see wrong with this.

1. Just because it was done before doesn't mean it should continue. Justifying a murder by saying somebody else has gotten away with it does not make it lawful.


2. Vietnam was a foreign, sovereign, government. It could be targeted and the net not thrown about as a giant catch-all.

3. The definition of a "terrorist" is ever expanding.

So it's ok for Carter to spy on people outside the US but not Bush?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's a simple as this. If they had carried out their program in a *LEGAL* manner which preserved rights, by using FISA instead of circumventing it, then we would still be catching terrorists with those methods.

The ends *DO NOT* justify the means when it comes to preserving our rights and the future rights of our countrymen.

Didn't the Carter and Clinton administration do the same thing as Bush with the warrentless wiretappings and successfully argued in court for warrentless wiretaps?

Proof?

no problem.

from The Washington Times

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.
The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

There are two things I see wrong with this.

1. Just because it was done before doesn't mean it should continue. Justifying a murder by saying somebody else has gotten away with it does not make it lawful.


2. Vietnam was a foreign, sovereign, government. It could be targeted and the net not thrown about as a giant catch-all.

3. The definition of a "terrorist" is ever expanding.

So it's ok for Carter to spy on people outside the US but not Bush?

Please read this.