GG Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 A closed judicial review would be fine and dandy. 790188[/snapback] You mean the system that was in place 12 months ago, when the administration briefed the congressional spy committees & the head FISA judge on every single instance of warrantless wiretapping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 30, 2006 Author Share Posted September 30, 2006 You mean the system that was in place 12 months ago, when the administration briefed the congressional spy committees & the head FISA judge on every single instance of warrantless wiretapping? 790231[/snapback] Uh, one of the big issues with the NSA wiretapping is that the FISA courts were never informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 What a joke the right has become. As an avid Hillary-hater I have no choice but to vote for her if she runs against Frist because of this bill.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 What a joke the right has become. As an avid Hillary-hater I have no choice but to vote for her if she runs against Frist because of this bill.. 790418[/snapback] I agree that I'd never vote for Frist under any circumstance. What a scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 What a joke the right has become. As an avid Hillary-hater I have no choice but to vote for her if she runs against Frist because of this bill.. 790418[/snapback] you do realize there are more than 2 parties right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Uh, one of the big issues with the NSA wiretapping is that the FISA courts were never informed. 790404[/snapback] Uh, the top two judges were informed. They didn't like what Executive was doing, but they were not in the dark, nor was Congress. (didn't use the search feature, did you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 30, 2006 Author Share Posted September 30, 2006 Uh, the top two judges were informed. They didn't like what Executive was doing, but they were not in the dark, nor was Congress. (didn't use the search feature, did you?) 790618[/snapback] (used google & NYT archives, because I don't ever remember reading about it in a newspaper. DIdn't find anything) Even still, they didn't really have the power to do anything about it if they didn't like it. Kinda pointless then eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (used google & NYT archives, because I don't ever remember reading about it in a newspaper. DIdn't find anything) Even still, they didn't really have the power to do anything about it if they didn't like it. Kinda pointless then eh? 790626[/snapback] The search I was referring to was of this site. And yes, Kollar-Kottely & Rockefeller could have done something about it. Kottely did - by telling Admin that any cases brought as a result of warrantless wiretapping would get thrown out. Rockefeller just wrote a CYA memo to file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 The search I was referring to was of this site. I know, and I didn't find anything when I did that either after your post. Then again, I normally wouldn't search this site for facts/news. And yes, Kollar-Kottely & Rockefeller could have done something about it. Kottely did - by telling Admin that any cases brought as a result of warrantless wiretapping would get thrown out. Rockefeller just wrote a CYA memo to file. 793772[/snapback] ooooooh man, they really did something about it! They wrote a letter that the Bush admin ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I know, and I didn't find anything when I did that either after your post. Then again, I normally wouldn't search this site for facts/news.ooooooh man, they really did something about it! They wrote a letter that the Bush admin ignored. 794041[/snapback] Lemme guess, you wanted them to go public with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Lemme guess, you wanted them to go public with it? 794141[/snapback] Yeah, because as I've said all along here, I want everything to be public. Stop being a friggin broken record and ignoring my posts. No, I wanted it actually to be reviewed by a FISA court and either revoked or upheld. Not a letter written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Yeah, because as I've said all along here, I want everything to be public. Stop being a friggin broken record and ignoring my posts. No, I wanted it actually to be reviewed by a FISA court and either revoked or upheld. Not a letter written. 794243[/snapback] And that's the Administration's problem? Sounds like you have a problem with the House and Senate Intelligence committees and Democratic "watchdogs". Or maybe you could just admit that the Dims are just as interested in eliminating freedoms as the Republicans are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 And that's the Administration's problem? Sounds like you have a problem with the House and Senate Intelligence committees and Democratic "watchdogs". Or maybe you could just admit that the Dims are just as interested in eliminating freedoms as the Republicans are.... 794245[/snapback] Its more or less a problem with the inadaquate system thats in place. I've never said that the Dems have a perfect record, but the Republicans were controlling the passage/pushing for it in my original post, therefore I will blame this stuff on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Its more or less a problem with the inadaquate system thats in place. I've never said that the Dems have a perfect record, but the Republicans were controlling the passage/pushing for it in my original post, therefore I will blame this stuff on them. 794314[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 794341[/snapback] What, you don't think the Republicans are to blame for a couple of bills that they authered, rather craptastically? As far as the FISA system goes, thats on Jimmy Carter and co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 What, you don't think the Republicans are to blame for a couple of bills that they authered, rather craptastically? As far as the FISA system goes, thats on Jimmy Carter and co. 794346[/snapback] The craptastic bills are a response to the "outrage" that was fanned when we learned that Admin interpreted the Constitution as not needing warrants to conduct that particular bit of surveilance. Sounds like you were ok with the system the way it was, NSA spied on people, some who are US citizens, and kept top FISA judge and Congress apprised of the actions. They also knew that any evidence obtained that way, would not be admissable in later proceedings. So, if you didn't participate in discussions in how Admin was circumventing the law, I'm guessing that you would have taken Gonzales's side. If not, now youhave a law that people were clamoring for. Still, you have to stop and ask why admin would go down this road, when all armchair spooks said how pliable FISA was to issue warrants and the leeway that admin had in retroactively getting warrants. Since the program is still very much top secret, it has to involve a casting a wide net, where some innocent communication will get caught. You also have to strike a balance in protecting individual rights and having an effective intelligence program. It would seem almost unfair for private organizations to send you individualized content based on your IP address, and the NSA not to be able to sniff 1,000s of IP transmissions between US & Pakistan to see if a pattern can be generated. Same with phone calls. You don't need to listen to every call to establish a pattern, but you can study origination and termination data to connect the dots for further follow up. If a cop sits in a high crime area, and takes notes of license plates, is he violating your rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts