Chadman said:
of course he is "lying"
what else do you say?
Yes, I am about to detail all of my counterintelligence to you, the media
Do you expect ANY President to detail our national security to anyone and everyone?
Are you this foolish????
Bush ok'd eavesdropping on Americans
- Thread starter Clem D
- Start date
of course he is "lying"
what else do you say?
Yes, I am about to detail all of my counterintelligence to you, the media
Do you expect ANY President to detail our national security to anyone and everyone?
Are you this foolish????
This issue is basically a non-starter, IMO. It's not a huge deal.
But i'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that it's not just 'international' calls involved, but also all emails sent within the US. Whatever the case, again, not a huge deal I guess.
That said, an argument that 'letting the terrorists know that we're eavesdropping is dangerous' is ignorant. Ummmmm, they've known that for about 20 years, you know, since we stopped supporting Bin-Laden and his efforts to repel the USSR?
But i'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that it's not just 'international' calls involved, but also all emails sent within the US. Whatever the case, again, not a huge deal I guess.
That said, an argument that 'letting the terrorists know that we're eavesdropping is dangerous' is ignorant. Ummmmm, they've known that for about 20 years, you know, since we stopped supporting Bin-Laden and his efforts to repel the USSR?
- Sep 13, 2005
- 2,895
- 24
- 38
Clem,
Squeeky Sean O Hannity and Rush "Pillhead" Limbaugh say it's okay. Isn't that enough for you. By the way, the Patriot act has already been used numerous times on crimes having nothing to do with terrorism.
Squeeky Sean O Hannity and Rush "Pillhead" Limbaugh say it's okay. Isn't that enough for you. By the way, the Patriot act has already been used numerous times on crimes having nothing to do with terrorism.
Who cares if they tap this and do that, unless you are doing something that is a HORRIBLE crime then you shouldnt have to worry.
- Sep 13, 2005
- 2,895
- 24
- 38
They'll use it against the guy smoking a doob on a his porch and proclaim that he is supporting terrorists in Colombia. Whenever you give the d bags in government too much power they end up abusing it.
Roger Baltrey said:
I would usually agree but I dont think they will use this to go after minor offenses, but ya never know
- Sep 13, 2005
- 2,895
- 24
- 38
If we were assured of that, I would have no problem monitoring phone calls only for the purpose of preventing Terrorism. We need to stay vigilant on not giving law enforcement excessive power. Budler, sounds like we're on the same page. Out!
there`s a tall,saudi dude...about 6`5"....sitting in a cave in tora bora.....
looking at this political crap....and laughing his beard off...
looking at this political crap....and laughing his beard off...
Really now !! I sure the **** hope he ordered phone taps on these people . I found out who they where ...the ones that got taps out on them . Good grief they were phone numbers taken from a computer owned by an Al Queda operative . the liberals throwing fits about crap like this is exactly what is going to get millions of us killed ! what a pact of morons !
Either you guys don't get it, or you don't get it. I never said that it's not important to do this in many cases. Way to alter the issue. It's that there has to be some kind of record of when it is done to prevent abuse. Plain and simple. Works both ways, both parties. Without a simple code of conduct and record, there is no way to prevent abuse.
People talk about "if we were assured of this, assured of that, etc." Without a record of anything, without having to have some accountability, there is no way to know what the person is doing, why they are doing it, and what they are using it for.
This is such a simple thing. But of course you guys don't care and don't think it's a big deal, because it's your guy doing it. But you want to protect your right to have an AK-47 in your bedroom dresser drawer, because the Constitution says it's ok.
Unreal.
People talk about "if we were assured of this, assured of that, etc." Without a record of anything, without having to have some accountability, there is no way to know what the person is doing, why they are doing it, and what they are using it for.
This is such a simple thing. But of course you guys don't care and don't think it's a big deal, because it's your guy doing it. But you want to protect your right to have an AK-47 in your bedroom dresser drawer, because the Constitution says it's ok.
Unreal.
NSA secret wire tapping of international phone calls into and out of the United States is authorized secretly by law for the last thirty years !
Clinton used it to monitor Strom Thurman while he was in Briton .
Guess what rocket scientist you can't secretly monitor anybody or anything if you tell people about it now can you ?
Clinton used it to monitor Strom Thurman while he was in Briton .
Guess what rocket scientist you can't secretly monitor anybody or anything if you tell people about it now can you ?
Last edited:
Hell Clinton used it on everybody he felt was a possible threat or enemy of his Admin . I might add he was very smart for doing so and it was completely leagal as is what Bush is doing and had better keep on doing .
Chadman - I find it sad that YOU are the only one that seems to get it! Amazing, isn't it. Excuse me while I go clean my Glock 23 and collection of sawed off shotguns. I have my rocket launcher hidden under my kitchen floor and a bazooka in the fireplace.
Personally, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment give us the right to have an AK-47 in my drawer. But I guess I don't get it. Unreal.
Personally, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment give us the right to have an AK-47 in my drawer. But I guess I don't get it. Unreal.
Who's the Judge that just walked because system was abused. They said his name but didn't catch it. Anyone important.
