PDA

View Full Version : King George, FISA & the 4th Amendment



Gayle in MD
12-19-2005, 01:27 PM
Well Folks, How many more laws will King George break before the right wakes up, and the lawmakers finally impeach this man? How can he use expediency as an excuse for neglecting informing the court of his spying on Americans, when the law states that he may inform the court after the fact, and within 72 hours IOW,
retroactive?????????? He refuses to report his actions, even retroactively.....

FISA provides him the option in case of emergencies, to inform the special FISA court within 72 hours, AFTER he spies, if he deems spying on us as an emergency, too urgent for any delay, it only takes a couple of hours. He refuses. He also made a distinction between "Monitoring" in this case meaning on-going spying on us, and just trolling around here and there, on whomever, where ever, and whenever he pleases.

Given that He appointed Gonzales, is it any wonder that Gonzales doesn't know the law? I wonder if Harriet was involved in any of these decisions, surely her involvment could get him off the hook? NOBODY could expect her to know the law.

Suffice it to say, King George will not be known as a man who could rise to the occasion in emergencies, since so far, he has failed each trial, 9/11, leisurely reading to children while the NYTC was under attack, and terrorists were enroute to the Pentagon and the Capital, then following up by waging war against people who had nothing to do with it, while the real perpetrator escaped into the mountains,.... Katrina, we all saw his idea of staying on top of that emergency situation, a fly-over, four days later,.... it seems our King can't even handle a wire tap emergency without screwing that up too....could it be that he is keeping all wire taps secret because he is abusing power? Naw, he wouldn't do that....we have no reason to think he would, after all, he's been born again, and God is telling him what to do, he wouldn't out a CIA agent just to get even, so let's just let him spy on anyone he choses. And why should we expect this poor man to have to have accurately handled wading through all that intelligence and not realizing that there was any chance that, contrary to his wishes, Saddam had no WMD's, even if the CIA did include a good deal of information to question the theory, which of course, he left out of all his mushroom speeches.

I don't suppose there is any impropriety involved in his appointing Viveca Novak's husband to a job with elections, this week, either, and it must be just a coincidence that he won't comment on the "On-going investigations" of his own chief of staff, but thinks it completely appropriate to announce to the world that Tom Delay, also under investigation, is innocent of all charges, a statement which he denied making a few hours later.

To top it all off, he rejected the opportunity to keep the Patriot Act alive for three months, while it is being tweaked over by the Congress and the Senate, and then in an angry jaw rolling outburst during his press conference today, named the states of certain Senators who will be among "Politicians" to be at fault if we are attacked with no Patriot Act to protect us. Yes, he killed it, but it won't be his fault....it's the Democrats....although there were plenty Reupblicans who did not want to renew the Patriot Act without taking a second look at it, a plan for which both sides had overwhelmingly voted in the first place. So, who is playing partisan politics...???...King George, that's who.


The new rule is .... any congressman or Senator who speaks out against King George, or any of the laws he breaks, or lies that he tells, will be referred to as a "Politician" and any questioning of his dictatorship, will be referred to as "Partisan" politics during wartime. Yep, he's got all the bases covered, "Just Let George Do It." He IS the King after all, and beyond checks and balances, questioning, or accountability.
Brit Hume's last comment after spending a day with King George .... "He enjoys the POWER of being President."


He makes Nixon look like a boy scout. Atleast Nixon tried to cover up his unlawful behavior, King George doesn't even have to cover it up, he is right in your face about it, for the right will say, yes, King, you do have on a beautiful suit of clothes.

Careful how you comment on the King, remember, Big Brother is watching...

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
12-19-2005, 02:02 PM
"Will the circle be unbroken,...."
It seems we have come full circle, from the wire tapping of the cross-dressing J. Ed8r Hoover, to the cross bearing GWB...all done of course, in the interest of national security. the problem is that when less honorable men are entrusted with this, like say Tricky Dick Cheney, there is a
remote chance that this could be used against good, law abiding( unless they pass a law against dissent), American citizens....
In the meantime as Bush angrily lashes out at those who oppose his regime....the "Madness of King George" grows daily

I think we should all dial a random phone # in another country, leave a cryptic message like "The eagle has landed" and hang up.
We have progressed from "oil for arms" to "blood for oil"

supergreenman
12-19-2005, 03:16 PM
Ahhh, good old George, he's the only one that truly puts the As(s) in Texas /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 02:01 PM
LOL...There is so much spin twirling out of the republican spin machine on this illegal surveilance business I'm afraid the world will tilt on it's axis, lol. They're acting like it would never have occured to the terrorists that we would be doing everything possible to track their phone calls, like the NYTimes has given away some big secret! And trying to blame the few congressmen, only the Democratic ones, naturally, that he confided in for not speaking up, when they couldn't speak up about classified information.

Alan Dershawitz, sp.(Poolteacher, this may be a spelling error, better alert the post police)of Harvard Law School Fame, said he looked into the case, and Bush absolutely has broken Federal Law. Victoria Tengsen was on C-Span this morning claiming that the Constitution gives the President the power to do as he has done. Dershowitz claims that the whole reason why the law came about in the first place was to insure that no president, or any other Government Official could abuse Constitutional Powers. I'm sure this will be an on-going debate, but the question to me is, if he could report all this after the fact, and didn't, then what is he hiding. Suppose the investigation reveals that he was spying on his enemies, maybe even the NY Times, Oh my, that would put things into a quandry for Ken Melman, the saliva would be flying so fast his interviewers would have to wear rain hats, you know the kind, with the clear plastic face panels, not to mention that Anne Coulter could become so shrill, she might just explode, in one of those rare spontaneous combustion incidents, or even worse, her implants could rupture! Oh my, WMD's right on National Television!


Regardless of how this plays out, word up is that Amramhoff is trying to cut a deal with Prosecutors, since he already knows that the aid from Delay's office is already in the process of doing the same. This case has some very far reaching tenticles. Republicans will be campaigning from their jail cells next year....

Meanwhile, King George may very well come down with a severe case of TMJ, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif since his jaw was rolling back and forth so fast, maybe we'll get lucky, and he won't be able to talk for a month or two, that way we could bring in the New Year with a few weeks of no lies from the King.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 02:06 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Cueless Joey
12-20-2005, 02:15 PM
Can you kick out a president during a war?

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 02:41 PM
Sure, if he breaks a federal law, but with the Republicans having the majority in both houses, it wouldn't happen unless the public outcry demamded it, however, Bush's poll numbers, which had taken a slight upward turn, are turning downward again today.

It seems like I heard today that they have voted to have an investigation into this spying thing. The problem all along in investigating this bunch has been the Republicans block the Democrats of any subpoena rights. That might not work this time, though, because there is so much public outcry. Americans don't like to have their privacy rights infringed on. That is why the Reupblican furor against the sunset clause in the Patriot Act is so ridiculous. The Democrats put that clause in there so that it could be checked into later, since some of the Patriot Act involved too much spying on Americans, Library cards, for one thing, and they felt that some of the P.Act could be subject to abuse. I do think there was some timing involved in this NYTimes story breaking on the very day that the fight started about whether or not to renew the Patriot Act. Democrats wanted some time, they asked for three months to review it and decide whether America was safer, and we need not lose some of our freedoms which we lost in the P Act. Bush and the republicans went nuts, and Bush said he would reject it altogether if they didn't renew it as it was. Democrats were willing to let it continue for three months or even long if necessary while it was under review. Now the Republicans are saying that Democrats killed the Patriot Act. The truth is, the President killed it. The President and the Republicans want their way, at all times, about all things, and then they find ways of spinning everything to make the average Joe out there who doesn't get anything but the headlines believe that everything is the Democrats fault.

My personal thoughts are that someone in the secret group of Senators or Congressmen, which Bush had told about he crooked spying spoke about it on the hill in confidence to trusted coharts, and maybe one of them knew the Times had the story and had been sitting on it...just a guess...

Anyway, Thank goddness it came out when it did. Naturally, Democrats were not about to renew it after learning about Bush's secret spying, against the Federal FISA laws....This isn't going to go away easily.

Spygate, LeakGate, Bribegate, maybe we'll eventually get to Iraqgate, and expose the truth about the lies he told to the whole world about WMD's....

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
12-20-2005, 04:11 PM
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

George W Bush
April 20, 2004

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-381579.html

wolfdancer
12-20-2005, 04:14 PM
Gayle, think about this...it's not house or senate bill 101, it's not the war emergency act.....it's the...drum roll
"Patriot Act" Mr Orwell would have been so proud.....
How could any politician, in these dangerous times, vote against the PATRIOT act? why, it'd be downright unpatriotic to do so......
On the surface it is a tool that is needed to help fight against terrorism....however when you empower a select group of people, like the present oligarchy (or is that oiligarchy?) when you cede them the power to violate the very laws designed to protect people from unjust investigations...and these powers are passed on to their successors.......then you do run the risk of an ultra right wing form of Fascism. That GWB aready considers his decisions to be above the law, just a few years after the
act was signed into law.....is a clear example of how power can corrupt.
Could we trust Dick, Hillary, Rudy, etc with these powers?
Well, maybe Jeb...he is one of the chosen few.
I was taught that our government operates under a system of checks and balances.....guess we are removing some of the balances.
Let's see now......misrepresenting the facts about Iraq's war plans....I thought it was a lie, but no, just a minor error....and then illegally spying on citizens.....but i guess we'll have to catch him screwing an intern before we get interested in bringing up any charges.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 09:35 PM
LOL, yeah, and he is already saying that he was referring only to the Patriot Act. This bunch has an answer for every time they break the law. John Dean told Barbara Boxer that this is the first time he has ever seen a president come right out and admit to an impeachable offense...John Dean, former Nixon White House Council...I guess he ought to know, huh???

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 09:41 PM
LMAO...yeah, if he does that, he's really gotta pay for it, putting the country at risk like that, who knows what he might catch, LOL.

It's funny how when they asked Dick Cheney, he just went into his usual Nuclear, attack, terrorist, 09/11 BS...Never before has an administration gotten so much leeway from one moment in time, they think 9/11 gave them the right to do anything they want, and have a blanket excuse...they're depending on fear, but they better watch out, we Americans have short attention spans, lol, we're getting tired of all this fear BS. We're ready for the popcorn and a coke...

Gayle in Md.

Big_Jon
12-20-2005, 11:43 PM
Ummm...
The NSA have been spying on Americans (and everybody else) since they came into existence.
That is their job.
If you have nothing to hide, then you should be no problem /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Jon~*~Has nothing to hide~*~

Deeman3
12-21-2005, 07:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Big_Jon:</font><hr> Ummm...
The NSA have been spying on Americans (and everybody else) since they came into existence.
That is their job.
If you have nothing to hide, then you should be no problem /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Jon~*~Has nothing to hide~*~ <hr /></blockquote>

Jon,

This is one republican who disagrees with you. I don't want anyone spying on me, especially when I pay their salary. I may have plenty to hide and if they can catch me by legal means, then more power to them.

This abuse of the constitution started way back in Lincoln's term of office and has been abused by more presidents than Clinton has girlfriends.

Deeman

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 07:15 AM
Whether or not one has anything to hide, is not the issue, IMO. The FISA laws were concieved as a check and balance, if you will, an insurance, that government, even the president, could not spy on its citizens, without resonable cause, and that the issue of National Security, could not be used as a cover for arbitrarily spying on American Citizens.

This administration, and it's supporters, have continuously used such Politics as usual and What else is new? apathetic response to each infraction of our laws and Constitution, just as you have in your responses. Perhaps some Americans do not see, or care, about our hard bought protections of privacy, and freedom of speech. I am not one who shares your apathy regarding such infractions as giving false testimony to our Congress and Senate regarding the need to send our troops to war, outing CIA Operatives in time of war, and spying on Americans, illegally.

Each of these unlawful criminal acts, committed by the Bush administration, are not only dangerous, but chip away at our own freedom. This is more than ironic, when one considers that we have lost over two thousand troops, and thousands more injured, and killed, in the supposed effort to spread freedom and democracy on the other side of the world.

Unless the Bush Administration reveals to the American Public, atleast through our representatives, the reasons for each unlawful, unchecked, surveillance, and the proof that the need to do so has saved lives, thwarted the enemy, and was used only for the means of keeping Americans safe, we will never know the full extent to which this administration has abused power, obstructed justice, and assaulted our right to freedom and privacy, under the Constitution, and under the laws of our country. We need only review world history to understand the dangerous implications involved in how this administration operates, and the threat it poses here on our own shores.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
12-21-2005, 07:21 AM
Instead of all the ranting, let's hear the stats. How many people have been abused and how many lives have been saved as a result of all this alleged abuse to the American people? Does anyone actually know the answer to this or is it all just ranting?

I think we all know that the problem in stopping terrorist crimes is in how to get the information quick enough in order to stop them before they occur. Terrorists weren't e-mailing each other 20 years ago. Now they are. If we don't keep up, we are the ones who will be hurt in the end.

While we're out there protecting our rights to privacy, the terrorists are out there taking advantage of it and planning our destruction.

King George, my ass...name-calling is such BS.

In THEORY we should all be free. In THEORY, there should be no wars. In THEORY, there should be no hate. Hey, that ain't the way of the world. Get over it.


Fran

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 07:37 AM
Fran,
The plans of the terrorists should not lead to the loss of our freedom and privacy. If it does, then haven't they accomplished pricisely what the president claims to be their intention? Doesn't he say over and over they hate us for our freedom?

The president behaves as though he is a King, hence the pun. Sorry if that annoys you, it wasn't meant as a personal affront, and you could find the same analogy in much of what is being written in our newspapers currently, in fact one of our representatives, Feingold, I believe, said this week, "He's not a King"

Maybe you are comfortable with "Trusting" unchecked surveillance of Americans by this president. I think you should realize, that over half of us do not trust him. Goals do not always justify means.

BTW, the "Stats" you refer to, are precisely what I am calling for, and precisely what Bush doesn't want to reveal. He just wants blanket, unchecked authority. This isn't sup[posed to be a dictatorship, although it looks more and more like one everyday.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
12-21-2005, 08:05 AM
Gayle this just proves how dumb George is, in the day of the internet he could email the judge with the request for wire tapping and recieve it in 2 minutes. All it would take is 3 shifts of Judges working around the clock to handle the writs.####

Fran Crimi
12-21-2005, 08:13 AM
What's your alternative solution, Gayle? Wait until they ditry bomb us and then give a hundred speeches as to how we're not going to take it anymore? Or maybe fight among ourselves again about how the government failed in preventing the attack?

I'd like to hear your ideas for preventitive action since according to you, any action we take seems to be violating one of our rights.

What actions do you propose?

Fran

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 08:16 AM
LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif It's bad enough what he does, then he follows up with it with a right in your face, angry outburst, like, "How dare you question the King," response. Then Dick Cheney follows up with More Mushroom Cloud Threats. I don't think what we are doing in Iraq will have any effect on whether or not we end up facing a Mushroom Cloud. They can do all the spying they need to do, just as effectively by staying in the bounds of the law. If the FISA court needs some changes made to it, they can go to Congress, and have emergency changes made immediately. Bush came out there and shamed the New York Times for their story, when the story did not give away anything other than the fact that he is breaking the law. Terrorists already knew we do everything possible to spy on them. Just another smoke screen, that's their forte'.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 08:54 AM
Fran,
He has all the tools he needs to do all the spying he feels necessary, within the laws. The FISA law does not stand in his way. Your question to me does not apply. I am not suggesting that we don't perform surveillance activities, only the the president do so legally, and if there is some glitch in that process which holds him up, he is supposed to go to Congress and change or alter the process, not just forge ahead in secret, with no accounting for justification. Would you want a Democratic President to be able to spy on us in secret, with no accountability for his actions? That is what the FISA laws were supposed to protect us from.

George Bush recieved the Memo, entitled, "bin Laden determined to attack the United States." a month before 9/11, was he able to prevent the attack? What preventative results did we get from knowing in advance in that case?

I would like to see him address all the failures which enabled the terrorists to attack us, like having a unified list of enemies circulated to all our law enforcement people, and at all our ports of entry, and at every airline check in, which we still don't have! Tightening up our Illegal Immigration laws, neglected Protecting our Chemical and Nuclear facilities, Neglected expanding our covert operations around the world, Improving our bomb detection abilities. Fine Tuning our Federal Emergency Response and Homeland Security Response capabilities. I can think of loads of things, which this administration has failed to address which threatens our safety much more than fighting a War in Iraq, which even if it does provide a long range improvment making the Arab world safer, it's a long shot, the results of which would not protect us from terror attacks, and without immediate protection against what happened on 9/11, IMO. I don't think it was particularly efficacious to get sidetracked into spreading freedom in the Arab world at a time when we should have been focussed on these other things, and getting bin Laden. I hardly thing that the ability to spy in secret, and without accountability, is the cornerstone in protecting us against another attack. No one is suggesting that he, or our government cease surveillance activities.

Gayle in Md,

Fran Crimi
12-21-2005, 09:19 AM
IMO, you're theorizing too much.

You don't catch terrorists by announcing your strategies to them. You have to catch them off-guard. Isn't it obvious that it also means keeping the American public in the dark sometimes as well?

Of course it's risky to put blind trust in your government. Everyone knows that, including me. But if you keep forcing the Government to lay it's cards on the table every time it wants to make a move, we will never catch these guys.

During WWII we sacrificed, too. We gave up certain rations, certain materials, we bought war bonds. This is a different type of sacrifice, and IMO, the most important one if we want to get these guys.

You say we have enough tools. How do you know that? Are you saying we should do less than we can because you're worried that someone might read your e-mails? How ridiculous is that? What is the government going to do with your private e-mails? Do you think they'll do something they shouldn't do to you? What's the big problem here?

I think it's more of the idea of it that bothers you, rather than the practical application. You don't know what they may be doing and you find that unacceptable. I don't find it unacceptable. I find it necessary.

Fran

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 10:38 AM
No one has revealed the methods the administration is using. Do you really believe the terrorists, or anyone else, for that matter, didn't think that surveillance goes on, and that communications are spied upon?


Applying for in advance, or, in case of emergency, reporting, after the fact, surveilance activities, is a far cry from forcing the administration to lay it's cards on the table. This is why attorneys all over the country are wondering why Bush is breaking the law. There is no reasonable explanation, since our laws provide for him to spy, he just has to meet the standards in place, which were put in place to prevent him from abusing the power, that's all. What do you have against that?

If by sacrificing, you mean that you think that we should all trust George Bush, or the Government, to spy on us, whenever they like, and with no accountability, I say the sacrifice you call for is not only un-necessary, but extremely dangerous, and a threat to our freedom, privacy, and Constitutional rights. As I said, all Americans do not trust George Bush, over half of us don't.

I'm sure we could always find more tools to use, Fran, there could never be enough, IMO, that isn't the issue, the president has access to use all those tools which we have. As I stated, no one is asking that he cease surveillance activities, I don't know how many more times I have to say that, just that he do so according to our laws and safegaurds, which are already in place, and are there to prevent abuse of power, and the chance of arbitrarily spying on Americans, thereby infringing on a right we have gaurenteed to us in our Constitution. Why do you have a problem with that?

There is in my mind no connection between Goerge Bush's desire for a blank check to spy, under the cloak of secrecy, when and on whomever he pleases, without any accountability to anyone for why and how he does it. It is, IMO, ridiculous and naive to think that such unchecked powers wouldn't be abused.

It is, IMO. completely un-necessary, uncalled for, and dangerous to us all, to relinquish to George Bush, or any other president, a blank check to spy on Americans. We all fear further devastation from terrorists, but we can't let fear cancel our judgement, or supercede our constitutional rights. What freedoms would we be fighting for in any war if we did that?

The question is not what any one of us is hiding, but rather, what is George Bush hiding, that he would operate illegally, beyond the safe gaurds of our laws? This issue has nothing to do with keeping his actions secret from terrorists. They don't know anymore today, than they knew yesterday, and wouldn't know any more tomorrow, nor would we be any less safe, if George Bush had obeyed the law.

Suffice it to say, our representatives, in Congress, and in the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, are alarmed over his actions, as are many many other Americans. We are either not as afraid, or not as trusting of Big Brother, as you seem to be.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
12-21-2005, 10:57 AM
"no one is asking that he cease surveillance activities, I don't know how many more times I have to say that, just that he do so according to our laws no one is asking that he cease surveillance activities, I don't know how many more times I have to say that, just that he do so according to our laws "

Selective hearing Gayle. You said it clear enough for a chimp to understand...oops, not one in WS as it turns out...sid

Fran Crimi
12-21-2005, 11:25 AM
Take your pick. Give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt, or give our government the benefit of the doubt. If you think you can have it both ways, you're dead wrong.

To quote sid, even a chimp can understand that.

I'm done here.

wolfdancer
12-21-2005, 12:09 PM
Jon....."surely, you can't be serious"
Just think back to the FBI wire tapping MLK,and other civil rights leaders, others who spoke up against the admin... and various non-violent citizen groups....and who can say that this info was not used against them?
The HUAC used obscure tidbits of info in their Red Menace inquisition hearings....to ruin many lives of respectable Americans
And then consider that there was a plan in place to kill Jack Anderson, for daring to write the truth....it's not that far a strech to imagine something similiar today.

wolfdancer
12-21-2005, 12:14 PM
Gayle, I think that if we could trust a President with Alzheimer's, to take the "box" to bed with him at night, surely we can trust these fine folks to listen in on our
conservations?

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 12:30 PM
LOL, sure, God would never let the King do anything underhanded, lol. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 12:35 PM
Fran,
Fortunatly, that's a choice we don't have to make. I'm surprised at you, the way you have spoken out against Hoover's shenanigans.

I don't trust either the Government or the terrorists, or anyone else, when it comes to unlimited power, Fran. I don't need it both ways.

I'll overlook the chimp remark...it's tough being in NY with no transportation, especially Christmas week, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif lol.

Gayle in Md...

catscradle
12-21-2005, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ... Tricky Dick Cheney, ...
<hr /></blockquote>

I object to your blantant theft of the epitath "Tricky Dick", there can only be one true "Tricky Dick" in the hearts of all red-blooded Americans.

pooltchr
12-21-2005, 05:20 PM
I believe it was the Attorney General during the Clinton administration who said that the President has the legal right to authorize wiretaps and survelience for the security of the country without being required to get permission from the courts first.
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 11:55 PM
Yes, but he is supposed to report it to the FISA court within 72 hours. A judge from the FISA Court has stepped down from the court to protest the Presidents action, or should we say, non action.

The president is not above the FISA laws.

Gayle in Md.

cheesemouse
12-22-2005, 05:36 AM
Fran,
Your apparent lack of understanding of the importance of protecting our civil liberties against any and all who would take them from us leaves me breathless. This government has all the tools they need, they just don't know how to use them. With all the Kings tools and all the Kings men they can't even find a guy camping out in the hills...Fran, you are putting your trust in the hands of the Keystone Cops who's only solution is to take our hard fought for liberties...get a grip and rearrange your priorities

pooltchr
12-22-2005, 07:27 AM
Hey...we have people walking barefoot through airports and are feeling up little old ladies before they get on an airplane, and making sure nobody gets a pool cue on board....what more can they do??????????????
/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in MD
12-22-2005, 08:13 AM
They have totally neglected doing the most important things, such as, circulating a list of terrorists to all airports, trains, and law enforcment, borders, ports, still haven't put into use the technology to detect bombs in the cargo of airplanes, for heavens sake, the 0/11 commission gave this administration failing grades on implementing the safe gaurds, but they can't take an hour to get subpeonas before they spy.......have to spy secretly, with no check on their actions? Incredible....

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
12-22-2005, 05:16 PM
I guess you missed the sarcastic tone to my post.
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-22-2005, 08:12 PM
I apologize, and you're right, I did miss it... /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif
too soon old, too late smart.. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif