RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bush does the (wire)tap dance

Seven years? I wonder if G can do the math?

It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people are willing to chuck their rights just so that they can feel safe.

This presents a dilemma for Obamaphiles.

You will hear the excuse that Bush did it. From people who hated Bush for doing it, but still love Obama.

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today's threats and how we should confront them.

The IRS stuff started under a Bush appointtee ...

Point is Obama didn't put this guy in. Kind of fucks up the whole conspiracy for the "republican investigators" (see that works both ways) with it starting with somebody Bush chose.

Not at all. If the "Bush appointee" was following instructions from his superiors and they were Obama and/or Obama appointees, the fact he once worked for a republican administration is wholly irrelevant to whether or not this is a failing of the current administration.

As for your other point, you are confusing ideology with party registration.

FBI Can Turn On Your Phone Mic: To keep up with suspects who communicate in ways that cannot be wiretapped, sources reportedly say the FBI has programs that can remotely activate the microphones in phones running on Google's Android software to record conversations.

I'm seeing politically motivated accusations and even one republican talking points that has been debunked WB. Accusations are fine but eventually your party will have to have some real evidence. And remember things can get as bad as having Scooter Libby type obstucting an investigation and that wouldn't mean necessarally mean all that much trouble for the White House.

Btw the Supreme Court decision was probably the true catalyst for the IRS situation. These political groups don't deserve a special tax break and should be scrutinized. The scandal there was that it appears that wasn't done equally.

As for the 157 visit meme as noted previously it's based on flawed math and the Bush appointtee's actual visits end up being much less. Something closer to single digits. The number of visits actually doesn't matter though does it?

So you cede that your previous statement about 157 visits really wasn't truthful?

Between this and the IRS abuses, and the undisputable lies by the administration over Benghazi, and the weak economy, I'm amazed that even any Democrats at this point can support him.

All this proves they are cattle, who will pull that "D" lever in the voter-booth, no matter what.

Naw, if you want a defense of Obama just reread the earlier part of this thread when yourself and WB defended a President's authority to do this type of stuff...

Audit Challenges Obama NSA Claims: Despite Obama claims, an audit, other secret documents allegedly show the NSA broke privacy rules and overstepped its authority thousands of times since it was granted new powers in 2008.

Bush's activities were retro-actively made legal later on though...

Only those people thought to be communicating and collaborating with al Qaeda terrorists overseas were subject to surveillance.

In other words, this was a narrowly-tailored executive order targeting just a few hundred or few thousand terrorist-linked email addresses and phone numbers, not general surveillance of all citizen communications in a nation of 295 million.

In addition, while it should be noted that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) requires a court order to seek surveillance on suspected terrorists or spies, there is legal precedent from 2000 entitled U.S vs. bin Laden that says in part:
“Circuit courts applying (FISA law] to the foreign intelligence context have affirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement for searches conducted within the United States that target foreign powers or their agents.”

[I]t would seem to me that this demonstrates that U.S. courts have an established judicial precedent for bypassing FISA in certain circumstances - the circumstances that two Attorney Generals, Justice Department lawyers and White House Counsel all seem to affirm that President Bush was within his constitutional authority in addressing with his executive order to the NSA.…

The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to so limit that authority.

Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."

That is from the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where the debate over the president's executive order ought to begin and end. The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.

In short, it would appear that there was an arguable legal basis from which the authority was drawn.

Between this and the IRS abuses, and the undisputable lies by the administration over Benghazi, and the weak economy, I'm amazed that even any Democrats at this point can support him.

All this proves they are cattle, who will pull that "D" lever in the voter-booth, no matter what.

Nope. Try again. My first (serious) post in this thread, way back on page two, explained why Bush’s actions were legal at the time:



Please also note that, in the above post, I differentiated what Bush did (and what I found acceptable) from “general surveillance of all citizen communications in a nation of 295 million.” That is, the type of surveillance that Obama appears to be engaged in.