GG Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce? Is the world running out of virgins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Anyone whining about wiretaps or TSA security today? If Bush and his cronies were smart, they would pounce on this for all the good PR it would be worth to them. But they wont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce? Is the world running out of virgins? 573926[/snapback] Isn't AQ (and OBL) always on the run? Somehow it doesn't seem to prevent him from overcoming the most sophisticated secruity network in the world though. Hmmm....maybe we should just hire AQ? They're obviously more intelligent than our intelligence... And, no, this doesn't make we want to hand over to the executive the power to wire tap under any and all circumstances. Might as well live under Stalinist Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Anyone whining about wiretaps or TSA security today? If Bush and his cronies were smart, they would pounce on this for all the good PR it would be worth to them. But they wont. 573939[/snapback] Oh I'm sure Bush will try to use the tape as justification for breaking the law, and there are people who will be willing to give him a pass. But unless martial law has been declared, wiretaps on U.S. citizens without warrents are still illegal regardless of what the news flash of the day is. The law hasn't changed, and he needs to be held accountable. I think Bin Laden is realizing that in the end neither side is going to be able to completely achieve their ends, so perhaps it's time to come to a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Isn't AQ (and OBL) always on the run? Somehow it doesn't seem to prevent him from overcoming the most sophisticated secruity network in the world though. Hmmm....maybe we should just hire AQ? They're obviously more intelligent than our intelligence... And, no, this doesn't make we want to hand over to the executive the power to wire tap under any and all circumstances. Might as well live under Stalinist Russia. 573973[/snapback] The flaw in your argument is that the Executive doesnt wire tap under "all and any circumstances." Call me nuts, but when the man who has done a ton of damage to us the last fifteen years says he's gunning for us again, Id listen...and maybe raise our guard a bit. Give the govt. rights to run roughshod over everything? No. But there needs to be a balance here. Revise FISA, institute emergency powers with Congress' approval..something. I dont claim to have the answer, but do ANYTHING but go on with the status quo. And PJ......"A compromise" with OBL. Good idea, Chamberlain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 But unless martial law has been declared, wiretaps on U.S. citizens without warrents are still illegal regardless of what the news flash of the day is.573980[/snapback] Can anyone tell me who said: "...the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses." And after that, can anyone tell me who said: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce? Is the world running out of virgins? 573926[/snapback] I wonder what the compromise is? Obviously withdrawal of troops from not only Iraq but all of the ME is one of the provisions. I am guessing that the elimination of Israel is also on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Oh I'm sure Bush will try to use the tape as justification for breaking the law, and there are people who will be willing to give him a pass. But unless martial law has been declared, wiretaps on U.S. citizens without warrents are still illegal regardless of what the news flash of the day is. The law hasn't changed, and he needs to be held accountable. I think Bin Laden is realizing that in the end neither side is going to be able to completely achieve their ends, so perhaps it's time to come to a compromise. 573980[/snapback] The reasonable Bin Laden is now coming to this conclusion while the crazy GW (the root cause of all problems) has yet to gain the perspective and wisdom of OBL? Nice. This, like other OBL tapes, attempts to bring politics into it and pile on notions reported in editorial pages. The war mongers are profiting.....they contrived this war.....blah blah blah. OBL is making a poor attempt at playing you and you are buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I wonder what the compromise is? Obviously withdrawal of troops from not only Iraq but all of the ME is one of the provisions. I am guessing that the elimination of Israel is also on the list. 573997[/snapback] We all must convert. Do Muslims get a big party when they come of age like a Bar Mitzvah? Even though we're over 13, do we get one when we convert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Can anyone tell me who said:"...the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses." Al Gore? And after that, can anyone tell me who said:"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." 573994[/snapback] Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission and the administration that I am not allowed to bring up for fear of Libs getting their panties in a wad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Can anyone tell me who said:"...the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses." And after that, can anyone tell me who said: "The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." 573994[/snapback] Buh....buh....buh....that was.......DIFFERENT! Amazing what a three second Google yields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Al Gore?Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission and the administration that I am not allowed to bring up for fear of Libs getting their panties in a wad? 574006[/snapback] Nah, let's just say it...a Clinton Administration official, and a Clinton administration official. Not that they're two-faced or anything. Gorelick, btw, said that in testimony to the House Committee on Intelligence (now there's an oxymoron) concerning the Clinton's administration warrantless wiretaps. She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Nah, let's just say it...a Clinton Administration official, and a Clinton administration official. Not that they're two-faced or anything. Now you did it. Gorelick, btw, said that in testimony to the House Committee on Intelligence (now there's an oxymoron) concerning the Clinton's administration warrantless wiretaps. She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases". 574050[/snapback] Shhhhhhhh...you are not supposed to bring that stuff up. History started January, 2001. Please be more careful in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 This, like other OBL tapes, attempts to bring politics into it and pile on notions reported in editorial pages. The war mongers are profiting.....they contrived this war.....blah blah blah. OBL is making a poor attempt at playing you and you are buying it. 573999[/snapback] Which war are you taking about, the one against OBL or the one in Iraq, because they are different issues. The war against OBL wasn't contrived, the one in Iraq was. And this war against OBL is a political and economic one, not a military one. Unless and until we win over the hearts and minds of moderate Arabs through our policies and actions, they will continue to turn their heads and give passive support to the extremists. With the Mess-in-potamia, that will now be difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Now you did it.Shhhhhhhh...you are not supposed to bring that stuff up. History started January, 2001. Please be more careful in the future. 574069[/snapback] Well...in the interests of balance, I should point out that I've found equally as many statements by the Republican Congressional leadership of the time decrying the Clinton Administration's position on warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional. so from a purely constitutional standpoint, they're all full of partisan "It's a crime when the other guy does it" horesehit. But let's all keep pretending that our elected "leadership" actually gives two ***** about our constitutional protections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Which war are you taking about, the one against OBL or the one in Iraq, because they are different issues. The war against OBL wasn't contrived, the one in Iraq was. And this war against OBL is a political and economic one, not a military one. Unless and until we win over the hearts and minds of moderate Arabs through our policies and actions, they will continue to turn their heads and give passive support to the extremists. With the Mess-in-potamia, that will now be difficult. 574095[/snapback] Aside from the italicized, that's a very astute set of observations. Who are you, and where's the real PastaJoe? As for the italicized...brush up on your Clausewitz, for starters. Then contemplate what radical Islam thinks of that statement themselves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 But let's all keep pretending that our elected "leadership" actually gives two ***** about our constitutional protections. 574100[/snapback] They only care about themselves. Not much is going to change as long as people vote for the "lesser of two evils." The people can regain control over their elected officials, but they need to get past their apathy, first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 They only care about themselves. Not much is going to change as long as people vote for the "lesser of two evils." The people can regain control over their elected officials, but they need to get past their apathy, first. 574116[/snapback] Not true. They care about their parties, too. And I'm sure a few of them care about their hair. And I heard an unsubstantiated rumor the other day that there's actually a congressman who spent five minutes thinking about his district... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Not true. They care about their parties, too. Yeah, that is who helps them keep their power. And I'm sure a few of them care about their hair. Point taken. And I heard an unsubstantiated rumor the other day that there's actually a congressman who spent five minutes thinking about his district... 574128[/snapback] You lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Now you did it.Shhhhhhhh...you are not supposed to bring that stuff up. History started January, 2001. Please be more careful in the future. 574069[/snapback] I'd don't care who is in power; I'm against more power to the executive--I prefer not to live in a police state. The problem has NOT been intelligence agencies "lack the tools" to fight AQ; the problem has been the ineptness of the bureaucratic intelligence structure. And what did Bush do? He created the largest bureaucratic structure of all--Homeland Security. In five separate cases before 911, FBI agents investigating AQ had their hands tied from above (DC). The Patriot Act can't prevent that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts