The Warrantless Wiretaps were Legal Afterall

[guido911]

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

[cannon_fodder]

So?  He still blew up 9/11, or whatever the claim is.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

Who cares...What ever it takes....

[we vs us]

This ruling just absolves the telecom companies of culpability. They were just doing what the president wanted.  It doesn't address the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps themselves.  

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

This ruling just absolves the telecom companies of culpability. They were just doing what the president wanted.  It doesn't address the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps themselves.  

BDS again demonstrated by wevsus. Here is an AP article discussing the ruling:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g9Q7M6scz4PEW8SuEo_bpOer6ZAQD95NRD1G0

From the article:

The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review said the time needed to get a court warrant would hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information, impeding vital national security interests.

The challenge to the law has presented no evidence of any actual harm or any broad potential for abuse, the court's three judges concluded.

"Our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power," the court said. "Rather, our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards ... its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."

How can that not suggest the wiretaps were anything but constitutional?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

When you say "he", I suppose you are including all that had their hands in the torture of pool ole KSM and two other very senior al qaeda fiqures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Yep, he and both Democrat and Rebublican members of Congress that both knew and endorsed "torture" (which according to another in this forum includes sleep deprivation, nudity, isolation) will be having to answer. Here is an interesting articla about the involvment on senior DEMOCRATS that endorsed and/or encouraged tough interrogation tactics that I guess you would want prosecuted as well. Oh wait, you don't have PELOSI OR ROCKEFELLER Derangement Syndrome, do you?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

When you say "he", I suppose you are including all that had their hands in the torture of pool ole KSM and two other very senior al qaeda fiqures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Yep, he and both Democrat and Rebublican members of Congress that both knew and endorsed "torture" (which according to another in this forum includes sleep deprivation, nudity, isolation) will be having to answer. Here is an interesting articla about the involvment on senior DEMOCRATS that endorsed and/or encouraged tough interrogation tactics that I guess you would want prosecuted as well. Oh wait, you don't have PELOSI OR ROCKEFELLER Derangement Syndrome, do you?

But it was the EXECUTIVE who had the power to grant that via EXECUTVE ORDER to torture terrorist suspects.  Last I checked the members of Congress don't issue executive orders.

Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'?

That must be only if you're not Dubya.

[B)]

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

When you say "he", I suppose you are including all that had their hands in the torture of pool ole KSM and two other very senior al qaeda fiqures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Yep, he and both Democrat and Rebublican members of Congress that both knew and endorsed "torture" (which according to another in this forum includes sleep deprivation, nudity, isolation) will be having to answer. Here is an interesting articla about the involvment on senior DEMOCRATS that endorsed and/or encouraged tough interrogation tactics that I guess you would want prosecuted as well. Oh wait, you don't have PELOSI OR ROCKEFELLER Derangement Syndrome, do you?

But it was the EXECUTIVE who had the power to grant that via EXECUTVE ORDER to torture terrorist suspects.  Last I checked the members of Congress don't issue executive orders.

Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'?

That must be only if you're not Dubya.

[B)]

If Congress opposed Bush, they could easily have cut off funding for these programs, conducted hearings, etc. The LEGISLATIVE branch did NOTHING. You are such an idiot.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

When you say "he", I suppose you are including all that had their hands in the torture of pool ole KSM and two other very senior al qaeda fiqures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Yep, he and both Democrat and Rebublican members of Congress that both knew and endorsed "torture" (which according to another in this forum includes sleep deprivation, nudity, isolation) will be having to answer. Here is an interesting articla about the involvment on senior DEMOCRATS that endorsed and/or encouraged tough interrogation tactics that I guess you would want prosecuted as well. Oh wait, you don't have PELOSI OR ROCKEFELLER Derangement Syndrome, do you?

But it was the EXECUTIVE who had the power to grant that via EXECUTVE ORDER to torture terrorist suspects.  Last I checked the members of Congress don't issue executive orders.

Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'?

That must be only if you're not Dubya.

[B)]

If Congress opposed Bush, they could easily have cut off funding for these programs, conducted hearings, etc. The LEGISLATIVE branch did NOTHING. You are such an idiot.

Man, check the ad hominems, dude.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

When you say "he", I suppose you are including all that had their hands in the torture of pool ole KSM and two other very senior al qaeda fiqures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Yep, he and both Democrat and Rebublican members of Congress that both knew and endorsed "torture" (which according to another in this forum includes sleep deprivation, nudity, isolation) will be having to answer. Here is an interesting articla about the involvment on senior DEMOCRATS that endorsed and/or encouraged tough interrogation tactics that I guess you would want prosecuted as well. Oh wait, you don't have PELOSI OR ROCKEFELLER Derangement Syndrome, do you?

But it was the EXECUTIVE who had the power to grant that via EXECUTVE ORDER to torture terrorist suspects.  Last I checked the members of Congress don't issue executive orders.

Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'?

That must be only if you're not Dubya.

[B)]

If Congress opposed Bush, they could easily have cut off funding for these programs, conducted hearings, etc. The LEGISLATIVE branch did NOTHING. You are such an idiot.

Man, check the ad hominems, dude.

You know, I have been listening to you BDS folks for years. They are so filled with anti-Bush hatred that they forget the DEMS were either complicit (torture) or the cause of problems laid entirely at Bush's feet (economy/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac). I just cannot wait until after Obama is inaugerated so Bush being responsible for everying will end.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Well Keith Olbermann and Superintelligent/Mega lawyer Jonathon Turley will not be pleased that Bush the "Fascist" may have broken no laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

He still has that little issue of torture to deal with though.

[:O]

When you say "he", I suppose you are including all that had their hands in the torture of pool ole KSM and two other very senior al qaeda fiqures.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120464870255997.html

Yep, he and both Democrat and Rebublican members of Congress that both knew and endorsed "torture" (which according to another in this forum includes sleep deprivation, nudity, isolation) will be having to answer. Here is an interesting articla about the involvment on senior DEMOCRATS that endorsed and/or encouraged tough interrogation tactics that I guess you would want prosecuted as well. Oh wait, you don't have PELOSI OR ROCKEFELLER Derangement Syndrome, do you?

But it was the EXECUTIVE who had the power to grant that via EXECUTVE ORDER to torture terrorist suspects.  Last I checked the members of Congress don't issue executive orders.

Whatever happened to 'the buck stops here'?

That must be only if you're not Dubya.

[B)]

If Congress opposed Bush, they could easily have cut off funding for these programs, conducted hearings, etc. The LEGISLATIVE branch did NOTHING. You are such an idiot.

Man, check the ad hominems, dude.

Right, most of that during the time that the Republicans controlled the legislative branch.

And don't worry about me wevs, this is Gweeds tactic.  He doesn't like what a poster says then if he can't fashion a retort he just calls them an idiot or some stuff like that.  Real intelligent banter for someone who went to law school vs someone who spent two years in community college.

[we vs us]

What the hell is BDS?  And how does that excuse you calling people idiots and morons?  I'm here to have a discussion about politics, not get into a name calling war.  But if you think as little of me and my views as it sounds like you do, then maybe we really don't have much to say to each other after all.  

Read some of CF and Conan's posts for a little guidance; they're pretty good at arguing their side without being d***s about it.

quote:Originally posted by guido911

I just cannot wait until after Obama is inaugerated so Bush being responsible for everying will end.

That makes two of us.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by guido911

I just cannot wait until after Obama is inaugerated so Bush being responsible for everying will end.

That makes two of us.

But I expect from different perspectives.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by guido911

I just cannot wait until after Obama is inaugerated so Bush being responsible for everying will end.

That makes two of us.

But I expect from different perspectives.

My point exactly.