GOP lawmaker: NSA spying in U.S. could have prevented 9/11

I'll have to come back and point out the revisionist history of Desh's posts when I have time to give it proper attention. Suffice it to say, for now, that Clarke's ideas were being implemented by Bush rather than pushed to the background as Clinton did. Clinton actually pushed it off for more than two years leaving it for the "next Administration" saying he didn't have time to implement it.

During that time (as Bush's first term began) the left was dragging its feet on his appointees to "punish" him for being "selected", but even encumbered by leftist obstructionism Bush was able to implement Clarke's ideas up to the point where the last meeting of the principals involved was set for the 18th of September. What Clinton said couldn't be done in two years, Bush was able to get done in 8 months even when all of his appointees hadn't been voted on yet.

Clarke's objection as written in his book was that he no longer was invited to the meetings of the principals. It wasn't about doing it "right" it was about being important to him. So long as he was invited to meetings, even if none of his ideas were ever implemented, he was a happy clam for Clinton, but when his ideas were coming to fruition but he didn't go to meetings he suddenly was "being ignored"...

Clarke is no hero, he's a whiny beeyotch for whom being falsely important was more important than being listened to.

I may not like GWB, never did, but I dislike propagandist revisionism even more.
 
Fuck, preventing 9/11! We won't stop people from attacking us so long as we are drone striking their wedding parties. It has shit to do with the competency of your beloved messiahs, desh/nova. Blame for the inability to prevent it is not the issue I was raising and the NSA makes us no safer (e.g., Boston bombing happened post NSA).

The thing that would make us safest, ending our terrorist activities overseas, will not free us from all danger.

We can never be completely secure and there is no proof that eliminating our privacy is worth the cost.
 
Americans have the right to demand that the Government do NOTHING that might prevent another event like 9-11. Terrorists are laughing their asses off too!
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Fuck, preventing 9/11! We won't stop people from attacking us so long as we are drone striking their wedding parties. It has shit to do with the competency of your beloved messiahs, desh/nova. Blame for the inability to prevent it is not the issue I was raising and the NSA makes us no safer (e.g., Boston bombing happened post NSA).

The thing that would make us safest, ending our terrorist activities overseas, will not free us from all danger.

We can never be completely secure and there is no proof that eliminating our privacy is worth the cost.
Click to expand...

I'm amused by the dimwitted argument that killing terrorists is terroristic.

So what acts of "terrorism" was AmeriKa engaged in prior to 9-11 that justified, in your tiny microscopic brain, the attack?
 
I would like to see just one case where an American has been falsely acused and imprisoned by this law before making a determination that it is unconstitutional.

I would also like to see some evidence that meta-data collection constitutes "spying."
 
Truth Detector said:
I would like to see just one case where an American has been falsely acused and imprisoned by this law before making a determination that it is unconstitutional.

I would also like to see some evidence that meta-data collection constitutes "spying."
Click to expand...

it's called the 4th Amendment. something about a warrant, unreasonable search and seizure, that kind of thing.
 
Jarod said:
What King said is absolutely true, but that does not mean we should do it.
Click to expand...

I said that when GWB did it and I say it when BHO does it. I don't change my stance based on whose jersey the guy doing it wears.

Dixie Chicks!
 
Jarod said:
I said that when GWB did it and I say it when BHO does it. I don't change my stance based on whose jersey the guy doing it wears.

Dixie Chicks!
Click to expand...

am I incorrect in remembering that you had no issue with the collection of metadata because it wasn't anything that could be used at that point in time?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
am I incorrect in remembering that you had no issue with the collection of metadata because it wasn't anything that could be used at that point in time?
Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

The collection of Meta data, in the way the government was doing it did not violate the Constitution, but that does not mean they should be doing it.

The collection of data from third parties who voluntarily give that data to the government is not violative of the 4th.

If you are a criminal and you leave evidence of your crimes at my house and I give that information to the government... the 4th has not been violated.
 
Jarod said:
You are incorrect.

The collection of Meta data, in the way the government was doing it did not violate the Constitution, but that does not mean they should be doing it.
Click to expand...
describe to us the way they were doing it and how it met reasonable suspicion and a warrant was acquired.

Jarod said:
The collection of data from third parties who voluntarily give that data to the government is not violative of the 4th.
Click to expand...
and if the turnover is required just to operate in business? or if threats of retaliation of hardships in commerce are made or implied?

Jarod said:
If you are a criminal and you leave evidence of your crimes at my house and I give that information to the government... the 4th has not been violated.
Click to expand...
on this part I agree, but are you then stating that business entities/corporations just like citizens that have rights?
 
Truth Detector said:
How does the mere collection of data constitute illegal search and seizure; who has been unconstitutionally harmed by it?
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

random or mass collection of any persons data is unconstitutional for the above stated reasons.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

Do you think the founders had a clue about what a telephone was at the time? Are you not aware that the data being collected in this fashion cannot be used against you in a court of law; unless of course, they submit a warrant from the court to mine that data for items pertaining to you? Are you also aware that they do not know who or what is contained in the data? It is only "searched" when they have probable cause and a warrant to do so.

SmarterthanYou said:
random or mass collection of any persons data is unconstitutional for the above stated reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't see that in the Constitution; what paragraph can I find that in?

But again, there is nothing that says the American people can insist that the Government do nothing to prevent another 9-11; I just think it is retarded and born of ignorance and paranoia...and I doubt anyone can claim that I am pro-Government based on my ideology.
 
Truth Detector said:
Do you think the founders had a clue about what a telephone was at the time? Are you not aware that the data being collected in this fashion cannot be used against you in a court of law; unless of course, they submit a warrant from the court to mine that data for items pertaining to you? Are you also aware that they do not know who or what is contained in the data? It is only "searched" when they have probable cause and a warrant to do so. .

I don't see that in the Constitution; what paragraph can I find that in?
Click to expand...
all irrelevant. secure in our effects, means the gov cannot mine data or store it until they decide they want to get a warrant

Truth Detector said:
But again, there is nothing that says the American people can insist that the Government do nothing to prevent another 9-11; I just think it is retarded and born of ignorance and paranoia...and I doubt anyone can claim that I am pro-Government based on my ideology.
Click to expand...

they cannot violate the constitutional rights just to prevent another 9/11, otherwise the constitution is just a piece of paper that doesn't mean anything.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
describe to us the way they were doing it and how it met reasonable suspicion and a warrant was acquired.

and if the turnover is required just to operate in business? or if threats of retaliation of hardships in commerce are made or implied?

on this part I agree, but are you then stating that business entities/corporations just like citizens that have rights?
Click to expand...

1) They dont have to meet RS or get a warrant if the one who posses the information gives it to them voluntarily. Just like if the police knock on your front door and ask if they can search, if you say yes, they dont have to have a warrant.

2) If the turnover was required or if threats were made it would become unconstitutional.

3) Yes.
 
Truth Detector said:
I would like to see just one case where an American has been falsely acused and imprisoned by this law before making a determination that it is unconstitutional.

I would also like to see some evidence that meta-data collection constitutes "spying."
Click to expand...

Are suggestjng that the collection of every email, text message, phone call, bank transfer, message board post and every other communication or activity you do electronically ISN'T spying? You're a fucking moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top