What "ACTUALLY" happened on 911....

BioHazzard said:
Here we go, in circle again.

For the 10 millionth times. What rights have you lost lately, Jarhead? How has your life being 'essentially' wrecked? Please enlighten us.

If you are a drug dealers, a terrorist, or some guy who is trying to hide asset from judgement, yeah, I know what rights you are missing now. (I can imagine why the Dems are so peeved... )

You just don't get it, but that's not suprising. The rights we still have have to be protected because when you lose them you don't get them back. You don't have to wreck somebodies life for it to be important. Just because I personally have not experienced the loss of these rights does not mean that there isn't someone in this country who has. And even if it's just one, all of us as americans should be concerned. Because the core values of this nation are important to some people, that does not make them inferior to or less intelligent than you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have noticed this in NYC where I have lived since 1990.
1991 through9-11-2001 soliders with M -16s = 0
9-11-2001-present = at least 4 armed soldiers in all tranportation hubs.

Just a temporary change???

a military show of force in a city with thousands of armed cops, what's the point?

Intimidation of the opposition, but who's the opposition?
 
anabolicrhino said:
Intimidation of the opposition, but who's the opposition?

I ask my self this everyday, as the strangle hold tightens, while the choices and power an individual has seem to grow smaller. As a single caucasian man with a child out of wed lock its an uphill battle to see your child, now why does the government have their head up my azz. Well why is the current administration using laws passed for the nations safety being used to spy on and controll its own people in a free democracy. The prescence of fear and constant threat keep people buying into bushes stupid war ideas. Honestly i cant understand what the hell is going on. I mean the war is happening for a reason but how the hell is this the right answer. why are the husseins dead and the bin ladens runing free, why not saudi arabia, why halliburton, why cant i have toothpaste on a plane, why do sooo many people strongly believe killing afgans and iraqis is the answer. War on terror is a joke to me and while people mock conspiracy theorists, all i can think is most of these theorys make more sense then the decisions being made every second for the last 5 years. If other countries came after and invaded the u.s because they have WMD's and pose a threat to democracy, how well would you respond when your family, home, life is destroyed because of your leader. how are you supposed to just go on, how far fetched is it that so many people rise up and try to do something about it. If you lived in iraq or afgan tell me if you had nothing left, and your rightous voice was lost in the exposions killing your people, that you wouldnt want to put a bomb on your back to stand up for what you believe in.
 
Jayhawkk said:
I think it's argued on the slippery slope idea. The wire tapping without a warrant is one that comes to mind.


To me this is how we fight it...

We keep borders and aliens strictly monitored. We provide real security not dog and pony shows with no backbone. We stop worrying about stopping traffic or pissing people off and we search like we're supposed to. We do real background checks with enough personel to keep the "waivers" from being issued while people are able to work for years before being actually checked.

Wire tapping (warrantless) is handled through the FISA courts which has been around since 1978 under the Carter administration. The only reason you hear about it now is because its an old argument that the democrats seem to want to bring up because George Bush is using them (as did Clinton). They had no problem with this under the Clinton administration. So the same things people are complaining about now have been going on for over 20 yrs. under numerous administrations. Its a joke.

FISA has been challenged several times in lower courts and has been found constitutional.
 
somewhatgifted said:
I ask my self this everyday, as the strangle hold tightens, while the choices and power an individual has seem to grow smaller. As a single caucasian man with a child out of wed lock its an uphill battle to see your child, now why does the government have their head up my azz. Well why is the current administration using laws passed for the nations safety being used to spy on and controll its own people in a free democracy. The prescence of fear and constant threat keep people buying into bushes stupid war ideas. Honestly i cant understand what the hell is going on. I mean the war is happening for a reason but how the hell is this the right answer. why are the husseins dead and the bin ladens runing free, why not saudi arabia, why halliburton, why cant i have toothpaste on a plane, why do sooo many people strongly believe killing afgans and iraqis is the answer. War on terror is a joke to me and while people mock conspiracy theorists, all i can think is most of these theorys make more sense then the decisions being made every second for the last 5 years. If other countries came after and invaded the u.s because they have WMD's and pose a threat to democracy, how well would you respond when your family, home, life is destroyed because of your leader. how are you supposed to just go on, how far fetched is it that so many people rise up and try to do something about it. If you lived in iraq or afgan tell me if you had nothing left, and your rightous voice was lost in the exposions killing your people, that you wouldnt want to put a bomb on your back to stand up for what you believe in.

Please read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty then please go over FISA.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Essential Liberty /=temporary inconvenience

You're confusing the two. Almost nothing in our society is given up temporarily when we're dealing with liberties.

Actually there are. As a cop those given rights give you authority in a situation. Every citizen in the United States gives up rights for the overall greater good and give the police the authority to infringe upon the rights of individuals, something an ordinary citizen will never have unless sworn in.
 
jarhead said:
People "bellyache" about their rights being taken away because men died in order to establish them(and not in Iraq). That is why they are precious to some people, and that is why what is trivial to you means a whole lot more to someone else.

The orginization that fights for those rights actually infringes upon the individual that joins that organization. Its accepted for the overall good and operation of the military as you know. This concept is also used in everyday life as a citizen of the United States and rights can be taken away constitutionally when warranted (or unwarranted according to FISA). There is nothnig within the current operation that infringes upon your rights of communication unless a FISA court rules you are a threat or intelligence sugests you are threat and there isn't enough time to get FISA approval. In that case the President has the right under FISA to authorize a wire tap and its subject to Congressional review. THe whole situation that bought this up WAS a congressional review of the NSA program in wihch the author of the FISA act said the President acted according to the law.

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act."
 
Bobo said:
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act."

Wasn't Bush catching **** over this because he wasn't even trying to get the initial warrant? Personally I don't see a problem with it. Seems like monitoring enemy communications to me which as I understood it was common practice and accepted under law. That some of the enemies live inside the US is just a new development.
 
Actually there are. As a cop those given rights give you authority in a situation. Every citizen in the United States gives up rights for the overall greater good and give the police the authority to infringe upon the rights of individuals, something an ordinary citizen will never have unless sworn in.

We have never been a truely free gov't nor will we ever be but that isn't my arguement. I've run check points the day after 911 that were initially ordered and when traffic backed up they were revoked. I've seen rules banning certain equipment in certain areas until it pissed off the right people then those new regulations found themselves null/void.

Temporary inconveniance is have tight security check points. Essential freedoms are the right to not have your home searched on a whim without a warrant.
 
somewhatgifted said:
I ask my self this everyday, as the strangle hold tightens, while the choices and power an individual has seem to grow smaller. As a single caucasian man with a child out of wed lock its an uphill battle to see your child, now why does the government have their head up my azz. Well why is the current administration using laws passed for the nations safety being used to spy on and controll its own people in a free democracy. The prescence of fear and constant threat keep people buying into bushes stupid war ideas. Honestly i cant understand what the hell is going on. I mean the war is happening for a reason but how the hell is this the right answer. why are the husseins dead and the bin ladens runing free, why not saudi arabia, why halliburton, why cant i have toothpaste on a plane, why do sooo many people strongly believe killing afgans and iraqis is the answer. War on terror is a joke to me and while people mock conspiracy theorists, all i can think is most of these theorys make more sense then the decisions being made every second for the last 5 years. If other countries came after and invaded the u.s because they have WMD's and pose a threat to democracy, how well would you respond when your family, home, life is destroyed because of your leader. how are you supposed to just go on, how far fetched is it that so many people rise up and try to do something about it. If you lived in iraq or afgan tell me if you had nothing left, and your rightous voice was lost in the exposions killing your people, that you wouldnt want to put a bomb on your back to stand up for what you believe in.

I agree with all of what you just said. EVERY BIT OF IT.
 
CDB said:
Wasn't Bush catching **** over this because he wasn't even trying to get the initial warrant? Personally I don't see a problem with it. Seems like monitoring enemy communications to me which as I understood it was common practice and accepted under law. That some of the enemies live inside the US is just a new development.

Yes but the point being that according to FISA, in times when not enough time is warranted then he doens't need to. Generally when you try to get a warrant for this you need a time and a date set. The FISA court only meets twice per week so if you have intelligence that tells you there is something going on tomorrow or the next day the President has the authorization to bypass this based on intelligence. HE is the only one who can do this. This is to circumvent the restricition placed upon someone that needs an exact date and time to listen on converstaions that would occur at a time when the FISA court is not meeting and this privelage is ONLY given to the President. It gives the option of acting now, in the moment.

Democrats want to tie your hands even further saying you need a warrant for ALL wire tapping. What this does is take current intelligence off the table until a warrant is received. So if intelligence tells you something is about to happen at this moment, you can't do anything until you get a warrant.

This is ALL subject for review under Congress so its almost impossible to get away withy anything. The called him out on the NSA program and Bush was within the law according to authors of FISA in wich a Democratic President signed.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Temporary inconveniance is have tight security check points. Essential freedoms are the right to not have your home searched on a whim without a warrant.

Guess what? That's can happen with one single phone call and in certain states police can if they have enough evidence WITHOUT a warrant and its been that way for years.

There is nothing with this current administration that even comes close to hampering or effecting your life in the least. If people are so upset about wire tapping then they should be up in arms over local laws about what your police can do because that takes away more rights that Bush ever will.

..but they would rather hate Bush.
 
There is nothing with this current administration that even comes close to hampering or effecting your life in the least. If people are so upset about wire tapping then they should be up in arms over local laws about what your police can do because that takes away more rights that Bush ever will.

I don't blame bush in one bit. My earlier comment was directed at the situations surrounding him and when people would rather vote anybody but Bush regardless of his great ideas it becomes a threat to the whole party...

My stance more falls in line with people actually wanting security vs. just wanting it when it doesn't inconveniance them.
 
Jayhawkk said:
I don't blame bush in one bit. My earlier comment was directed at the situations surrounding him and when people would rather vote anybody but Bush regardless of his great ideas it becomes a threat to the whole party...

My stance more falls in line with people actually wanting security vs. just wanting it when it doesn't inconveniance them.

Thats what you get when one party is basically in charge for 8 years.


Its also election time, Bush will not be running again in 2008 so its also a chance to seperate yourself from the status quo since throughouth history the idea of "change" has elected more presidents than anything. The same thing happened with the first Bush and also Clinton. You can check it down through history.

The media pounding on someone for 8 years takes it toll no matter how popular your policies are. Politician follow votes and votes are shaped by public perception which is heavily influenced on what is reported by the news and you don't need me to tell you how negative the news is to people in power.

Its all politics and not much "truth". THe wire tapping issue is a joke because its the same thing thats been happenening for almost 30 years by our government. Nothing has changed except the democrats want to actually get some power back and its a good tactic to accuse the president of illegal acitons when they fully know its not. They are no better than the neo cons that want to bomb Iran tomorrow. Its politicans playing on your emotions to get votes across the board but the one guy that actually wants to DO something gets hammered by two parties trying to get re-elected. He definetly makes mistakes but he's not nearly as bad as poeople make him sound.

Take everything they say with a grain of salt because its almost Novemeber and the votes are already being counted. Its a bunch of blustering bull**** and people like Mccain, Clinton, etc.. are already looking towards their 2008 Presidency. I like Mccain but its quite obvious how he's come out against certain policies when people finally understand he will running for President in 2008. Same goes for Clinton but she's 100x worse. She is the most power hungry person I've seen in a while. Politicians at their best.
 
Bobo said:
Thats what you get when one party is basically in charge for 8 years.


Its also election time, Bush will not be running again in 2008 so its also a chance to seperate yourself from the status quo since throughouth history the idea of "change" has elected more presidents than anything. The same thing happened with the first Bush and also Clinton. You can check it down through history.

The media pounding on someone for 8 years takes it toll no matter how popular your policies are. Politician follow votes and votes are shaped by public perception which is heavily influenced on what is reported by the news and you don't need me to tell you how negative the news is to people in power.

Its all politics and not much "truth". THe wire tapping issue is a joke because its the same thing thats been happenening for almost 30 years by our government. Nothing has changed except the democrats want to actually get some power back and its a good tactic to accuse the president of illegal acitons when they fully know its not. They are no better than the neo cons that want to bomb Iran tomorrow. Its politicans playing on your emotions to get votes across the board but the one guy that actually wants to DO something gets hammered by two parties trying to get re-elected. He definetly makes mistakes but he's not nearly as bad as poeople make him sound.

Take everything they say with a grain of salt because its almost Novemeber and the votes are already being counted. Its a bunch of blustering bull**** and people like Mccain, Clinton, etc.. are already looking towards their 2008 Presidency. I like Mccain but its quite obvious how he's come out against certain policies when people finally understand he will running for President in 2008. Same goes for Clinton but she's 100x worse. She is the most power hungry person I've seen in a while. Politicians at their best.



AMEN!
 
Bobo said:
Wire tapping (warrantless) is handled through the FISA courts which has been around since 1978 under the Carter administration. The only reason you hear about it now is because its an old argument that the democrats seem to want to bring up because George Bush is using them (as did Clinton). They had no problem with this under the Clinton administration. So the same things people are complaining about now have been going on for over 20 yrs. under numerous administrations. Its a joke.

FISA has been challenged several times in lower courts and has been found constitutional.

Not just being argumentative, because I think I understansd what you are trying to say but I think you've got it backwards. As I understand it ,Warrantless wiretapping is NOT handled by FISA. That(warrantless) is authorized by the president. FISA handles wiretapping thru warrants, which fisa grants at the request of the government, issuing a court order or warrant. Bush challenged FISA as an infringement of executive power. That is what he used to justify his warrantless spying program, as he admitted it did not follow FISA. And the problem is, as defined by FISA the president CAN do this as you mentioned(act without a warrant, only in the interest of national security) but only for the period of 1 year without going to congress. This had been going on, authorized by the president, possibly as early as 2000. All he had to do is follow the proper channels and go thru congress within the proper time frame, and THEN we wouldn't be talking about it.

The Fisa that you talk about being around the last 20 years is not the same as today. The amendments over the last couple of years have changed it, and also tried to define what the president can and cannot do.

I'd also like to add that many people were not pleased with what Clinton did. He amended it so that physical searches were added along with electronic surveillence. He also made it so that that the evidence gathered could be used in criminal courts, not just used soley for intelligence purposes. I think the reason we didn't hear as much about it was that it wasn't during the time of 9/11 and the patriot act etc., but it was a huge change.
 
Bobo said:
The orginization that fights for those rights actually infringes upon the individual that joins that organization. Its accepted for the overall good and operation of the military as you know. This concept is also used in everyday life as a citizen of the United States and rights can be taken away constitutionally when warranted (or unwarranted according to FISA). There is nothnig within the current operation that infringes upon your rights of communication unless a FISA court rules you are a threat or intelligence sugests you are threat and there isn't enough time to get FISA approval. In that case the President has the right under FISA to authorize a wire tap and its subject to Congressional review. THe whole situation that bought this up WAS a congressional review of the NSA program in wihch the author of the FISA act said the President acted according to the law.

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act."


What organization are you talking about?

As far as there being nothing in the current operation that infringes upon my rights- The problem is that if a warrant is obtained thru fisa courts, there are requirements that must be met before surveilence is approved. However, if the President bypasses fisa, there are none. He could draw a name out of a hat basically. That's what some people have a problem with. Again, there are also supposed to be limits in place as to how long a surveillence program can go on before authorization must be obtained thru the fisa courts. Specifically one year. Bush had his program running for years before it was even leaked that it existed. There is a difference in the two routes which they could look at someone.
 
jarhead said:
I think you've got it backwards. As I understand it ,Warrantless wiretapping is NOT handled by FISA. That(warrantless) is authorized by the president. FISA handles wiretapping thru warrants, which fisa grants at the request of the government, issuing a court order or warrant. Bush challenged FISA as an infringement of executive power. That is what he used to justify his warrantless spying program, as he admitted it did not follow FISA. And the problem is, as defined by FISA the president can do this(act without a warrant, only in the interest of national security) only for the period of 1 year without going to congress. This had been going on, authorized by the president, possibly as early as 2000. All he had to do is follow the proper channels and go thru congress within the proper time frame, and THEN we wouldn't be talking about it.

Also there have actually been very few challenges to the constitutionality of FISA in the lower courts, with 2 finding it constitutional. One of the cases ruled that the president has an assumed executive power, based on the rulings of the previous 2 cases.

The Fisa that you talk about being around the last 20 years is not the same as today. The amendments over the last couple of years have changed it, and also tried to define what the president can and cannot do.


No, you have it wrong. Read it. He can go against the FISA COURTS, which is stated in FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

" The path to FISA has two branches, political and judicial.

The government had long maintained that it had extensive discretion to conduct wiretapping or physical searches in order to protect national security. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the President had claimed special authority for warrantless surveillance in national security investigations, and explicitly declined to extend its holding to cases "involving the national security." Id. at 358 n. 23. Similarly, Congress in Title III stated that "nothing in Title III shall . . . be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."

This was enacted into FISA upon its creation so its been going for 30yrs, not since 2000 although the Bush haters won't ever acknowledge that fact.. Even the author of FISA stated BUSH was within the law. Yes there have been amendments...like the one Clinton authorized:

"President Bill Clinton expanded the law in 1995 to include what is known as "black bag" searches of homes, which are executed while residents are away and without their knowledge."

Uh oh....Bill Clinton would never do that?!?!?!?


And yes, the Justice Department, under FISA, can conduct unwarranted survellaince for up to one year.



..but I'm sure you will find fault with that.
 
jarhead said:
What organization are you talking about?

As far as there being nothing in the current operation that infringes upon my rights- The problem is that if a warrant is obtained thru fisa courts, there are requirements that must be met before surveilence is approved. However, if the President bypasses fisa, there are none. He could draw a name out of a hat basically. That's what some people have a problem with. Again, there are also supposed to be limits in place as to how long a surveillence program can go on before authorization must be obtained thru the fisa courts. Specifically one year. Bush had his program running for years before it was even leaked that it existed. There is a difference in the two routes which they could look at someone.


The military.


You do understand that the House Intelligence Committe was aware of everything he did.

And no, he can't draw a name out of a hat. He has to have evidence or be subject to judicial review and prosecution. But I guess you forgot that part...
 
Bobo said:
Yes but the point being that according to FISA, in times when not enough time is warranted then he doens't need to. Generally when you try to get a warrant for this you need a time and a date set. The FISA court only meets twice per week so if you have intelligence that tells you there is something going on tomorrow or the next day the President has the authorization to bypass this based on intelligence. HE is the only one who can do this. This is to circumvent the restricition placed upon someone that needs an exact date and time to listen on converstaions that would occur at a time when the FISA court is not meeting and this privelage is ONLY given to the President. It gives the option of acting now, in the moment.

Democrats want to tie your hands even further saying you need a warrant for ALL wire tapping. What this does is take current intelligence off the table until a warrant is received. So if intelligence tells you something is about to happen at this moment, you can't do anything until you get a warrant.

This is ALL subject for review under Congress so its almost impossible to get away withy anything. The called him out on the NSA program and Bush was within the law according to authors of FISA in wich a Democratic President signed.

Politics have a nature of polarization of the facts. The concern of the Bush opposition is that his use of executive privilege has been questionable(as is our rights as citizens) as to it's actually
purpose. We wonder is Bush doing these "things" to make the USA a better place to live? or is there a more avaricious plan being implemented by this administration? We hope Bush is honoring his Oath of Office and will "uphold the Constitution of the United States." The executive branch of our government was set up to be a mangement office, simply to "enforce" the mandates of the constitution. When Bush signs each law into effect he has been "systematically" excluding himself and all future presidents from any obligation to obey the laws that we all have to obey. This is where the whole " by the people for the people" part of the Declaration of Independence(DOI) comes into play. The DOI is actually the document that secures all our American freedoms. The Constitution just dictates how those certain inalienable rights(life, liberty.pusuit of happiness) will be protected. Ultimately the presidents only job is to insure that all of our rights are protected. The executive exemption privilege is not new in practice. All of the other presidents in history exercised this privilege about 150 times, which is oddly enough about the same number of times that Bush(Chaney) have exercised it. This kind of disparity is what makes us wonder.
 
So going to back to the title of this forum "What "ACTUALLY" happened on 911...." did we (the US), after five years of Bush bashing (for obvious reasons probably already stated), get the person or people responsible for it? Didn't think so!!!

Bush could have turned out to be an OK President if he would have went after the right people, but his actions are undefendable knowing the security of this country is no safer now than before the 911 attacks.

Since this was brought up - I think it's pretty cool how fuel prices are dropping on the eve of the fall elections. I'm sure politics has nothing to do with that.
 
anabolicrhino said:
Politics have a nature of polarization of the facts. The concern of the Bush opposition is that his use of executive privilege has been questionable(as is our rights as citizens) as to it's actually
purpose. We wonder is Bush doing these "things" to make the USA a better place to live? or is there a more avaricious plan being implemented by this administration? We hope Bush is honoring his Oath of Office and will "uphold the Constitution of the United States." The executive branch of our government was set up to be a mangement office, simply to "enforce" the mandates of the constitution. When Bush signs each law into effect he has been "systematically" excluding himself and all future presidents from any obligation to obey the laws that we all have to obey. This is where the whole " by the people for the people" part of the Declaration of Independence(DOI) comes into play. The DOI is actually the document that secures all our American freedoms. The Constitution just dictates how those certain inalienable rights(life, liberty.pusuit of happiness) will be protected. Ultimately the presidents only job is to insure that all of our rights are protected. The executive exemption privilege is not new in practice. All of the other presidents in history exercised this privilege about 150 times, which is oddly enough about the same number of times that Bush(Chaney) have exercised it. This kind of disparity is what makes us wonder.

Then read:

FISA Judge: Bush Wiretapping Broke No Law


In a significant vindication for President Bush, a judge who co-authored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act said Tuesday that the president was duly authorized under the Constitution to order the wiretapping of suspected terrorists - without getting a warrant from the FISA Court.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FISA Court Judge Allan Kornblum said that president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, which critics claim the Bush program violated.


THen read what Clinton did:

"President Bill Clinton expanded the law in 1995 to include what is known as "black bag" searches of homes, which are executed while residents are away and without their knowledge."
 
tomall2 said:
So going to back to the title of this forum "What "ACTUALLY" happened on 911...." did we (the US), after five years of Bush bashing (for obvious reasons probably already stated), get the person or people responsible for it? Didn't think so!!!

Bush could have turned out to be an OK President if he would have went after the right people, but his actions are undefendable knowing the security of this country is no safer now than before the 911 attacks.

Since this was brought up - I think it's pretty cool how fuel prices are dropping on the eve of the fall elections. I'm sure politics has nothing to do with that.

I could care less if he catch OBL. The organization is in shambles as his own people (and son) have gone against him now BECAUSE they caused us to have a military presence in the middle east.

I believe we are safer than 911.

Yeah, prices have dropped because a lot of people bought oil stocks thinking they were going to continue to rise. Now that they aren't (considering the repair of the northern pipelines and discovery of oil fields in the Gulf and ending of the Israel conflict) they are dumping them causing the price to drop but I know you won't believe that one either because it's a big conspiracy. It has nothing to do with supply and demand.
 
Bobo said:
No, you have it wrong. Read it. He can go against the FISA COURTS, which is stated in FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

" The path to FISA has two branches, political and judicial.

The government had long maintained that it had extensive discretion to conduct wiretapping or physical searches in order to protect national security. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the President had claimed special authority for warrantless surveillance in national security investigations, and explicitly declined to extend its holding to cases "involving the national security." Id. at 358 n. 23. Similarly, Congress in Title III stated that "nothing in Title III shall . . . be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."

This was enacted into FISA upon its creation so its been going for 30yrs, not since 2000 although the Bush haters won't ever acknowledge that fact.. Even the author of FISA stated BUSH was within the law. Yes there have been amendments...like the one Clinton authorized:

"President Bill Clinton expanded the law in 1995 to include what is known as "black bag" searches of homes, which are executed while residents are away and without their knowledge."

Uh oh....Bill Clinton would never do that?!?!?!?


And yes, the Justice Department, under FISA, can conduct unwarranted survellaince for up to one year.



..but I'm sure you will find fault with that.


I read that you said "fisa handles warrantless searches" in the first sentence of your post. Warrantless searches are brought about by the president going around it, that was my point.Fisa court approves warrants. The rest,you basically just restated what I said. I wasn't just disagreeing with everything you wrote.

I added the thing about clinton to my post apparently while you were writing this. My only point in that was that what he did was not popular-it just did not get the attention that things are now.

And you said I'll find fault with the president being able to conduct warrantless searches for a year for some reason. No actually what I have a problem with is when it goes beyond a year and noone in congress even knows about the program.
 
No actually what I have a problem with is when it goes beyond a year and noone in congress even knows about the program.

Believe me they know. This is more of a political grenade. they trhow a few bodies on the pile to save the rest. Remember Bush is on his way out regardless.
 
jarhead said:
I read that you said "fisa handles warrantless searches" in the first sentence of your post. Warrantless searches are brought about by the president going around it, that was my point.Fisa court approves warrants. The rest,you basically just restated what I said. I wasn't just disagreeing with everything you wrote.

I added the thing about clinton to my post apparently while you were writing this. My only point in that was that what he did was not popular-it just did not get the attention that things are now.

And you said I'll find fault with the president being able to conduct warrantless searches for a year for some reason. No actually what I have a problem with is when it goes beyond a year and noone in congress even knows about the program.

But FISA does handle warrantless search as the Justice Department can conduct these as well but with approval form the Attorney General. According to FISA the Presidents Constitutional right supersedes FISA law thereby eliminating the time frame. FISA law no longer dictates how long and this has been enacted for 30 years. Its old news but its now being used as a political issue against Bush. That's the point.

If you don't like the fact Bush is able to do this then your problem isn't with him, its with the Carter administration.

If I have the constitutional right to perform such acts against terrorists, I would as well.
 
Bobo said:
The military.


You do understand that the House Intelligence Committe was aware of everything he did.

And no, he can't draw a name out of a hat. He has to have evidence or be subject to judicial review and prosecution. But I guess you forgot that part...


In the military as it is now, you go in with the understanding that your rights are different than the average citizen. That is your conscious choice though, not one that is made for you. That is all irrelevant though, in the post of mine that you quoted it was directed at our forefathers, not today's military. They are the ones that died to establish our rights, not us. That's all my point was.

And no I did not forgot any part. There are clearly defined terms in which fisa grants warrants. This is not the case when you go around it. It is ultimatly up to the discretion of the president. I'm not just sitting around bush-bashing. I have also taken the time to read up on the subject.
 
Bobo said:
But FISA does handle warrantless search as the Justice Department can conduct these as well but with approval form the Attorney General. According to FISA the Presidents Constitutional right supersedes FISA law thereby eliminating the time frame. FISA law no longer dictates how long and this has been enacted for 30 years. Its old news but its now being used as a political issue against Bush. That's the point.

If you don't like the fact Bush is able to do this then your problem isn't with him, its with the Carter administration.

If I have the constitutional right to perform such acts against terrorists, I would as well.

Ok not to beat this into the ground as I think it may just be the wording that's getting confused, but How is fisa involved if you're going around it without a warrant? (this is not meant as a sarcastic question)
 
I would feel a whole lot safer knowing my government was fighting a war against the people who attacked us. Iraq never attacked the US - ever.

When PH was attacked, we didn't go after China and say they were close enough but it affected Japan just the same. Of course we didn't. We took our gloves off and we got dirty and we took no BS from anyone.

You might not care about OBL, but he grew a set of nads, and walked up to the tiger and spit in its face. The tiger let him get away with it. Now anyone will think they can do the same.

Conspiracies are fun to play with but I am a realist when it comes to the BS going on in this country right in front of us. Bottom line is 1. we did not respond in appropriate fashion, 2. we are in a war in a country that we should not be in and 3. politics is what it is and will remain so as long as the people let it stay that way or are content to see it as it is.

The whole gas price thing is ahh well, and no disrespect intended, but weak. Any bets about prices after the elections?
 
jarhead said:
In the military as it is now, you go in with the understanding that your rights are different than the average citizen. That is your conscious choice though, not one that is made for you. That is all irrelevant though, in the post of mine that you quoted it was directed at our forefathers, not today's military. They are the ones that died to establish our rights, not us. That's all my point was.

And no I did not forgot any part. There are clearly defined terms in which fisa grants warrants. This is not the case when you go around it. It is ultimatly up to the discretion of the president. I'm not just sitting around bush-bashing. I have also taken the time to read up on the subject.

It was an exmaple as well as the certain rights you give up towards the police which are NOT voluntary. Your civil rights are infringed everyday for teh greater good.

There are defined terms IF you are not the President who has evidence to authrorize it that will go under judicial review. He can't just pick a name out of the hat and tap anyone he wants. His constitutional right superceds FISA law (hecne the 1 year is out the window) but its still under judicial review after the fact. Its also reported to the House Intelligence Commitee so they knew EXACTLY what he was doing AND approved it after the fact. Its the reaosn WHY die hard liberals hate Hilary Clinton because she was WITH Bush (along with most other war issues) and now for political reasons she isn't....wonder why...
 
You are one bad a$$ MF Mr. Jay. No hugs and kisses smileys? what up wid dat? Does this mean I have to wear the superman thing again?
 
Jayhawkk said:
Believe me they know. This is more of a political grenade. they trhow a few bodies on the pile to save the rest. Remember Bush is on his way out regardless.


That does make sense. Sometimes it's easy to forget that politicians release what info they do, when and where they want, for their own personal gain.
 
tomall2 said:
I would feel a whole lot safer knowing my government was fighting a war against the people who attacked us. Iraq never attacked the US - ever.

When PH was attacked, we didn't go after China and say they were close enough but it affected Japan just the same. Of course we didn't. We took our gloves off and we got dirty and we took no BS from anyone.

You might not care about OBL, but he grew a set of nads, and walked up to the tiger and spit in its face. The tiger let him get away with it. Now anyone will think they can do the same.

Conspiracies are fun to play with but I am a realist when it comes to the BS going on in this country right in front of us. Bottom line is 1. we did not respond in appropriate fashion, 2. we are in a war in a country that we should not be in and 3. politics is what it is and will remain so as long as the people let it stay that way or are content to see it as it is.

The whole gas price thing is ahh well, and no disrespect intended, but weak. Any bets about prices after the elections?

Last time I checked we did go into Afghanistan, cleared out the Taliban, handed off control to NATO then now have to come back and clean up the mess because NATO and the international community has failed to keep control.

There is a difference between Japan which has borders, has a central government and Al Qaeda which hides in Pakistan which we are not allowed to go into. You are telling the government to go after the enemy when all they have to do is hide in the mountains of Pakistan because they know the Pakistani government will not allow the US military in. Tell me how you solve that problem now? Be nice? OBL and Al Quaeda have lost a lot of clout in the last 5 years.

Oils price dropped because people sold it off. People bought up those stocks like nuts because everyone was saying 80,90,$100 barrels. It didn't happen, the conflict ended, the pips are being repaired, there is a major discovery off of the Gulf which could fuel this country for 80 years and people dumped the stock. As a results the price dropped but it will go back up slowly. You still might see a large drop though. Its highly unpredictable.
 
Bobo said:
It was an exmaple as well as the certain rights you give up towards the police which are NOT voluntary. Your civil rights are infringed everyday for teh greater good.

There are defined terms IF you are not the President who has evidence to authrorize it that will go under judicial review. He can't just pick a name out of the hat and tap anyone he wants. His constitutional right superceds FISA law (hecne the 1 year is out the window) but its still under judicial review after the fact. Its also reported to the House Intelligence Commitee so they knew EXACTLY what he was doing AND approved it after the fact. Its the reaosn WHY die hard liberals hate Hilary Clinton because she was WITH Bush (along with most other war issues) and now for political reasons she isn't....wonder why...

Ok, I think I get it, you're saying that it's designed to catch any misuse, but not necessarily right away? I notice that there are also defined penalties, including damages, if they rule against it. It sounds like the year limit is supposed to be more of a deadline in case the case hasn't been reviewed by that time? And is there a time limit that says how soon he has to notify the house intelligence committee when a program is started without a warrant?
 
jarhead said:
Ok, I think I get it, you're saying that it's designed to catch any misuse, but not necessarily right away? I notice that there are also defined penalties, including damages, if they rule against it. It sounds like the year limit is supposed to be more of a deadline in case the case hasn't been reviewed by that time? And is there a time limit that says how soon he has to notify the house intelligence committee when a program is started without a warrant?

Yes. He cant just tap anyone. Its ALL under review and will go to Congress if there is misuse. Everything is documented and under review. The Justice Department still can get warrantless surveillance but this goes through the Attorney General and has a 1 year limit. The President basically can supersede it all and there must be evidence and intelligence to back it up. Everything is reported to FISA which meets twice per week.
 
Bobo said:
Last time I checked we did go into Afghanistan, cleared out the Taliban, handed off control to NATO then now have to come back and clean up the mess because NATO and the international community has failed to keep control.

There is a difference between Japan which has borders, has a central government and Al Qaeda which hides in Pakistan which we are not allowed to go into. You are telling the government to go after the enemy when all they have to do is hide in the mountains of Pakistan because they know the Pakistani government will not allow the US military in. Tell me how you solve that problem now? Be nice? OBL and Al Quaeda have lost a lot of clout in the last 5 years.

Oils price dropped because people sold it off. People bought up those stocks like nuts because everyone was saying 80,90,$100 barrels. It didn't happen, the conflict ended, the pips are being repaired, there is a major discovery off of the Gulf which could fuel this country for 80 years and people dumped the stock. As a results the price dropped but it will go back up slowly. You still might see a large drop though. Its highly unpredictable.

The USA achieved its objective in Afghnistan(removing their leadership and installing ours) pretty quickly(Poland and France put up a better fight) mostly due to a large number of mercinaries and CIA field ops already located there. Al queda(the base) is a USA-CIA term for a group of trained muslims that can be called into action(like the national reserve) This term was initially used during the Russia/ Afghanistan war. It is erroneous to claim we are fighting a "data base" of reservists that opporate on their own volition.
The value of an oil stock has little to due with the price of gas.
The price of gas is what ever the" market will bear" and fluctuates beyond the normal supply and demand patterns. Specifically because the demand has never decreased for any discernable period. Its like NFL ticket prices, just because your team might suck, does not mean your ticket price will be lower than a team that is good. They charge as much as the respective city's fans will bear.
 
anabolicrhino said:
The USA achieved its objective in Afghnistan(removing their leadership and installing ours) pretty quickly(Poland and France put up a better fight) mostly due to a large number of mercinaries and CIA field ops already located there. Al queda(the base) is a USA-CIA term for a group of trained muslims that can be called into action(like the national reserve) This term was initially used during the Russia/ Afghanistan war. It is erroneous to claim we are fighting a "data base" of reservists that opporate on their own volition.
The value of an oil stock has little to due with the price of gas.
The price of gas is what ever the" market will bear" and fluctuates beyond the normal supply and demand patterns. Specifically because the demand has never decreased for any discernable period. Its like NFL ticket prices, just because your team might suck, does not mean your ticket price will be lower than a team that is good. They charge as much as the respective city's fans will bear.

And your point?

And it was the Soviet/Afghan war.

I think you need to wake up and realize that supply and demand is not a physical attribute, its a perception. It doesn't operate on terms of what it physically available and what we physically consume. Its perception. I tihnk the oil market is a bit more dynamic than "ticket" prices.

..but lets ignore all those people that dumped oil stock which subsequently caused gas prices to drop. That didn't happen, its all fake.
 
Oil Prices Continue to Drop
In the last 5 weeks, since August 7, oil prices, both for crude oil and petroleum products, have dropped substantially. The price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil has fallen from $77 per barrel to below $64 per barrel. Retail gasoline prices have dropped 42 cents per gallon to $2.62 as of September 11, while retail diesel fuel prices, at $2.86 per gallon, are now about 20 cents per gallon lower than they were 5 weeks ago. Will the declines continue, or will they begin to level off and possibly increase later this year?


For crude oil markets, the global situation is about as rosy as has been the case in the last several months. Almost every concern that existed in crude oil markets this summer is much more benign now. Concerns about a possible oil disruption from Iran have faded, as the diplomatic push to get Iran to halt enrichment of nuclear material has not yet led to sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, and Iran has stated recently its willingness to continue negotiations with the United Nations. Mid-September has arrived without a single hurricane affecting oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and with no storms likely to arrive within at least the next week. Nigeria, where significant disruptions have occurred with some frequency over the past several years, has been quiet. The oil situation in Iraq is as positive as it has been in nearly 2 years, with EIA estimating Iraqi crude oil production in July and August at its highest levels since the fall of 2004. Even the one disruption that did make news recently, the BP pipeline leak in Alaska, now appears to be much less of a problem than originally thought. Initially, concerns were raised that Prudhoe Bay production might be stopped altogether, but it was soon determined that only a part of production would have to be taken offline for an extended period. According to the State of Alaska, Prudhoe Bay production for the month of August averaged 189 thousand barrels per day, which is about half of its August 2005 level. BP recently announced plans to begin to bring more production online soon and hopes to have full production restored by the end of October.

For gasoline markets, the price drop that normally arrives after Labor Day and usually extends through the end of the year began a few weeks early, as the market entered the last few weeks of August with no hurricanes threatening petroleum infrastructure, such as refineries or pipelines, and with enough supplies on hand to get through Labor Day. As a result, the sell-off started before Labor Day, as along with the expected seasonal demand drop, rising refinery runs, and high import levels, markets perceived an improving supply/demand balance, pushing down prices. Currently, the near-month futures price of a barrel of gasoline is only $1 to $2 above that of a barrel of crude oil, an unusually low margin that is likely to increase over the coming months. Diesel prices have not dropped as much as gasoline, mostly because diesel demand tends to be strong in the fall with agricultural use of diesel increasing as crops are harvested, and the similarity of diesel to heating oil often causes diesel prices to rise in conjunction with heating oil as the winter approaches. Thus, declines in diesel prices have been limited to those caused by the decline in crude oil prices.

Unless the U.S. economy starts showing signs of a significant slowdown, which would slow oil demand growth, or an unusually warm winter in the northern hemisphere that depresses heating-related demand, the opportunity for further improvement in crude oil markets appears to be limited. The global balance is expected to remain relatively tight as long as global demand continues to increase at a faster pace than non-OPEC supply, limiting gains in global spare production capacity, which implies that the downward trend in prices is likely to stop or reverse if one of the many potential sources of supply trouble flares up or if product pressures from heating fuels pulls up crude oil prices once cold weather begins in earnest. Regardless of what the future holds, U.S. consumers can take some comfort from the fact that U.S. average regular gasoline prices have dropped sharply over the last five weeks, and that crude oil prices are as low as they have been in several months.
 
Liberals and their whacky conspiracy theories, an Eagles loss...I can't take it!!!


:rant:
 
Bobo said:
Liberals and their whacky conspiracy theories, an Eagles loss...I can't take it!!!


:rant:

I'm not a liberal, I'm just whacky. BOOOGABOOOGABOOOGA:fool2: :lol:

Try being a Browns fan, that's enough to drive you crazy!
 
I think we're in the same boat. Torture is torture.
 
Bobo said:
Liberals and their whacky conspiracy theories, an Eagles loss...I can't take it!!!


:rant:


Been meaning to bring that up:twisted:

Good points Bobo. People dumping oil stocks, oil prices fall, hmmmmm coincidence? Some people don't get it.
 
Back
Top