Does anyone even care?

[rtwngAvngr]

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
...(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ




Perhaps you can quote the passage from the act which says something to the effect of "scratch 1802(a)(1)(B) - this is what we really mean!"

You claim that the act says something which completely contradicts what it says in 1802 (a)(1)(B) - yet you provide NO QUOTE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


Here's a tip - its better to admit you were wrong and you werre duped by a conservative blogger, than it is to continue to appear as if you can't read.

If this is the law it needs to change then. Just admit it. You want the U.S. to lose the war on terrorism. Why?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If this is the law it needs to change then.

Perhaps - but guess what? Before you BREAK a law you need to get rid of it FIRST.


Just admit it - you believe the nation would be better off if Bush was a dictator. Why?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Perhaps - but guess what? Before you BREAK a law you need to get rid of it FIRST.


Just admit it - you believe the nation would be better off if Bush was a dictator. Why?

Not at all. I just think tapping suspected terrorist collaborators is not a significant threat to our liberty. How about they put a line in it that says only crimes relating to terrorism can be prosecuted with information gained in this way. Would that be ok with you? Let's come up with a reasonable compromise. This works for me. How about you? Probably not. Your real goal is hamstringing the U.S. in the war. It's obivous from your repeated idiotic statements.

 

[dmp]

Spiderman Tuba

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Not at all. I just think tapping suspected terrorist collaborators is not a significant threat to our liberty.

Do you think a President willfully breaking the law is?

How about they put a line in it that says only crimes relating to terrorism can be prosecuted with information gained in this way.

There is no reason not to obtain a warrant unless you are trying to hide wiretaps of people you do NOT suspect of terrorist activity. In fact, the law even allows them, in cases where time is of the essence, to do the wiretap while waiting for the approval of the warrant to come back! Furthermore - wiretap warrants are virtually NEVER refused. In 2004 there were literally NO wiretap warrants applied for which were turned down.There is no legitimate purpose whatsoever to cirvumventing judicial authority, as they have all the tools neccessary to do the job with it, unless they are trying to hide something.


Why just crimes related to terrorism? More people die from MURDER every year in the U.S. than terrorism. Why wouldn't you want to extend this to ALL suspected criminals? Certainly, if you want to prevent crime, you would want to do away with these unneccessary and silly "warrants" and "judicial oversight" completely, right?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spiderman Tuba

Have anything worthwhile to contribute?

 

[dmp]

Have anything worthwhile to contribute?

Yes. You're hopeless. You read stuff, and your mind filters 'reality' and replaces parts of what you read with information drawn from the conspiracy center of your brain. You believe you are right. You believe lies are truth, and truth is lies.





Merry Christmas.

 

[archangel]

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
...(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ




Perhaps you can quote the passage from the act which says something to the effect of "scratch 1802(a)(1)(B) - this is what we really mean!"

You claim that the act says something which completely contradicts what it says in 1802 (a)(1)(B) - yet you provide NO QUOTE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


Here's a tip - its better to admit you were wrong and you werre duped by a conservative blogger, than it is to continue to appear as if you can't read.

Part A...soley directed at...a catch 22...spidey!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Part A...soley directed at...a catch 22...spidey!

The "...soley directed at..." from part A applies only to the subsections (i) and (ii) of part A.


Go figure out how an outline works and then come back and read it again,

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes. You're hopeless. You read stuff, and your mind filters 'reality' and replaces parts of what you read with information drawn from the conspiracy center of your brain. You believe you are right. You believe lies are truth, and truth is lies.





Merry Christmas.

dmp, since you are so smart, perhaps you can tell me what the following means:




(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

 

[dmp]

dmp,...you are so smart,

Thanks!

 

[archangel]

The "...soley directed at..." from part A applies only to the subsections (i) and (ii) of part A.


Go figure out how an outline works and then come back and read it again,

Spin this to your hearts desire...won't change a thing...Law is law...however not a definite...thats what case law is all about!Soley directed is the issue at hand...dense are we?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Thanks!

perhaps you can tell me what the following means:




(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spin this to your hearts desire...won't change a thing...Law is law...however not a definite...thats what case law is all about!Soley directed is the issue at hand...dense are we?

"(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;"


OK - I don't see how this does anything but support my case, as it requires that the surveillance be directed ONLY at foreign powers.

 

[archangel]

"(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;"


OK - I don't see how this does anything but support my case, as it requires that the surveillance be directed ONLY at foreign powers.

you just answered your own question...as all in here were trying to make you aware of....if a US citizen is among the electronic surveillance target all one need to do is black out the US citizens voice and listen to the foreign one...walla within the guidelines!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do you think a President willfully breaking the law is?







There is no reason not to obtain a warrant unless you are trying to hide wiretaps of people you do NOT suspect of terrorist activity. In fact, the law even allows them, in cases where time is of the essence, to do the wiretap while waiting for the approval of the warrant to come back! Furthermore - wiretap warrants are virtually NEVER refused. In 2004 there were literally NO wiretap warrants applied for which were turned down.There is no legitimate purpose whatsoever to cirvumventing judicial authority, as they have all the tools neccessary to do the job with it, unless they are trying to hide something.


Why just crimes related to terrorism? More people die from MURDER every year in the U.S. than terrorism. Why wouldn't you want to extend this to ALL suspected criminals? Certainly, if you want to prevent crime, you would want to do away with these unneccessary and silly "warrants" and "judicial oversight" completely, right?

I don't know what bush's reasons were for doing it this way. I think you attributing the most negative possible reason is pure paranoia.

On your second point. Sounds like YOU'RE the dictator. I would think you would be happy to limit possible prosecutions to terrorist activities. Instead you chose to do a bizarre strawman freakout.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you just answered your own question...as all in here were trying to make you aware of....if a US citizen is among the electronic surveillance target all one need to do is black out the US citizens voice and listen to the foreign one...walla within the guidelines!

Not true-

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of
any communication to which a United States person is a party; and


The responses of the foreign power to the U.S. personn are part of the contents of their communication with the United States person.


Furthermore, they aren't blocking out what the US person is saying anyway, you just made that up! Please!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I don't know what bush's reasons were for doing it this way.

No one does. That's because he circumvented judicial oversight. That's the whole point of checks and balances - so at least one branch knows what the other is doing, even if the people themsevles don't know, it makes it far less likely for a government to have too much power if one branch is checked by the other.

[QUPTE] I would think you would be happy to limit possible prosecutions to terrorist activities.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

[QUOTE Instead you chose to do a bizarre strawman freakout.[/QUOTE]

Its called a slippery slope. And you have yet to say why we shouldn't do the same thing for regular criminal suspects, as according to your line of reasoning, only those actually committing crimes would have anything to worry about.

 

[archangel]

Not true-

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of
any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(not likely when blacked out!)

The responses of the foreign power to the U.S. personn are part of the contents of their communication with the United States person.
(not when blacked out!)

Furthermore, they aren't blocking out what the US person is saying anyway, you just made that up! Please!

(Oh really and how do you know this..oh wise one!)


I'm really done with you...you are hopeless!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not true-

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of
any communication to which a United States person is a party; and


The responses of the foreign power to the U.S. personn are part of the contents of their communication with the United States person.


Furthermore, they aren't blocking out what the US person is saying anyway, you just made that up! Please!

I'm sorry spidey. The law needs to change then. You seem to think we must be defeated in the war on terror to preserve our rights. Your brain is a tragedy. The sad thing is you're smart. You're just heavily indoctrinated with a load of lib crap.

Isn't the constitution a flexible, living, breathing document anyway, that should change at a whim to accomodate modern thinking? You're a joke. An inconsistent, retarded, illogical joke.