|
The Culture of Che (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shamen DJ's |
In response to the article where it says that Che was killed in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant
- God bless Bolivia!!! |
|
|
| Michael19 |
I have a che t-shirt. Didnt even know he was a c*nt. This is great.
My che t-shirt is now up there with my adolf hitler t-shirt as my faovurite t-shirt. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Michael19
Didnt even know he was a c*nt. My che t-shirt is now up there with my adolf hitler t-shirt as my faovurite t-shirt. |
gee, what does that make you now? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ofcourse you do, you're a neo-con. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Of course you do, you're a neo-con. |
...and? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
So if a Democratic president wiretapped the phones illegally and conservatives called for him to be censured would you agree with the conservatives? |
if he did it illegally i would. why? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
Well everything is pointing at these wiretaps being illegal... |
no. five FISA judges testified on Capital Hill on March 29 stating that the president was within his rights, constitutionally.
including Judge Nathan Kornblum, who actually wrote the FISA laws in 1978, stating...| quote: | | “If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.” |
end of dicussion. everything else is reactionary knee jerking fed by the Democratic party to the mouths of the far left.
this is why this has not been news out of the MSM recently. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
no. five FISA judges testified on Capital Hill on March 29 stating that the president was within his rights, constitutionally.
including Judge Nathan Kornblum, who actually wrote the FISA laws in 1978, stating...
end of dicussion. everything else is reactionary knee jerking fed by the Democratic party to the mouths of the far left. |
Hmmm, I guess that's an interesting twist to the story. Some interesting things are set forth about that testimony by the FISA judges. First off, let me borrow the story from the WaTimes. They state the following:
http://washingtontimes.com/national...20346-1901r.htm
| quote: | | "The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it" |
That's a bit interesting. Not commenting on this because they had no idea of Bush's true actions.
| quote: | | "but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order" |
Emphasis mine on the word "international". This has never been in dispute. The question is, did Bush spy on American citizens, not international agents? That question remains unanswered and not commented on by the FISA judges.
| quote: | | "The panel of judges unanimously agreed that the law should have been changed before now to deal with new threats from terrorists" |
Now this does bring up an interesting question: if, in fact, Bush's domestic spying actions were legal, then what's with the necessity to grant him new powers to spy EVEN MORE legally?
Anyone else notice a slight teensy contradiction there?
The testimony of FISA judges was interesting, but it did not address nor answer the fundamental question of Bush's actions being legal or illegal. The FISA judges have no way of knowing whether or not Bush's actions were legal because Bush ing underminded them completely. The beloved quote you use from the FISA judge who wrote the law:
| quote: | | “If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” |
Is also interesting but very misleading. If, in fact, it were true that Bush didn't have sufficient time to go to the court review, then yes he could do all these things the judge had said with Executive Order.
But again it doesn't address the question as to why Bush felt he didn't have sufficient time for what particular case he deemed necessary to circumvent the courts because the FISA judges didn't see the ing case he undermined right under their noses in the first place.
It also doesn't address another simple question I've brought up here time and again: can someone explain to me how Bush could not have had enough time to obtain a wiretap warrant from a FISA court when he had up to 72 hours to get one AFTER starting that given wiretap? Can someone else also explain to me how Bush is somehow more effective in catching al Qaeda bad guys by not trying to get a warrant from the secret FISA courts up to 72 hours after starting that wiretap?
Is his evidence brought forth to the courts that ing bad, bad enough that he couldn't even garner up enough paultry evidence to the FISA courts 3 full ing days after starting the wiretap on someone domestically?
So in summary, there's nothing substantial that the FISA judges addressed that specifically answered Bush's actions. Without being able to see the cases in which Bush undermined their authority, they are left up to stating hypotheticals without specifics.
| quote: | | this is why this has not been news out of the MSM recently. |
I know, that darn librul media seems to be squelching the case quite nicely, ain't it?
Oh well, they've got their hands wrapped around another darn librul conspiracy with Libby's testimony I guess.....;) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
And any retard who has Che in his avatar deserves to get hit in the face by an 18 wheeler going 80 MPH :rolleyes: |
ha ha ha ha ha that was funny
:haha: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Not commenting on this because they had no idea of Bush's true actions. |
speculation. first off, you don't know what they had any idea of at the hearing. the judges would not comment on it because they were not briefed on the program as well they couldn't comment. thats just good juriprudence in my book (anybody's book). that subject, being secondary to the primary subject of legality, is not in dispute anyway. what has been made public about the program is whats at issue, and as far as they're concerned, he's [Bush] right. as the article states.
| quote: | | Emphasis mine on the word "international". This has never been in dispute. The question is, did Bush spy on American citizens, not international agents? That question remains unanswered and not commented on by the FISA judges. |
Bush authorized the NSA to monitor known Al Queera #'s dialing in and out and through the U.S.
what the hell do you mean it wasn't commented on by the FISA judges?| quote: | | Judge Kornblum: "As I mentioned, U.S. persons may be in the network or chain of communications of known terrorists, but there will undoubtedly be many other people in the communications network who are known to the intelligence agencies. Some of them may include U.S. persons, thus it is perfectly logical and reasonable to expect that although the program is targeted against terrorist networks abroad, that communications may come to the United States and are of great intelligence interest." |
further
| quote: | "This situation is not unlike things I've seen as a magistrate judge in drug trafficking, where the DEA or state officers are able to secure a cell phone used by a drug dealer. They look at the records of the cell phone, they see he's talked to other cell phones, and the people of those cell phones have talked to other people on cell phones. And so the DEA begins to track all of the people to identify the people in the network of drug trafficking. But till you get the records from the communications companies that keep these phone records, until you determine what the pattern of operation is, until you determine the identities of these people, it can take more than a year. And that was a case I recently saw in Gainesville.
However, we don't have that time in dealing with international terrorism." |
that was just Kornblum. you want the other's opinions?
it seems to me that you want to make something out of nothing here. as usual.
| quote: | | Now this does bring up an interesting question: if, in fact, Bush's domestic spying actions were legal, then what's with the necessity to grant him new powers to spy EVEN MORE legally? |
The testimony of FISA judges was interesting, but it did not address nor answer the fundamental question of Bush's actions being legal or illegal. The FISA judges have no way of knowing whether or not Bush's actions were legal because Bush ing underminded them completely. The beloved quote you use from the FISA judge who wrote the law:
Is also interesting but very misleading. If, in fact, it were true that Bush didn't have sufficient time to go to the court review, then yes he could do all these things the judge had said with Executive Order.
But again it doesn't address the question as to why Bush felt he didn't have sufficient time for what particular case he deemed necessary to circumvent the courts because the FISA judges didn't see the ing case he undermined right under their noses in the first place.
It also doesn't address another simple question I've brought up here time and again: can someone explain to me how Bush could not have had enough time to obtain a wiretap warrant from a FISA court when he had up to 72 hours to get one AFTER starting that given wiretap? Can someone else also explain to me how Bush is somehow more effective in catching al Qaeda bad guys by not trying to get a warrant from the secret FISA courts up to 72 hours after starting that wiretap?
Is his evidence brought forth to the courts that ing bad, bad enough that he couldn't even garner up enough paultry evidence to the FISA courts 3 full ing days after starting the wiretap on someone domestically?
So in summary, there's nothing substantial that the FISA judges addressed that specifically answered Bush's actions. Without being able to see the cases in which Bush undermined their authority, they are left up to stating hypotheticals without specifics.
I know, that darn librul media seems to be squelching the case quite nicely, ain't it?
Oh well, they've got their hands wrapped around another darn librul conspiracy with Libby's testimony I guess.....;) [/QUOTE] |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
speculation. first off, you don't know what they had any idea of at the hearing. the judges would not comment on it because they were not briefed on the program as well they couldn't comment. thats just good juriprudence in my book (anybody's book). that subject, being secondary to the primary subject of legality, is not in dispute anyway. |
Which was exactly what I mentioned. They cannot comment on the specifics of Bush's actions because they do not know. We both agree on that.
So how could they comment on the legality of those specifics of Bush's actions if:
1. They did not comment on them because:
2. They were not briefed on the specific cases?
| quote: | | what has been made public about the program is whats at issue, and as far as they're concerned, he's [Bush] right. as the article states. |
The article states nothing of the sort. It does state the hypothetical opinion of the judges who do not even possess the specifics of the cases because Bush refuses to show them to anybody. That's pretty simple.
| quote: | | Bush authorized the NSA to monitor known Al Queera #'s dialing in and out and through the U.S. |
And you know that how? Do you know something that not even the FISA judges are aware of?
Regardless, I believe the FBI could tell you a few things about whether these leads were actually from known al Qaeda suspects:
| quote: | In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for the eavesdropping program, which did not seek court warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but ultimately deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.
...More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...agewanted=print |
Now does an innocent American schoolteacher sound like an al Qaeda operative to you? It certainly didn't appear that way to those wiretapping their phones.
| quote: | what the hell do you mean it wasn't commented on by the FISA judges?
further |
That does not address in any way the questions I posed here:
| quote: | But again it doesn't address the question as to why Bush felt he didn't have sufficient time for what particular case he deemed necessary to circumvent the courts because the FISA judges didn't see the ing case he undermined right under their noses in the first place.
It also doesn't address another simple question I've brought up here time and again: can someone explain to me how Bush could not have had enough time to obtain a wiretap warrant from a FISA court when he had up to 72 hours to get one AFTER starting that given wiretap? Can someone else also explain to me how Bush is somehow more effective in catching al Qaeda bad guys by not trying to get a warrant from the secret FISA courts up to 72 hours after starting that wiretap? |
You see, the FISA courts are notoriously leanient in giving out warrants for wiretapping. They have quite a record of shooting down only a handful of wiretaps, while giving out tens of thousands of wiretaps without hesitation to Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and even Bush Jr. The ones they've shot down or asked to have been modified have only come in the past coupla years under Bush, and again the ones they've shot down were only a handful of times.
So instead of actually bringing forth compelling evidence, hell instead of actually bringing forth any ing evidence that every president before him since the FISA court inception had NO problem presenting and NO problem obtaining a warrant, Bush said, " You" to the very court that keeps his power under checks and balances and completely undermined it by not telling them about his wiretaps. Something to keep in mind here about Judge Kornblum's statement:
| quote: | | However, we don't have that time in dealing with international terrorism." |
Which is PRECISELY why they've been so incredibly leanient in giving out warrants in the past, and have rarely shot down any requests.
And it continues to beg the question - how ing bad was his evidence in the first place to be turned down and then didn't even bother to obtain the warrant (a warrant one could get 72 hours retroactively)?
It also does not address the fact that FISA was set up specifically for spying on U.S. citizens. Bush can spy on non-U.S. citizens all day and night in and out of our borders. FISA was specifically set up for obtaining domestic warrants on U.S. citizens. Circumventing this is the crux of the problem.
| quote: | that was just Kornblum. you want the other's opinions?
it seems to me that you want to make something out of nothing here. as usual. |
Knock yourself out. Let's just keep in mind that none of the judges have seen the cases in question, so it leads their testimony to hypotheticals without examining the evidence.
There is something else to think about too - I believe it was in 2002 where this Administration had the opportunity to amend the FISA laws to allow even more leeway into wiretapping, led by Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine. In essence, it stated that "probable cause" was too onerous, and wanted to change it to "reasonable suspicion":
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s2659.html
But Bush turned this down:
| quote: | One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats.
...The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.
...The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/200...73102baker.html |
Now keep in mind, all this was occurring in 2002 when Bush had mentioned that he was having problems with obtaining warrants with FISA (actually this statement was months after the supposed time of trouble obtaining warrants). If this statement by this DoJ official is correct, especially coming from Baker - a guy who's in charge of obtaining such warrants, don't you think he would have known about the supposed troubles that Bush now claims he had in obtaining such warrants?
And if Bush was truly having such troubles obtaining warrants because of the "probable cause" issue, then why didn't he support the DeWine Amendment, rather than shoot it down and claim that the FISA laws were correct and fine as they stand?
These questions remain unanswered. There are two ways they could be answered:
1. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
-But we all know Senator cover-up Roberts is going to let that go nowhere. Republicans in that Committee shot down an investigation along party line votes, so that path is dead.
2. Supreme Court
-This is a bit difficult as well, considering it's difficult to ascertain an actual defendent when those defendents are under Classified status. There are some attempts being made through various legal channels, but I don't know how far they'll go.
Anyone else notice a slight teensy contradiction there?
The testimony of FISA judges was interesting, but it did not address nor answer the fundamental question of Bush's actions being legal or illegal. The FISA judges have no way of knowing whether or not Bush's actions were legal because Bush ing underminded them completely. The beloved quote you use from the FISA judge who wrote the law:
Is also interesting but very misleading. If, in fact, it were true that Bush didn't have sufficient time to go to the court review, then yes he could do all these things the judge had said with Executive Order.
But again it doesn't address the question as to why Bush felt he didn't have sufficient time for what particular case he deemed necessary to circumvent the courts because the FISA judges didn't see the ing case he undermined right under their noses in the first place.
It also doesn't address another simple question I've brought up here time and again: can someone explain to me how Bush could not have had enough time to obtain a wiretap warrant from a FISA court when he had up to 72 hours to get one AFTER starting that given wiretap? Can someone else also explain to me how Bush is somehow more effective in catching al Qaeda bad guys by not trying to get a warrant from the secret FISA courts up to 72 hours after starting that wiretap?
Is his evidence brought forth to the courts that ing bad, bad enough that he couldn't even garner up enough paultry evidence to the FISA courts 3 full ing days after starting the wiretap on someone domestically?
So in summary, there's nothing substantial that the FISA judges addressed that specifically answered Bush's actions. Without being able to see the cases in which Bush undermined their authority, they are left up to stating hypotheticals without specifics.
I know, that darn librul media seems to be squelching the case quite nicely, ain't it?
Oh well, they've got their hands wrapped around another darn librul conspiracy with Libby's testimony I guess.....;) [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] |
|
|
| Erotic Buddha |
| quote: | Originally posted by habsfan
Wow!
Here's a guy who leaves his potentially comfy life as a doctor to help those less fortunate,leads a revolution, and you're calling him a homo?
Yeah, keep acting tough on TA, lol.
EDIT: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic? |
he led a ing TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST regime...he's a scumbag and all the other brainless mongrels who worship him are as well |
|
|
|
|
