Snowden STILL a hero

Dungheap said:
PMP doesn't think it is illegal for the United States government to eavesdrop on communications into and out of the United States without a warrant so long as the President says that the person on the other end has ties to terrorist organizations. He's completely wrong, but that's what he thinks.

He also seems to think that the United States government doesn't do it's eavesdropping in the United States for some reason that he hasn't ever explained.
Click to expand...

no.....I don't think, and the US courts don't think that its illegal for the US government that is legally wiretapping a phone overseas to overhear the conversation that a US citizen has when calling that legally wiretapped phone......been that way since 1979 and specifically reaffirmed by Congress in 2008.......amusingly, you think that "a phone overseas" means that the agency doing the listening can't have its headquarters in the US.......(talk about stupid).....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no.....I don't think, and the US courts don't think that its illegal for the US government that is legally wiretapping a phone overseas to overhear the conversation that a US citizen has when calling that legally wiretapped phone......been that way since 1979 and specifically reaffirmed by Congress in 2008.......amusingly, you think that "a phone overseas" means that the agency doing the listening can't have its headquarters in the US.......(talk about stupid).....
Click to expand...


LOL.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no.....I don't think, and the US courts don't think that its illegal for the US government that is legally wiretapping a phone overseas to overhear the conversation that a US citizen has when calling that legally wiretapped phone......been that way since 1979 and specifically reaffirmed by Congress in 2008.......amusingly, you think that "a phone overseas" means that the agency doing the listening can't have its headquarters in the US.......(talk about stupid).....
Click to expand...

The US courts also believe that the first 100 miles around the borders of the US is a constitution free zone. shows just how wrong they are. try to remember that the constitution LIMITS the federal government, not any other way.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....your the one claiming they've broken the law......I haven't seen you provide any evidence yet....
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this conversation, I am saying its not relevant if the law was broken or not. What I asked you for was proof that the only people the Bush Administration listened into were Terrorists...
 
Jarod said:
For the purposes of this conversation, I am saying its not relevant if the law was broken or not. What I asked you for was proof that the only people the Bush Administration listened into were Terrorists...
Click to expand...

lol.....and for the purpose of this conversation I'm saying I don't give a fuck what you say about relevancy......you claimed they were listening into conversations illegally......I suspect you ought to have some evidence of that.......since no one went to jail despite the fact every liberal wanted them to (until Obama did the same thing), I also suspect there is no such evidence.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....and for the purpose of this conversation I'm saying I don't give a fuck what you say about relevancy......you claimed they were listening into conversations illegally......I suspect you ought to have some evidence of that.......since no one went to jail despite the fact every liberal wanted them to (until Obama did the same thing), I also suspect there is no such evidence.......
Click to expand...

So you are refusing to show us that you did not just make up the part about them listening to "terrorists only"?

And again, Ill ask you, is it your position that if its legal, that makes it moral, ethical, or okay?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....and for the purpose of this conversation I'm saying I don't give a fuck what you say about relevancy......you claimed they were listening into conversations illegally......I suspect you ought to have some evidence of that.......since no one went to jail despite the fact every liberal wanted them to (until Obama did the same thing), I also suspect there is no such evidence.......
Click to expand...


LOL. Admissions from the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the NSA don't count as evidence, I guess.
 
Jarod said:
So you are refusing to show us that you did not just make up the part about them listening to "terrorists only"?

And again, Ill ask you, is it your position that if its legal, that makes it moral, ethical, or okay?
Click to expand...

it is my position that what they have done is legal, moral, ethical and okay and that you aren't......does that cover it?......
 
Dungheap said:
LOL. Admissions from the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the NSA don't count as evidence, I guess.
Click to expand...

/grins.....you keep saying that and attaching a link to the AG saying what they did was legal.....not quite sure how that counts as admissions of illegality......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/grins.....you keep saying that and attaching a link to the AG saying what they did was legal.....not quite sure how that counts as admissions of illegality......
Click to expand...


He says that they violated FISA -- which is an admission of illegal conduct -- but that the Administration decided it was kosher based on the 2001 AUMF. Your claim is that the TSP didn't violate FISA in the first instance, which is simply wrong.
 
I've seen no court decisions stating that the law was violated.....certainly the libs would have done that by now if they could.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I've seen no court decisions stating that the law was violated.....certainly the libs would have done that by now if they could.......
Click to expand...


Oh, is that all you wanted:

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush.

In a 45-page opinion, Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain, a now-defunct Islamic charity in Oregon, and of two lawyers representing it in 2004. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been “subjected to unlawful surveillance,” the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.

The ruling delivered a blow to the Bush administration’s claims that its surveillance program, which Mr. Bush secretly authorized shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was lawful. Under the program, the National Security Agency monitored Americans’ international e-mail messages and phone calls without court approval, even though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, required warrants.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it is my position that what they have done is legal, moral, ethical and okay and that you aren't......does that cover it?......
Click to expand...

Okay, I know that is your position. So, Ill ask again, since you don't make shit up.... where did you get the info that the Bush Administration only listened into conversations of Terrorists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top