• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Bush program extended beyond wiretapping

Is warrantless wiretapping and this kind of surveillance necessary?

  • NO

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • YES

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • Total voters
    19

Tubub

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
521
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What I don't understand is whether Patriot Act has been considered null and this kind of surveillance brought to an end... Nobody has talked about that at all, so is Obama just keeping it going? I really don't know, so I'm just wondering.

Anyway, this isn't that big of a surprise. In Cheney's words: "This war will be fought in the shadows, or the dark side if you will". If this was necessary in the initial aftershock of 9/11, is it still necessary? Why do you NEED to sustain infringements on our civil liberties?

Bush went beyond warrantless wiretapping, report finds.
 
Last edited:
Methinks this is perhaps the wrong forum for this.
 
Methinks this is perhaps the wrong forum for this.

It may seem that way but I just saw it on the news... this report is brand new, so it would make it breaking news.
 
What I don't understand is whether Patriot Act has been considered null and this kind of surveillance brought to an end... Nobody has talked about that at all, so is Obama just keeping it going? I really don't know, so I'm just wondering.

Anyway, this isn't that big of a surprise. In Cheney's words: "This war will be fought in the shadows, or the dark side if you will". If this was necessary in the initial aftershock of 9/11, is it still necessary? Why do you NEED to sustain infringements on our civil liberties?

Bush went beyond warrantless wiretapping, report finds.


Who care's you do understand that this has been legal since LBJ was in office and has been used by both side Presidents.

The only reason the folks on the Left have got their panty's in a knot over it is because of there hate of Mr. Bush and Mr Cheney never mind the fact that Mr. Clinton used these same types of wire taps and that Mr. Carter used them on Iranian official during the Hostage Crisis but hey the Left will never admit to those items now will they.
 
Who care's you do understand that this has been legal since LBJ was in office and has been used by both side Presidents.

The only reason the folks on the Left have got their panty's in a knot over it is because of there hate of Mr. Bush and Mr Cheney never mind the fact that Mr. Clinton used these same types of wire taps and that Mr. Carter used them on Iranian official during the Hostage Crisis but hey the Left will never admit to those items now will they.

1- Wiretapping for specific occurences is completely different than warantless wiretapping... If you don't see the difference than there is no point in discussion this

2- The report finds that there were more illegal methods used besides wiretapping.
 
What I don't understand is whether Patriot Act has been considered null and this kind of surveillance brought to an end... Nobody has talked about that at all, so is Obama just keeping it going? I really don't know, so I'm just wondering.

Anyway, this isn't that big of a surprise. In Cheney's words: "This war will be fought in the shadows, or the dark side if you will". If this was necessary in the initial aftershock of 9/11, is it still necessary? Why do you NEED to sustain infringements on our civil liberties?

Bush went beyond warrantless wiretapping, report finds.
Yes, Obama is keeping it going. Not only is he keeping it going, but he has increased funding for this particular surveillance program by $2 billion annually. Of course, there's nothing but crickets from the mainstream media. I guess noone wants to admit that now he is in the big boy seat he has to make big boy decisions about keeping this country safe.
 
1- Wiretapping for specific occurences is completely different than warantless wiretapping... If you don't see the difference than there is no point in discussion this

2- The report finds that there were more illegal methods used besides wiretapping.

1-All those wire tape that past President used were warrantless wiretapping this is has been the hallmark of these wiretaps. They are check bya federal Judge before they are impleminted.

2-The report does mention any other other "ILLEGAL" methods as a matter of fact no where in the AP report is the subject discussed.
 
DUH

Of course he authorized secret intelligence programs that where not made public.

What a stupid report..well no the reports not stupid its just a report...whats stupid is how the media makes it into somehting more then nothing and how those the media is playing too actually think this crap is profound in some way.


BTW Obam is doing the same..
Impeach him?..or is he too brown on the outside for you to do that?
 
It may seem that way but I just saw it on the news... this report is brand new, so it would make it breaking news.

Ah.

When I first saw this thread, there was no link to the news story, and there was a poll up, so I thought it had been mistakenly placed in the breaking news forum instead of the polls forum.

But now I see that there is a news story link, so that is not the case.
 
Of course he authorized secret intelligence programs that where not made public.

I don't care about things being made to the public. I care about wide-ranging expansions of the executive branch and authorizing infringements on individual's civil liberties and privacy. I don't care that the methods were made public. I care that the methods were used at all.

What a stupid report..well no the reports not stupid its just a report...whats stupid is how the media makes it into somehting more then nothing and how those the media is playing too actually think this crap is profound in some way.

It is profound. September 11, the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the many things each entailed are very, very "profound".

BTW Obam is doing the same..
Impeach him?..or is he too brown on the outside for you to do that?

Can you make an argument without resorting to racially charged statements?
 
Can you make an argument without resorting to racially charged statements?


Why not if you we start calling him out (Mr Obama) or better yet the Press then we are called racist for attacking him, don't forget it's been the folks on the Left who have been the first to throw out the So-Called Race Card when it comes to Mr. Obama. I suggest that they should stop the race card issue first.
 
1-All those wire tape that past President used were warrantless wiretapping this is has been the hallmark of these wiretaps. They are check bya federal Judge before they are impleminted.
"the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic."

Nothing has ever happened on that scale. And warrantless would mean it was not approved and justified by a third party... the President gave the NSA large and new powers it did not have before.

2-The report does mention any other other "ILLEGAL" methods as a matter of fact no where in the AP report is the subject discussed.

If you read the article then you would know it is currently classified.
 
Why not if you we start calling him out (Mr Obama) or better yet the Press then we are called racist for attacking him, don't forget it's been the folks on the Left who have been the first to throw out the So-Called Race Card when it comes to Mr. Obama. I suggest that they should stop the race card issue first.

"Folks on the left", which could mean a vaerity of things, have for the most part not blindly appealed to racist sentiment when talking about Obama... If they cite his race, they do it because having an Afro-American President would and does have positive foreign policy benefits. Idiots on the left are excluded, so if you are admitting you are the idiots of the right then I will accept your position but still condemn your racially charged statements.
 
"the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic."

Nothing has ever happened on that scale. And warrantless would mean it was not approved and justified by a third party... the President gave the NSA large and new powers it did not have before.



If you read the article then you would know it is currently classified.


No the President give the NSA/NSC any new powers all Mr. Bush did was expand powers that Mr. Clinton approved in 1999 and that both the Supreme Court and the Gang of Eight agreed on.

You do understand that both a Federal Judge and The Gang of Eight do get to see any of the Wiretap paperwork before they are enacted right if not then maybe I should break it down on how the NSC/NSC/CIA/DOD go about filing for and getting a Wiretap.

(Oh and before someone accuse me of violating some classified document that I might have sign. don't worry this is all in the public if you want more info. Then send a FOIA to The Office of the President/Dept. of Defensive or United States Surpeme Court or better yet send one to the Gang of Eight.
 
No the President give the NSA/NSC any new powers all Mr. Bush did was expand powers that Mr. Clinton approved in 1999 and that both the Supreme Court and the Gang of Eight agreed on.
Cite any evidence of this.
You do understand that both a Federal Judge and The Gang of Eight do get to see any of the Wiretap paperwork before they are enacted right if not then maybe I should break it down on how the NSC/NSC/CIA/DOD go about filing for and getting a Wiretap.
You do understand that would mean it is warranted and not warrantless since it is being approved by a Judge or "The Gang of Eight". George W. Bush authorized surveillance of international surveillance to be done without a warrant... do you want me to explain how this works?
 
Cite any evidence of this.

You do understand that would mean it is warranted and not warrantless since it is being approved by a Judge or "The Gang of Eight". George W. Bush authorized surveillance of international surveillance to be done without a warrant... do you want me to explain how this works?

Sorry I was wrong July of 1993,

United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18 - 27 July 1993

You do understand that even thou it a warrantless it still has to go thru the FISC and the Gang of Eight has outlined in US Code 50 Section 36 S.1566

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

What is very funny is who was the Sponsor of S.1566
 
I don't care about things being made to the public. I care about wide-ranging expansions of the executive branch and authorizing infringements on individual's civil liberties and privacy. I don't care that the methods were made public. I care that the methods were used at all.

What are these methods?..don't bother Nobody knows.
Could be some of that super secret stuff some reporters find in their cubicles on a Friday.The article seems to be mixing things they found out about years ago with the "report". Shrug.


Since we have no idea..lets assume shall we.
Lets assume its a data sniffer he approved. Meaning the 'they' have super computers that monitor cell phones for key words etc..then keep huge fields on names of individuals who meet certain theorycraft on who may or may not be a member of al Qaeda.
Yeah ok...

Doesn't that make sense to you? Don't you think thats a good idea during a war.
"Knowing is half the Battle".. GI Joe is there?

Don't you think the real world effect on your civil liberties is not nearly as profound and bad in that hypothetical or real life cases?



I think reality has shown your liberties in this are not being infringed upon in a manner to warrant this black helicoptor style 'they' are coming for us nonsense.Instead these actions are are preserving those liberties and protecting them ....and those who practice them.

He didn't seize control of a publicly owned company or anything..;)
He approved of highly classified(and undefined remember) actions that improved the intelligence aspects/capabilities of the USA while the USA is at War. Without unduly harming the lives/right/liberties/whatever of Americans.

It seems to have been and be working very well... at least in defense of the homefront.


/

It is profound. September 11, the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the many things each entailed are very, very "profound".

Its doesn't even get to the boring legalese level of the Patriot Act...

"President Authorized Super Secret Intelligence Actions"

That is not profound information its Common Sense information...makes a snazy headline. C'mon.


/

Can you make an argument without resorting to racially charged statements?

I'm not afraid to ask the racially charged questions.
It is a starkly obvious and undeniably plausable reason why those who would like to portray this information in a nefarious way would not want to Impeach O for these same evil acts..
But maybe not..maybe its the (D).
 
Last edited:
I don't feel as if my civil rights have been infringed, if someone listens in on my phone conversations. One, because I feel like a phone conversation is no more private than talking to someone sitting in a resturant. Two, they'll be real disappointed at what they hear.

However, I will feel like my civil rights have been infringed on if I'm locked up for political reasons, or because I'm accused of breaking some political correctness law.
 
One, because I feel like a phone conversation is no more private than talking to someone sitting in a resturant. T

How did you come to this conclusion?

I would think it quite the opposite.
 
How did you come to this conclusion?

I would think it quite the opposite.

I feel that way, because just as I don't own the air in which my voice travels, I don't own the phone lines, or the waves that cell phone signals pass through.
 
Back
Top Bottom