Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

Was it not you that said "Got a feeling that had this been a democratic whitehouse there would be a few less people outraged." You're absolutely right, I am going to comment on it and I am going to point this same authority *was* used in a dem whitehouse, when you make such a statement! Deal with it, you brought it up

As I noted in yo-yo's thread he started to celebrate terrorists new found freedom. I noted that a stay was in place and that it would be appealed. I'm not worried about it in the least bit. I just like watching goofballs defend terrorists rights

When they fit, they apply. And for all that, you're still not sure if you are for it for against it. I believe the wind is coming out of the north this evening

I can't say you're for it either! I don't even think you know, which is probably why you are *waffling* all over the issue. Are you for it, or are you against? Yes, or no? How difficult can it be?

So you still don't have a yes or no answer? What kind of answer is that?

 

You couldn't beat a rented mule

The hell you didn't! Every question answered is followed up with a "but what about..." or just flat out changing them all together.

I'll let CompXP deal with you, he seems to be owning you quite well lately. If you want my attention, you need to do better than this miserable excuse

 

Coming from a guy who can't ever answer a yes or no question. Hilarious gtech.. hilarious!

 

I see the indoctrination of American youth is starting to take effect.

 

LOL, that's really the best you have? Let's see, on one, you were trying to build support for your terrorist buds, hezbollah (probably not even aware you were posting about supporting your buds!) The second was completely hypothetical and had no foundation!

Oh yes, just make me guilty as charged

 

And we get closer to a $50 bet, every day

 

i also find things like this absurd, all i can hope is that because of this judges mistake and stupidity, a terrorist blows up something, and the judges family member dies in the blast, and then the judges views will change forever...
after the fbi/cia say it could of been prevented if they could intercept calls

sometimes ppl dont take thigns seriously until it hits them at home

 

Well said ash! I agree, some people just don't get it.

 

That's a pretty sick and disgusting thing to say. Sounds like your a deranged terrorist supporter to me.

 

History repeats itself again. Reminiscent of those bogus "biological trailers" we found in Iraq.

One of the guys was a chemistry student.. perhaps it was a chemistry set?

 

I love to watch the pot and kettle in action Which are you, yo?

 

Trying to go off topic again, eh? Is there not some new way you can show joy for supporting the temporary terrorist victory? Or have you used them all up?

 

LOL! Somehow I'm not convinced.

I recall the media reporting "how a terrorist, wearing a thick, padded jacket, was spotted vaulting the turnstile at a London Tube station and running from armed police who had identified themselves and how the terrorist suspect gave officers no choice but to open fire, resulting in his death."

Real story - An innocent man walked onto the tube, having strolled through the station wearing a light denim jacket, opened, of course, ane was then set upon by several armed men in plain clothes, thrown to the ground by one of them and then a full clip of 9mm emptied into his head. His name was Jean Charles de Menezes.

I also recall a chemical weapons and virology expert who was found dead in a field with a single cut to his ulnar artery - verdict, suicide. His name was Dr David Kelly

So forgive me if something reeks of security services BS, especially after the Military Coup of 1994.

 

I honestly don't think *anything* will convince you. Your first link is the only relavent link and there's no doubt, *some* will always use that as an excuse to never do anything about terrorism. It's often said that terrorists only have to be right once, those that work to foil them have to be right all the time. If they are wrong just once, there are grave consequences for the citizens of the country, or as in the case that concerns you, an individual is wrongly killed. And suddenly, no matter how much killing terrorists have done, that *one* becomes the sole reason not to take action to protect hundreds from *their* assured death.

 

No one in this thread has mentioned the FISA court. The judge only said they can't wiretap without getting an OK from FISA first. And FISA very rarely denies a warrant.

The law says go to FISA first, this administration has been skipping that step, therefore they broke the law.

They want to listen to phone calls, fine, fill out a form for FISA, get it rubber stamped, go ahead and listen. And the law allows them to start the wiretap first, and go to FISA afterwards for approval. So there is no excuse for not following the law, and there is no reason to fear that the law allows terrorists to have time to plot without being listened to.

This is not a victory for terrorists, or liberals. It's a victory for the rule of law, and for separation of powers. If it was a Democrat doing this, the Republicans would be filing the lawsuit. And don't tell me Clinton did it, Clinton went thru FISA like he was supposed to.

We don't have a clue how many times they have wiretapped without a warrant, no numbers have been released. I think the reason they didn't want to go thru FISA like the law says they have to is because they are wiretapping in unprecendented numbers, and didn't want to have to fill out thousands and thousands of forms for FISA. But that's just supposition on my part.

 

Good Mornin' everyone!

Well said, except it's a little violent, lol. Maybe if the judge got sued out of her home, that would be payment enough for putting millions of Americans at risk.

Mvandemar: In the past couple pages you seem to be resorting to minuscule, twisted details and just the fact you don't trust our government to debate this topic with me. Can't you put in a little fact and common sense?

Ah, kaethy, I expected your reply!

Actually GTech brought up a good point in a political cartoon on the first page (you might wanna check it out, sums it up very nicely.) *EDIT* Oops, that's ACLU. My bad. Either way, they're both a little crooked.

Even if FISA ~would~ approve a warrant, it still takes time and more time and that more time is all the terrorists would need to send a few communications and finalize an attack. That's IF they approved it. This is different than warrants that would have been passed in past times, it was FISA that encouraged the judge to make it illegal to track down terrorists, so why should they approve terrorist-tracking warrants?

It's a victory for the terrorists. Yes, the government system worked as it was designed to do, but in an unfortunate and destructive way because of one woman's decisions.

Clinton went through the FISA thing like he was supposed to but it never helped our country, lol. Terrorists STILL attacked us just not even a year into Bush's presidency (they were planning it for YEARS before the attack) - so obviously Clinton's system worked really well

 

You better be nice to me, because someday, my tax dollars are going to be paying for YOUR prison cell.

With your "growing" trust in the government, how do you know they're wiretapping at all? They said they were, but you don't trust them.... do you.

Either that or you just take everything they say out of context, call it trust, call it facts, and throw it at us and make it really easy for us to "pwn" you.

Move to Canada or stop complaining about your privacy. Geez.

 

I can't beleive you guys are such pussys that you will let a bunch of 3rd world assholes scare you into thinking suspending our rights is a good idea.

 

Woah, was that called for?

I can't believe you would think intercepting enemy communications is a bad thing... it's not suspending rights. It's monitoring those with destructive intent so they can't carry out their plans.

 

Source? Or just talking out of your ass again?

Source? Or just talking out of your ass again?

Source? Or just talking out of your ass again?