PDA

View Full Version : Obama =change?



Qtec
06-22-2008, 08:18 PM
I prefer Obama over McCain but what just happened on the FISA bill? Companies who assisted the Govt in its illegal spy ops are to get immunity from prosecution and lawsuits..........and O is good with that?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails. </div></div>

Illegal. If something is illegal then its AGAINST the Law, is it not? What happened here is that the President conspired with companies to ilegally spy on its employers [ the citizens of the USA] and both are getting a get out of jail card when they should both be before a coust being sentenced for treason!

Pelosi,
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy,"

Obama has failed at the first hurdle IMO.................how sad.


Q.........

Gayle in MD
06-23-2008, 07:59 AM
You're absolutely right, Q. I have been furious with the Democratic willingness to allow Bush to get off for all his law breaking.

The Democratics are saying that it was the only way they could get the funds they wanted for the troops, since the president stated that he would veto the bill, if they didn't provide protection for the illegal spies who were in cahoots with Bush.

Obama has stated that this bill can be reversed, once he is president? The Democratics have stated that there has been certain safe gaurds included in the Bill make improvments to the FISA Laws.

I have not yet had time to research the votes, to see which Senators voted for and against, but it is a crock for sure!

IMO, the Democratics have failed to impeach both Bush and Cheney, and therefore, they have failed along with the Republicans to keep their sworn promise to protect our laws, since both Cheney and Bush should have been impeached, long ago.

Democratics suggest in their e-mails that our country cannot be further handicapped with impeachment proceedings, given the mess we're in, but IMO, they should have stood up strongly against the profuse law breaking demonstrated by the Republican Party, and George Bush, instead of backing down.

With Bush ever threatening with his VETO pen, and Republicans perched to accuse the Democratics of failing to protect our troops, if they did not reach some kind of bi-partisan agreement, and get those funds off for the troops by compromising with Bush, it looks like a political decision to me.

I need to do more research. I think I heard that quite a number of Democratics voted against the bill, but I truly have not yet taken the time to look into all of it.

Gayle in Md.
Not crazy about Obama, either, but no way would I consider McCain!

Bobbyrx
06-23-2008, 02:38 PM
[quote=Qtec] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who <span style="color: #FF0000">THINK </span> the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I know, that unlike the terrorists in Guantanamo who you think should be given all the rights of U.S. citizens , that you think that Bush should be hung without trial, judge or jury. It has never been PROVEN that anything illegal was done, and I for one hope they are still doing it. Here is how you look at it </span> "Companies who assisted the Govt in its illegal spy ops are to get immunity from prosecution and lawsuits........" <span style="color: #FF0000">and here is how I look at it "Companies who assisted the Govt in trying to stop terror attacks on our country are to get immunity from prosecution and lawsuits.........." Sounds like a good idea....
</span>

Gayle in MD
06-24-2008, 07:56 AM
No proof has ever emerged than any terrorist act was thwarted through the use of torture.

When America became a country which used torture, jailed people without habeas corpus, people who were turned in by dead enders, for money, we lost our former hig moral ground.

George Bush has used fear, and lies, to control Americans. Being occupiers in Iraq, has not advantaged our country in any way. Being labeled as a country that uses torture, has greatly hurt our country, and with no proven good results, just as the occupation of Iraq, has been detrimental to AMerica.

Trying to lable American outrage over the immoral use of torture as supportive of terrorists, or friendly to their sick ideologies, is surely a false premise, and unamerican on its face.

Testimony, by both military, and FBI experts, has consistantly supported that the use of torture is not effective in providing reliable information, and hence, the irreversible damage to our reputation has all been for nothing. The secrecy and deceit which this administration used to advance the use of torture, and suspend habeas corpus, rounding up many innocent people, some who still remain jailed, even though some of them have already been proven to have been falsely accused, speaks for itself. Trying to justify such behavior, is against the best interests of our country.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-24-2008, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Illegal. If something is illegal then its AGAINST the Law, is it not? What happened here is that the President conspired with companies to ilegally spy on its employers [ the citizens of the USA] and both are getting a get out of jail card when they should both be before a coust being sentenced for treason!</div></div>Just because a lawsuit claims someone did something illegal that does not mean that is what happened. Why don't you just sit back and wait to see the outcome of these lawsuits? You are throwing words like treason out there and you don't even know what you are talking about.


eg8r

Vapros
06-24-2008, 08:33 AM
You spelled it right today!! I'm so proud of you. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.

eg8r
06-24-2008, 08:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No proof has ever emerged than any terrorist act was thwarted through the use of torture.</div></div>It sure did not take long for gayole to get off topic did it.

eg8r

eg8r
06-24-2008, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're absolutely right, Q. I have been furious with the Democratic willingness to allow Bush to get off for all his law breaking.</div></div>LOL, this is explained quite easily it is because they have all the info and you just "think" you know what you are talking about.

eg8r

Qtec
06-24-2008, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Illegal. If something is illegal then its AGAINST the Law, is it not? What happened here is that the President conspired with companies to ilegally spy on its employers [ the citizens of the USA] and both are getting a get out of jail card when they should both be before a coust being sentenced for treason!</div></div>Just because a lawsuit claims someone did something illegal that does not mean that is what happened. Why don't you just sit back and wait to see the outcome of these lawsuits? You are throwing words like treason out there and you don't even know what you are talking about.


eg8r </div></div>

There is no doubt about what happened. link (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/att_spy_room_do.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AT&T agreed to allow large portions of sealed documents that sit at the heart of an anti-spying case against the telecom giant which alleges the company illegally installed secret surveillance rooms in its internet facilities at the behest of the National Security Agency. The case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in January 2006 relies on documents provided to the group by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician who took three documents home with him when he retired in 2004.

AT&T acceded to the disclosure only after the EFF threatened to ask a federal appeals court to unseal documents that had been published by Wired News and Frontline, which would have forced the company's lawyers into the embarrassing position of arguing that documents available on the internet for more than a year were secret, according to Cindy Cohn, the EFF's legal director.

Those documents, along with a signed declaration from Klein and an interpretation of the documents by internet expert J. Scott Marcus, were kept mostly under wraps by court order that applied to the parties in the case. However, Wired News was able to independently acquire significant portions of the wiring diagrams, equipment list and task orders, and published them in May 2006. Today's newly released portions of the Hepting documents confirm that the Wired documents are the same as those under seal.[/b]

The interpretation of Klein's documents by Marcus, a former CTO for GTE and a former advisor to the FCC, are the most interesting documents released today.

"This configuration appears to have the capability to enable surveillance and analysis of internet content on a massive scale, including both overseas and purely domestic traffic," Marcus wrote.

AT&T likely has 15 to 20 of these rooms around the country, shipped data out of the rooms via a separate network to another location and collectively, the rooms were able to keep tabs on some 10% of the nation's purely domestic intenret traffic, according to Marcus.

</div></div>

Another link (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908)

Its YOU who knows nothing about this. Check the bottom of the first linked article for Klein's testimony [ the guy who installed the splitter] and other documents.

The Q is simple,
'does the Govt have the right to monitor all electronic communication'?

The simple answer is no. They broke the Law and AT&T etc broke the Law by allowing them to do it.

In the new bill, all AT&T has to do is show that the Govt assured them at the time what they were doing was legal, to be immune from lawsuits. ie 'we were only following orders from a higher authority."
That excuse was dismissed at Nuremberg.


Q

Qtec
06-24-2008, 01:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know, that unlike the terrorists in Guantanamo who you think should be given all the rights of U.S. citizens ,</div></div>

Do you think the Iraqis or Afghans should have the same basic rights as US citizens in their own countries? Isn't that what you are fighting for?
Gitmo was for show. Its a PR propoganda campaign designed to show the US public that the Govt- after their total failure in protecting the US- are actually doing something.

What terrorist attacks?
Remember the huge fuss about how they captured the "dirty bomber"?
Load of crap. Pure drama.
How many other fake terrorist 'captures' have their been? The Chicago Six? The pizza guy who was going to attack an army base! LOL

Data mining the Internet is not going to stop a determined terrorist.

Q





.

Bobbyrx
06-24-2008, 01:14 PM
Did I mention torture???

eg8r
06-24-2008, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no doubt about what happened.</div></div>Thank goodness we don't rely on whether or not Q has any doubt.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-25-2008, 08:02 AM
No, I did, because it is a part of their illegal programs, the ilegal wire taps, the illegal spying into Americans finances, the illegal torture, and the suspension of habeas Corpus.

What is really funny is when people try to promote the idea that another attack would thrust McCain into the White House.

It would be proof, that even with all the law breaking of this administration, which McCain has supported, including the invasion of Iraq, and the torture, and suspension of habeas corpus, we still weren't safe.

It would actually boomerang against McCain.

There is no logical justification for any military action anywhere but Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq, was a mistake.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
06-25-2008, 08:38 AM
Quote Gayle "There is no logical justification for any military action anywhere but Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq, was a mistake."

<span style="color: #FF0000">I'm not entirely convinced that you are not correct here........I just disagree with the motives that you think the administration had in going into Iraq. </span>

Bobbyrx
06-25-2008, 08:41 AM
So you think that there is no terror threat to this country by Muslim extremists, that it's all for show? And as for as the "illegal wiretaps", what would the the benefit be to the administration to do this exept to try to stop terror attacks?

Gayle in MD
06-25-2008, 08:51 AM
The same benefit they sought when they politicized the entire Department of Justice, maybe? A tool to use against their perceived enemies?

Why did Richard Nixon break into the Watergate?

It's the way of crooks and thugs.

Did you read the report from the GAO regarding their pervasive politicization of the entire Department of Justice? Why do you think they did that? Power. Enough power, and cronies, in place, in order to cover up their own wrong doing, and dig around for dirt they could use for their political gain, that's why.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
06-25-2008, 03:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It would actually boomerang against McCain.


Gayle in Md. </div></div>

I think I actually agree with this... heaven forbid such a thing could happen regardless of who "benefits" from it.

Sack

Deeman3
06-26-2008, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Why did Richard Nixon break into the Watergate?

Gayle in Md.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Paranoia, stupidity and greed. He certainly did not need to. I think we can see now from both the Administration and the Senate and Congress that power does corupt, on both sides of the isle. I guess it will soon be the Democrat's "Turn" at bat. </span>

Chopstick
06-26-2008, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Why did Richard Nixon break into the Watergate?

Gayle in Md.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Paranoia, stupidity and greed. He certainly did not need to. I think we can see now from both the Administration and the Senate and Congress that power does corupt, on both sides of the isle. I guess it will soon be the Democrat's "Turn" at bat. </span> </div></div>

Tricky Dick didn't break into Watergate. Some other guys did. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

I remember seeing something on the evening news right after that. It was the democratic Vice Presidential candidate Eagleton, I think was his name, anyway he said about Watergate:

"We were doing the same thing. We just didn't get caught."

Gayle in MD
06-27-2008, 08:11 AM
It was the cover up that destroyed Nixon, and the use of Government agencies, DOJ, FBI, etc., as his personal political and legal tools.

Oh wait, that's just like Bush!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif