The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy - Page 139

Replaced_Texan · 12-20-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
I haven't been following this as closely as I'd like, but tapping bin Laden's phone was done without a warrant? WTF? Why, in god's name, would they not get a warrant for this? No probable cause? Were they worried they'd have to cough up secret information to get it (what would that be, beyond "bin Laudin has a satellite phone we are technologically able to tap"?)?

I think it was because he is out of the country. They don't need warrants for tracking communications outside of the country, only inside.

There was a guy on NPR this morning who talked a little bit about communications where both parties are outside of the US but somehow or another the conversation gets routed through US owned lines. Even then, it's not a big deal to get a warrant.

Hank Chinaski · 12-20-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it was because he is out of the country. They don't need warrants for tracking communications outside of the country, only inside.

There was a guy on NPR this morning who talked a little bit about communications where both parties are outside of the US but somehow or another the conversation gets routed through US owned lines. Even then, it's not a big deal to get a warrant.

Am I on ignore?

ltl/fb · 12-20-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Am I on ignore?

Very, very soon.

I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double.

Hank Chinaski · 12-20-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Very, very soon.

I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double.

I cleaned up my act solely for you- you put me on ignore still?

Sounds like she's fucking someone important- does she have big breasts?

Shape Shifter · 12-20-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Very, very soon.

I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double.

That is double, isn't it?

Hank Chinaski · 12-20-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That is double, isn't it?

The company subsidizes breakfast lunch and snacks at the Cafeteria, and Fringey takes better advantage of it than Prissy bitch, so it depends on how you calculate it.

ltl/fb · 12-20-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The company subsidizes breakfast lunch and snacks at the Cafeteria, and Fringey takes better advantage of it than Prissy bitch, so it depends on how you calculate it.

Tuesday is the new Friday?

taxwonk · 12-20-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not to sound like Penske, but theAmerican people had a vote on who they wanted making this type decision.

Odd, that rule didn't apply when Clinton was in the White House, and quite frankly, I tend to get a whole lot more worked up about illegality that could affect anyone in the US. I am also less than impressed with the Administration's "Fuck you, we didn't feel like obeying the law and we'll do it again if we feel like it" response.

taxwonk · 12-20-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Where they prosecuted for installing illegal wire taps or violating peoples constitutional rights? I thought they were prosecuted for breaking and entering, assault etc. Anyone know the answer to this?

They were prosecuted for both the B&E and the wiretaps.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 12-20-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Odd, that rule didn't apply when Clinton was in the White House,

Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

taxwonk · 12-20-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sorry Wonk, I just don't see a dept getting 1500 warrents wanting more, and chasing some where they lack a good reason. If there is no good reason, why risk this controversy? The standards are not that high if they're 1500-0.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ (actually 1700-0)

The more appropriate question is "if they always get them, then why would they not bother going for warrants this time?" And I can't see a real lawyer being satisfied with the rationale that the Executive Branch can lawfully say "sorry, these are just too sensitive to follow the law."

If the taps are that sensitive, it's more likely that they are for people who no reasonable person could believe is a legitimate target.

taxwonk · 12-20-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Judges would be the net maker, I think.

And the Judges are picked by the Chief Justice so I'm not too concerned about Al Queda infiltration. Remember the Supreme Court is simply a tool of the far right branch of the Republican party.

All of which further underlines my argument that the subjects were too sensitive and the G couldn't risk a leak is total bullshit.

Seriously, I know you live for stirring the pot, but can you actually make this argument and keep a straight face?

Sidd Finch · 12-20-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

And yet, he got more votes than anyone who ran against him. Unlike....

But I guess you still hold the fantasy that his election didn't "count", somehow.

taxwonk · 12-20-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, I was speaking to the more general point. Bush is pissed that someone leaked the fact that they were doing this (I don't think he went so far as to say he'd fire the person). He asserts that disclosing the fact of these wiretaps undermines efforts to combat terrorism. The analogy drawn was to the disclosure of inception of bin Laden satphone communications.

It's just more evidence that he suffers from a Messiah Complex. You're either for him or against him and if you are against him, you are an enemy of all that is right and good and true. Just like Jebus.

Secret_Agent_Man · 12-20-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And for those of you who don't buy into the "too senstive explaination" look at SAM's post above- "I guess we'll all know what the taps are for once Spector's investigation is over." WTF?

I didn't mean we'd all know, or that loads of top secret information would be disclosed -- just that we (or at least the Congress) would have a better idea if there is some investigation of what was done and why.

BTW -- this is hardly breaking as a liberal/conservative issue. The Washington Times today had two more or less opposite opinion pieces on its editorial page.

Bruce Fein -- not my idea of a "Michael Moore liberal" really ripped the President a new asshole. Included a couple of fun inflammatory statements --

"According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties."

and

"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses."

also

"The president maintained that, 'As a result [of the NSA disclosure], our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.' But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm