Did the Bush admin break the law? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 12-16-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what it looks like to me is that this is 3 year old news that didn't get looked in to the first time. Most likely because everybody was still focused on the war in afghanistan as well as midterm elections. A great misdirection piece.

It appears to have had some influence on the Senate:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121605Y.shtml

Quote:

Senate Blocks Extension of Patriot Act
By Jesse J. Holland
The Associated Press

Friday 16 December 2005

Washington - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.

Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."

Poppinjay · 12-16-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

But the real question is, will somebody kill Carrot Top?

Please?

I would, but I think he'd probably fight like a girl. That just gets ugly unless there's a prison shower scene involved.

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So the count now is 5 for letting the terrorist go free or should I round up to 10?

to answer you, rekna, I'd really just have to quote ustwo

Who cares if the law was followed if we're dead?

please prove to me that we would be dead if the law was not followed

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 02:15 PM

I stand by my challenge to Ustwo and Stevo prove, or at least attempt to show a reasonible argument that if the government had acted legally the terrorist attack would have succeeded. Until such an attempt is made this thread and your attacks on the "liberals who love the terrorists" are unfounded and worthless.

alpha phi · 12-16-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

please prove to me that we would be dead if the law was not followed

Because we all need to give up our freedom
after all that's why "they" hate us

/sarcasim

I thought the Right wing supported patriots
not parrots

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I stand by my challenge to Ustwo and Stevo prove, or at least attempt to show a reasonible argument that if the government had acted legally the terrorist attack would have succeeded. Until such an attempt is made this thread and your attacks on the "liberals who love the terrorists" are unfounded and worthless.

Rekna lets just say I find such a request silly as, and I know this may shock you, but we are not privy to government survelence information. We do not know what they knew exactly, we do not know how many plots were discovered in this manner, nor should we, being this is still an active problem. We only know they credited the system with nailing this guy. We also know that many members of the left here think he should be let go if such a system were used to catch him treating this as a 'police' matter.

I did leave Bush a voice mail though, maybe he will get back to me and I can give you the information.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Because we all need to give up our freedom
after all that's why "they" hate us

/sarcasim

I thought the Right wing supported patriots
not parrots

I thought the left supported welfare, not terroists.

Christ, melodrama FTW!

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 02:37 PM

Ustwo you miss the point though, you and stevo and this administration are quick to credit the system with this capture and tout it as a success yet you offer no proof whatsoever that this system is the reason he was capture in the first place or that a legal system would not have had the same results make your arguments completly void. So either offer proof or stop trying to credit this system with foiling a terrorist plan.

Ustwo · 12-16-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Ustwo you miss the point though, you and stevo and this administration are quick to credit the system with this capture and tout it as a success yet you offer no proof whatsoever that this system is the reason he was capture in the first place or that a legal system would not have had the same results make your arguments completly void. So either offer proof or stop trying to credit this system with foiling a terrorist plan.

Rekna you miss the point, THERE IS NO WAY WE COULD PROVE THIS UNLESS WE WERE AGENTS OURSELVES, and if I was I'd have to kill you after words. We can only go by what people said in the report.

You also miss the point in that MANY OF THE LEFT ON THIS BOARD DON'T CARE IF IT DID OR NOT, THEY THINK HE SHOULD BE LET GO, so for sake of argument its moot.

If the system worked, people on the left on this board think a known terrorist should be let go. I hope thats clear enough.

alpha phi · 12-16-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I thought the left supported welfare, not terroists.

Christ, melodrama FTW!

They do!
According to bush the left are terrorists
heck anyone who opposes his will is a terrorist
and the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper

What did our founding fathers fight for anyway???????

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 02:50 PM

No my point is not moot because people think he should be let go if his civil rights were violated. Which is exactly my point. If it could have been done legally then it should have been done legally! Our civil rights should never be violated by the government reguardless of who we are. I think it is also interesting that the article says what some 500 people were tapped for this and only 1 of them had a positive result? I guess that means 499 innocent poeple also had their rights violated. that is cool with you?

I have a great way to prevent crime, lets just kill everyone accused of a crime, no trial, nothing. That will stop crime. I have a great way to stop terrorism let's assume everyone is a terrorist and treat them as such. Let's combine idea 1 and idea 2 and just kill everyone. how does that sound?

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 02:55 PM

is there any truth to that article about bush saying "it's just a damn piece of paper"?

ratbastid · 12-16-2005, 03:13 PM

Renka says: Prove it.
Ustwo says: I can't.

Score one for Renka. Point made. Case closed.

It's a damn shame they had to resort to inadmissable and illegal means to catch the guy in question. But it's exactly the same as if you got pulled over and the cop illegally searched your vehicle. The fact that it's a large and massively homicidal crime instead of, say, criminal posession, changes nothing. It's inadmissable evidence, and any case based on anything the cop finds is automatically dismissed. That's why cops don't DO illegal searches, generally speaking. It's just a shame that the feds didn't know better. Under all legal and constitutional precedent, this guy has to be let go. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but it is the law.

Willravel · 12-16-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

is there any truth to that article about bush saying "it's just a damn piece of paper"?

I'm still looking for proof for that one, thought I'm skeptical I can find any. The fact that it's possible is kinda scary.

scout · 12-16-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So I got one (1) response saying "yes, it was unconstitutional and he should be freed" and everyone else danced around the question. So lets try again. Should the admitted terrorist that admitted to plotting with al-qaeda to BLOW UP the brooklyn bridge be freed because the survaillance used to gather information on him was 'unconstitutional'??

Yes, that's the American way. That's the way it always has been and always should be.
I don't buy into the argument "the ends justify the means". That's bullshit.
If Bush broke the law by signing that particular executive order then he should pay the price just like every single American regardless of race, creed, religion, political group, etc.. This incident, coupled with the Patroit Act, has me more than a little concerned as to the direction this country is headed.

samcol · 12-16-2005, 03:56 PM

None of the evidence even came from eavesdropping except when he was already in FBI custody. Oh, and he was working for the FBI for months. Again nothing about this story makes any sense and it's foolish to use this guy as the prime example of why these wiretaps should be used. 1+1 does not equal 2 with the Faris story.

Meanwhile, Faris's lawyer is puzzled. David Smith says none of the evidence against his client appeared to come from surveillance, except for eavesdropping on Faris's cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.
The American al-Qa'eda operative unmasked last week as having planned to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge was first detained in March, and has been used by the FBI for months as a double agent, it was reported yesterday.

shakran · 12-16-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yep. Sure beats breaking it for a blow job

And we have a winner ladies and gentlemen! I knew this would happen. I KNEW someone from the right would try to justify Bush's crimes by pointing to Clinton. That argument is tired, and no one but the blindest neo con is gonna fall for it anymore.

I swear, we should make a Godwin's Law 2.0 around this.

Elphaba · 12-16-2005, 06:21 PM

Motion seconded!

Willravel · 12-16-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I swear, we should make a Godwin's Law 2.0 around this.

*term coined* I now dub the Clinton comparison rule as: "Shakran's Law". Congradulations! BTW, I think Godwin's Law is retarded. There are apt comparisons to Hitler, and this lawyer (Godwin) couldn't deal with them.

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 06:46 PM

Can we call it B.J's Law?

alpha phi · 12-16-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

*term coined* I now dub the Clinton comparison rule as: "Shakran's Law". Congradulations! BTW, I think Godwin's Law is retarded. There are apt comparisons to Hitler, and this lawyer (Godwin) couldn't deal with them.

someone must make a wiki page

Willravel · 12-16-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

someone must make a wiki page

In the process, this is what I have so far:

Shakran's Law (also Shakran's Law of Clinton Relations analogies) is a new adage of internet culture that was originated by Shakran 9screen name of user on TFP, tfproject.org) in 2005. This law state that: "As a discussion about the legality or morality of any President George W. Bush's actions grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving President Bill Clinton's infadelity and sexual relations approaches 1."
Although there is no formal rule, most dismiss a post and possibly even thread once the comparison has been made. It is considered ridiculous and exaggerated to compare the contraversial actions of President George W. Bush, including but not limited to possible stolen elections, a lack of necessary defences that could have hepled to prevent the 9/11 tragety, the misinformation about ties from al Qaeda and 9/11 to Iraq, the misinformation about Iraq posessing weapons of mass destruction, and the placing of unqualified friends of the president to positions of power.

External link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=98845&page=3

Now someone needs to put this on wikipedia, and list me as a source! That's Willravel. With a 'w'.

/end threadjack

dksuddeth · 12-16-2005, 07:21 PM

needs to be expounded upon alot more but a definite change that needs to be made is removing the reference of President GW Bush and replacing that with any republican leader.

shakran · 12-16-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

*term coined* I now dub the Clinton comparison rule as: "Shakran's Law". Congradulations! BTW, I think Godwin's Law is retarded. There are apt comparisons to Hitler, and this lawyer (Godwin) couldn't deal with them.

Sweet! I've never had a law named after me before. Now I know what Newton felt like

Rekna · 12-16-2005, 07:54 PM

i think it should be more general. as conservitive and liberal discussion continues the probabilty that clinton's bj will be used to counter liberal points approaches 1.

shakran · 12-16-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

i think it should be more general. as conservitive and liberal discussion continues the probabilty that clinton's bj will be used to counter liberal points approaches 1.

That might be too general. The law as I see it is that as conservative and liberal discussion continues the probability that clinton's blowjob will be used to excuse republican wrongdoings approaches 1.

Charlatan · 12-16-2005, 08:20 PM

Nice one Shakran...

raveneye · 12-16-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I swear, we should make a Godwin's Law 2.0 around this.

I already did, a couple weeks ago!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...32#post1947332

Like minds eh shakran?

shakran · 12-16-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

I already did, a couple weeks ago!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...32#post1947332

Like minds eh shakran?

Well it's not surprising that two people would come to that conclusion. The more trouble Bush and his cronies get into the more we hear Clinton's name being weakly bleated in yet more sad attempts to distract us from the real issue.

That kind of smoke and mirrors BS works for awhile, but eventually the people always wake up, see how things are crumbling around them, and demand change. Unfortunately they never do this in time to avert major damage, but you can't have everything I guess

shakran · 12-16-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

So I got one (1) response saying "yes, it was unconstitutional and he should be freed" and everyone else danced around the question. So lets try again. Should the admitted terrorist that admitted to plotting with al-qaeda to BLOW UP the brooklyn bridge be freed because the survaillance used to gather information on him was 'unconstitutional'??

To get somewhat back on track, and this is gonna surprise you guys, but I'm going to answer this with a very firm "I don't know"

I haven't had time to study this case enough, but i can tell you what I think based on what the facts are:

Did he confess after being faced with the evidence gathered through the surveillance?

If so, then yes, in order to preserve our constitution, he should be released. If we keep him in jail we've effectively killed the constitution, because we are admitting that it can be flaunted any time we want. Stripping the constitution of power would kill it. We may as well pack up and ask England to take over again.

If, however, he confessed when he was caught and before they told him about the surveilance, then keep him in jail. He independently confessed to the crime, and we don't even have to use the surveillance evidence.

However, find the guys that put him under surveillance, and the guys that gave the order, and put THEM in jail for flagrant abuse of power and violation of constitutional rights. Actually we should do that whether the terrorist stays in jail or not.

Elphaba · 12-16-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

I already did, a couple weeks ago!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...32#post1947332

Like minds eh shakran?

My apologies for missing the first opportunity to second the motion.

Isn't it interesting that folks are speaking out now; congress, senators, the msp? It almost makes me believe that "we, the people" still have some say in this business of government.

Doin' the Snoopy Happy Dance.

alpha phi · 12-16-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

However, find the guys that put him under surveillance, and the guys that gave the order, and put THEM in jail for flagrant abuse of power and violation of constitutional rights. Actually we should do that whether the terrorist stays in jail or not.

Well this is the guy who gave the order
While these guys looked the other way
Not to mention... the NY times withheld the story for over a year

......some watchdog

Willravel · 12-16-2005, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

I know it's really sad and the media is in a dark place which has terrible reprocussions and is truely hurting the US, but that picture is adorable.

pan6467 · 12-17-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

None of the evidence even came from eavesdropping except when he was already in FBI custody. Oh, and he was working for the FBI for months. Again nothing about this story makes any sense and it's foolish to use this guy as the prime example of why these wiretaps should be used. 1+1 does not equal 2 with the Faris story.

Meanwhile, Faris's lawyer is puzzled. David Smith says none of the evidence against his client appeared to come from surveillance, except for eavesdropping on Faris's cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.
The American al-Qa'eda operative unmasked last week as having planned to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge was first detained in March, and has been used by the FBI for months as a double agent, it was reported yesterday.

If this is true and they used evidence not related to the wiretap, then:

1) so long as evidence used was acquired legally then he should be imprisoned.

2) why the need for the wiretap though?

3) 1 out of now what is being reported as hundreds possibly thousands being tapped the question is what are they being tapped for?

4) If you have that much evidence the case for a warrant would have been slam dunk?

I still see NOT ONE RESPONSE FROM THE RIGHT why the simple task of getting warrants was not followed..........

Let's see.......

Fla. the DA and AG get warrants for Limbaugh's illegal doctor shopping and he fights that it is against his civil rights....... the hypocrite even has to get the ACLU involved to protect him. He turns to an organization he rallied against but when he needed it ..... he didn't hesitate.

San Francisco the PEOPLE vote not to allow guns in their city and gun rights activists living everywhere else bitch about their civil rights being stepped on and the NRA threatens lawsuits. The NRA say they are for the rights of the people but now they are suing because voters voted and they feel the majority of the people are wrong?

But now it is ok for government to illegally wiretap people and those who complain or get tapped obviously have reason to be, but fuck the judges and the warrant processes.

So now we apply Constitutional rights to just people we want?

Amazing I thought all rights were equally granted to everybody in this country because the second you start deciding who gets what rights and who doesn't we ultimately all lose our freedom.

Freedom and justice for all.......... not for selected people.

But if you're Bush or a NeoCon..... that means nothing I guess.

Lansky · 12-17-2005, 08:54 AM

I'm one of those who fall on the side of security first. I believe the government, in these dangerous times, should have the power to fully investigate potential national security risks.

While I don't advocate a totalitarian police state, I am for these types of investigations, if they could stop terrorist activities, such as blowing up the brooklyn bridge. I don't feel that my civil rights are being violated by the spirit of these investigations. It's not as if they are investigating people involved in gardening or mowing their lawns.

Food for thought:

Quote:

Behind the 'Rights' Wall, Hysterical Activists
April 25, 2004

By Heather Mac Donald

It's time to connect the dots: Decades of unjustified and unnecessary restrictions - pushed through by hysterical civil libertarians - paralyzed U.S. counter-terrorism capacities before 9/11. And despite the terrible price we paid for it on that day, the nation appears poised to repeat those mistakes.

As the recent 9/11 commission hearings showed, no impediment to national security was more deadly or nonsensical than the "wall" separating intelligence and criminal terror investigators. The wall meant that two FBI agents could not discuss a suspected Al Qaeda sleeper cell if one agent was designated a "criminal" investigator and the other an "intelligence" investigator, even though they may have had information that, if put together, could have prevented an attack. Nor could federal prosecutors help FBI agents interpret wiretap intercepts. The wall foiled several last-minute opportunities to detect the 9/11 plot.

On Aug. 29, 2001, for instance, FBI bureaucrats rejected pleas by New York agents to join the hunt for Al Qaeda operative Khalid Al-Midhar, who was in the U.S. The wall's guardians opined that because the agents usually worked criminal cases, and because Al-Midhar had not been indicted, allowing the squad to pursue him would violate his civil rights.

Thirteen days later, Al-Midhar, still unlocated, crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

The wall grew out of the post-Watergate belief that U.S. citizens face no greater enemy than their own government. The architects of the policy argued that because probable-cause standards for a terrorism wiretap were in some instances lower than for an ordinary criminal wiretap, power-mad prosecutors or FBI agents would gin up specious terrorism charges against garden-variety criminals to obtain evidence in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, law enforcement officials and intelligence agents must never collaborate on terrorism cases without oversight from endless layers of Justice Department bureaucracy.

But getting a terrorism wiretap against a U.S. citizen requires virtually the same level of evidence as a criminal wiretap. And because terrorism is a crime, the distinction between a "pure" foreign intelligence wiretap and a "criminal" terrorism wiretap is meaningless.

There was even a rule that FBI agents could not look up "Osama bin Laden" on the Internet or monitor a jihadi chat room because such searches might, in some manner, violate someone's free speech rights. Likewise, the conviction by some that the U.S. government stands ever ready to oppress people of color led to toothless airport security procedures.

On Sept. 11, 2001, the airline passenger screening system flagged as suspicious nine of the 19 hijackers. Yet airport officials were prohibited from doing anything beyond screening their checked luggage for explosives because Arab American and civil liberties advocates had previously alleged that anything more could lead to "racial profiling." The Patriot Act finally tore down the wall. Unfortunately, the thinking behind the wall lives on.

Pressure from both the left and the right led Congress to shut down vital computer research to detect terrorist planning, based on the possibility that such technology might be abused. But the volume of intelligence long ago defeated the ability of human analysts to keep up. The CIA's files contained evidence of Al Qaeda's hijacking ambitions, for example, but no one had noticed it in the avalanche of intelligence. Pentagon researchers proposed using computer searches to check for terror patterns in electronic data. Privacy advocates last year shot down that project - dubbed "Total Information Awareness" - on the ground that if all its intended safeguards had broken down, it might have violated someone's privacy. These same advocates are now gunning for the proposed airline passenger security system based on an equally fanciful set of civil liberties concerns.

Before 9/11, the specter of civil liberties violations reliably defeated sound national security policy. We are heading in that dangerous direction again.

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

I'm one of those who fall on the side of security first. I believe the government, in these dangerous times, should have the power to fully investigate potential national security risks.

While I don't advocate a totalitarian police state, I am for these types of investigations, if they could stop terrorist activities, such as blowing up the brooklyn bridge. I don't feel that my civil rights are being violated by the spirit of these investigations. It's not as if they are investigating people involved in gardening or mowing their lawns.

Food for thought:

"While I don't advocate a totalitarian police state"

"I am for these types of investigations"

that's a total contradiction

"It's not as if they are investigating people involved in gardening or mowing their lawns"
But they are, random wiretaps do exactly that

squakk : Heather Mac Donald Said :squakk

Heather Mac Donald defends torture and prisioner abuse

A good commentary on the Racist Bush puppet Heather Mac Donald

Lansky · 12-17-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

"While I don't advocate a totalitarian police state"

"I am for these types of investigations"

that's a total contradiction

"It's not as if they are investigating people involved in gardening or mowing their lawns"
But they are, random wiretaps do exactly that

squakk : Heather Mac Donald Said :squakk

That is an interesting link to Ms. McDonald's ideology. I enjoyed reading more of her thoughts on the matter, as they mirror my own.
I believe she - and others like her - are correct in their thinking. So, therefore, I don't think what Bush did violated the spirit of the times.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

flstf · 12-17-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I elected someone to uphold and defend the constitution. What kind of leader is the person that can say the constitution doesn't apply 'in times of war'?

Abraham Lincoln for one. Doesn't make it right though.

Willravel · 12-17-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

That is an interesting link to Ms. McDonald's ideology. I enjoyed reading more of her thoughts on the matter, as they mirror my own.
I believe she - and others like her - are correct in their thinking. So, therefore, I don't think what Bush did violated the spirit of the times.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

This discussion is about whether or not Bush broke the law. There's not a whole lot of room for opinion in that. Just to remind everyone:

Quote:

Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

He either did, or he did. No opinions about it.

alpha phi · 12-17-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lansky

I don't think what Bush did violated the spirit of the times.

There is a world of difference between
"the spirit of the times"
and the law.

Many Evil things have been done throughout history
"in the spirit of the times"
That Does not make them justifiable

12-16-2005, 07:21 PM	#103 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	needs to be expounded upon alot more but a definite change that needs to be made is removing the reference of President GW Bush and replacing that with any republican leader. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-16-2005, 08:20 PM	#107 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Nice one Shakran... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-16-2005, 02:15 PM	#84 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I stand by my challenge to Ustwo and Stevo prove, or at least attempt to show a reasonible argument that if the government had acted legally the terrorist attack would have succeeded. Until such an attempt is made this thread and your attacks on the "liberals who love the terrorists" are unfounded and worthless.

12-16-2005, 02:37 PM	#88 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Ustwo you miss the point though, you and stevo and this administration are quick to credit the system with this capture and tout it as a success yet you offer no proof whatsoever that this system is the reason he was capture in the first place or that a legal system would not have had the same results make your arguments completly void. So either offer proof or stop trying to credit this system with foiling a terrorist plan.

12-16-2005, 02:50 PM	#91 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	No my point is not moot because people think he should be let go if his civil rights were violated. Which is exactly my point. If it could have been done legally then it should have been done legally! Our civil rights should never be violated by the government reguardless of who we are. I think it is also interesting that the article says what some 500 people were tapped for this and only 1 of them had a positive result? I guess that means 499 innocent poeple also had their rights violated. that is cool with you? I have a great way to prevent crime, lets just kill everyone accused of a crime, no trial, nothing. That will stop crime. I have a great way to stop terrorism let's assume everyone is a terrorist and treat them as such. Let's combine idea 1 and idea 2 and just kill everyone. how does that sound?

12-16-2005, 02:55 PM	#92 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	is there any truth to that article about bush saying "it's just a damn piece of paper"?

12-16-2005, 03:13 PM	#93 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Renka says: Prove it. Ustwo says: I can't. Score one for Renka. Point made. Case closed. It's a damn shame they had to resort to inadmissable and illegal means to catch the guy in question. But it's exactly the same as if you got pulled over and the cop illegally searched your vehicle. The fact that it's a large and massively homicidal crime instead of, say, criminal posession, changes nothing. It's inadmissable evidence, and any case based on anything the cop finds is automatically dismissed. That's why cops don't DO illegal searches, generally speaking. It's just a shame that the feds didn't know better. Under all legal and constitutional precedent, this guy has to be let go. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but it is the law.

12-16-2005, 03:56 PM	#96 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	None of the evidence even came from eavesdropping except when he was already in FBI custody. Oh, and he was working for the FBI for months. Again nothing about this story makes any sense and it's foolish to use this guy as the prime example of why these wiretaps should be used. 1+1 does not equal 2 with the Faris story. Meanwhile, Faris's lawyer is puzzled. David Smith says none of the evidence against his client appeared to come from surveillance, except for eavesdropping on Faris's cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody. The American al-Qa'eda operative unmasked last week as having planned to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge was first detained in March, and has been used by the FBI for months as a double agent, it was reported yesterday.

12-16-2005, 06:21 PM	#98 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Motion seconded!

12-16-2005, 06:46 PM	#100 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Can we call it B.J's Law?

12-16-2005, 07:54 PM	#105 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	i think it should be more general. as conservitive and liberal discussion continues the probabilty that clinton's bj will be used to counter liberal points approaches 1.