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

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
So it's ok for Carter to spy on people outside the US but not Bush?

The Bush administration can spy all they want on people they believe to be foreign agents. So long as they get a warrent. Which, btw, they can get retroactivly through the FISA court.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

Your analogy would be ok, IF Carter or Clinton did what Bush is doing now. But the fact is, they didn't.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

So you are saying that the courts are infallable and nothing has ever been overturned?

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

Again, that case was BEFORE FISA law/court was established. This means rules/laws have changed since then. If you don't understand what that means, then there's no point in discussing this subject with you.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

Again, that case was BEFORE FISA law/court was established. This means rules/laws have changed since then. If you don't understand what that means, then there's no point in discussing this subject with you.

Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

Vietnam may not have attacked us on US soil, but they were a foreign government carrying out espionage on US property.

If you want to use the Bin Laden - Vietnam comparison, how many soldiers did the Veitnamese kill versus soldiers and citizens that Bin Laden killed? We were fighting a much broader conflict in Vietnam, one which was battling against foreign intelligence services.

Both of these events are "conflicts", not a declaration of war, and not applicable to the strict definition of war-powers. AUMF doesn't give the President the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

Finally, I don't think anybody has ever said warrantless wiretapping was invented by Bush. I think most of us preface it with significant context, something which many people cannot do.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

Vietnam may not have attacked us on US soil, but they were a foreign government carrying out espionage on US property.

If you want to use the Bin Laden - Vietnam comparison, how many soldiers did the Veitnamese kill versus soldiers and citizens that Bin Laden killed? We were fighting a much broader conflict in Vietnam, one which was battling against foreign intelligence services.

Both of these events are "conflicts", not a declaration of war, and not applicable to the strict definition of war-powers. AUMF doesn't give the President the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

Finally, I don't think anybody has ever said warrantless wiretapping was invented by Bush. I think most of us preface it with significant context, something which many people cannot do.

Every country spies on each other.

How can you compare Vietnam with 9/11?

Mainstream media doesn't preface it. I'm sure if it was prefaced with the actions from other president people would stfu.

 

[Used Rugs]

Bush is right. Far right.

 

[m316foley]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

Again, that case was BEFORE FISA law/court was established. This means rules/laws have changed since then. If you don't understand what that means, then there's no point in discussing this subject with you.

Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

First of all, this has nothing to do about the argument on Carter. What you seem to be missing is the blatant violation(s) of the law by Bush. Carter didn't violate the law (it wasn't created yet) and Clinton got all his warrants the legal way - retroactively. Bush refuses to even get his warrants retroactively - that's the problem.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

Your analogy would be ok, IF Carter or Clinton did what Bush is doing now. But the fact is, they didn't.

At least that you know of

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

Vietnam may not have attacked us on US soil, but they were a foreign government carrying out espionage on US property.

If you want to use the Bin Laden - Vietnam comparison, how many soldiers did the Veitnamese kill versus soldiers and citizens that Bin Laden killed? We were fighting a much broader conflict in Vietnam, one which was battling against foreign intelligence services.

Both of these events are "conflicts", not a declaration of war, and not applicable to the strict definition of war-powers. AUMF doesn't give the President the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

Finally, I don't think anybody has ever said warrantless wiretapping was invented by Bush. I think most of us preface it with significant context, something which many people cannot do.

Every country spies on each other.

How can you compare Vietnam with 9/11?

Mainstream media doesn't preface it. I'm sure if it was prefaced with the actions from other president people would stfu.

Well thanks at least for admitting to us what you truly believe and your true motivation for making your silly arguments.

Can we close this nonsense thread now?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

Again, that case was BEFORE FISA law/court was established. This means rules/laws have changed since then. If you don't understand what that means, then there's no point in discussing this subject with you.

Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

First of all, this has nothing to do about the argument on Carter. What you seem to be missing is the blatant violation(s) of the law by Bush. Carter didn't violate the law (it wasn't created yet) and Clinton got all his warrants the legal way - retroactively. Bush refuses to even get his warrants retroactively - that's the problem.

Brandon keeps ignoring the intelligent responses and picks the easier ones to respond to.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull
Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

Vietnam may not have attacked us on US soil, but they were a foreign government carrying out espionage on US property.

If you want to use the Bin Laden - Vietnam comparison, how many soldiers did the Veitnamese kill versus soldiers and citizens that Bin Laden killed? We were fighting a much broader conflict in Vietnam, one which was battling against foreign intelligence services.

Both of these events are "conflicts", not a declaration of war, and not applicable to the strict definition of war-powers. AUMF doesn't give the President the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

Finally, I don't think anybody has ever said warrantless wiretapping was invented by Bush. I think most of us preface it with significant context, something which many people cannot do.

Every country spies on each other.

How can you compare Vietnam with 9/11?

Mainstream media doesn't preface it. I'm sure if it was prefaced with the actions from other president people would stfu.

So lets see, we have a program that wasn't around before Carter's case, thus his actions were legal. However, some pundits say that the President shouldn't be constrained in a time of war. That is correct, according to war-powers. However, Carter wasn't at war either, thus we have a grey area.

You were the one comparing Bush to Carter. Bush's actions were in response to a small attack. Carter's were in response to a sovereign government's actions regarding espionage, a government which we were also in a conflict previously.

Therefore, while both were not "wars" covered under W-P, they are drastically different in that Carter didn't have a law while Bush did. Furthermore, Carter was acting upon epsionage claims from a sovereign government, while Bush is casting a huge net to catch anything or anybody loosely termed a "terrorist", which can include even benign organizations (dominos?).

All of your justifications, "he did it" and everything else is BS.

THAT is what I mean by prefacing. You look at everything in black/white isolation, the world isn't built that way. You need to look at the context.

1. Carter didn't have the law to contend with.

2. Carter was working against spies, targeted, not broad.

3. Bush's justification, saying he has war-powers, is incorrect, he has AUMF, which does not circumvent the Constitution nor FISA.

4. Another Bush contention is that the courts were slow. FISA isn't slow.

5. Another Bush contention is that he needed to circumvent FISA to catch terrorists, that is the only way. That is incorrect since Clinton use FISA to catch people, while Bush *STILL* has yet to show any evidence that he has caught anybody circumventing FISA.

6. Which leads to: If Bush hasn't caught anybody using FISA *AND* Clinton did, then why does he need to circumvent FISA? Could it be because they know they were wiretapping illegally and wouldn't get the warrants for how they were performing the wire taps?


People like you continually ignore context and logic. You think you are so smart by pointing at past cases, where the situation was completely different, and using that as a justification for your fanboish logic. You ignore the fact that the "War on Fear", is nothing more than a imagined conflict intended to get stupid people to crave more authoritarian over-bearing rulership. We will *NEVER* win the War on Fear, it's impossible.

However, tools continually think that killing flies with sledgehammers is ok, because they think it works. It doesn't and all it does is poke more holes in the house to let more flies in.

 

[LEDominator]

Well, I think the argument basically is that FISA is unconstitutional. IE the constitution gives the president those powers and therefore FISA is in conflict with that. So the debate over whether or not it is legal to me stems from whether or not you agree with that.

Basically this part: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. This is under Article I Section 8.

 

[senseamp]

NY Times should be praised for exposing the President's law breaking. It's Bush who should be prosecuted for violating the law.
Of course rightwingers think a President is above the law unless he's a Democrat.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: m316foley

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: brandonbull

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

So it's OK for you to murder somebody because you think OJ got away with it?

Why do people think the wrong actions by somebody else somehow justifies their own actions? IT DOESN'T!

You have a court decision saying that it is ok. So by using your OJ logic and applying the ruling in the Troung case, I should expect to kill someone and get away with it.

Again, that case was BEFORE FISA law/court was established. This means rules/laws have changed since then. If you don't understand what that means, then there's no point in discussing this subject with you.

Maybe you should reread my first post. I said that the Carter admin argued for warrantless wiretappings and now Carter argues against Bush.

I don't remember Vietnamise agents attacking targets inside the US but I do remember Bin Laden and his crew attacking several targets inside and outside the US. Carter spied without a warrant. I didn't question the legality of what Bush, Clinton, or Carter did. The point I'm making, since some wish not to stop for a second and think/comprehend, is that no one wants to tell of past presidents that did the same thing Bush did. The Micheal Moore clones want to act as if Bush invented the warrantless spying.

First of all, this has nothing to do about the argument on Carter. What you seem to be missing is the blatant violation(s) of the law by Bush. Carter didn't violate the law (it wasn't created yet) and Clinton got all his warrants the legal way - retroactively. Bush refuses to even get his warrants retroactively - that's the problem.

Brandon keeps ignoring the intelligent responses and picks the easier ones to respond to.

What are you talking about?

I said there are court rulings that favored warrantless taps. One of the Presidents that used warrantless taps was Carter. His AG argued for them. Carter is a Dem. Carter and Dems now seem not to favor warrantless taps. Ruling judge against Bush was appointed by Carter. So I guess the new laws made Carter think what they did before was wrong even though they argued in court to say it was right?

 

[Used Rugs]

Carter never did a warrant less tap. Could you back up your BS with some facts. Links?

 

[Pens1566]

Did anyone tell him yet that the Carter case was BEFORE the FISA act was created???

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Did anyone tell him yet that the Carter case was BEFORE the FISA act was created???

About five people so far, you make the sixth.

It's impossible to debate any issue with such an idealogue.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Did anyone tell him yet that the Carter case was BEFORE the FISA act was created???

About five people so far, you make the sixth.

It's impossible to debate any issue with such an idealogue.

I knew already. Just being snarky.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Did anyone tell him yet that the Carter case was BEFORE the FISA act was created???

About five people so far, you make the sixth.

It's impossible to debate any issue with such an idealogue.

I knew already. Just being snarky.

Ok wish people could understand basic points. It doesn't matter if it was before during or after the inactment of the law. The people that went to court to say wiretaps without a warrant are good now say it's bad. If you don't see the problem, I guess you guys need to keep making idiotic comments about how I'm arguing the legality of it.

The American public is being the played the fool by those jerkoffs in D.C. I guess they have to play the opposite game with each other.

 

[Used Rugs]

Republicans = Corruption

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Ok wish people could understand basic points. It doesn't matter if it was before during or after the inactment of the law. The people that went to court to say wiretaps without a warrant are good now say it's bad. If you don't see the problem, I guess you guys need to keep making idiotic comments about how I'm arguing the legality of it.

The American public is being the played the fool by those jerkoffs in D.C. I guess they have to play the opposite game with each other.

In some cases they are good, when they are used to catch spies and tap foreign citizens, which I believe is the crux of the argument. The main tool to prevent "wider" tapping is the court, which oversees that US citizens aren't tapped without cause.

So, there are two things.

1. You can't treat the Carter case, a case of espionage by a foreign power *AND* pre-FISA, the same as "cast as wide of a net as you want" Bush FISA-circumvention.

2. Just because somebody did it before doesn't mean they can't acknowledge that what they had done was incorrect, even assuming the circumstances are the same (which they aren't in this case).

I like how people try to draw parallels to two completely different situations, it makes for amusing logic.