Here is all the SMACKDOWN you need for RW'ers on the Bush spygate thing...

Of course, you're being faced with the "Clinton and Carter did it too" BS. How to respond??

Point them to the Hardball explanation of the difference:
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv

But don't leave it there, because they'll just ignore it.

Explain it to them LIKE THEY'RE RETARDS!!!

Quote the portion of the Clinton and Carter executive orders
(found http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm">HERE and http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm">HERE respectively)
which constitutes the difference:

"if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."

and also quote the explanation of the "certifications required by that section":

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


On top of this undeniable proof, mention the fact that Congress is making a big fuss over this in a bipartisan manner AND a federal judge has resigned over it. Do they really believe such things are going on simply because it's Bush??? :)


Don't worry about them not bending over and aquiescing, they won't. Don't worry about it, as they scurry away quietly they'll know they've been owned.

Impeachment is on it's way, no question.

:headbang:

"I used to feel safe"

:thumbsup:

yet insulting Shakespearean riff....

http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical/insult.htm

Turn around with a flourish and walk triumphantly away. That'll drive them nuts!! :evilgrin:

I like it! :applause:

All the 911 hijackers were in the US for quite a while. Some stayed with people who lived here. What if they had direct communication with Bin Laden about the 911 attacks and their plans and we could have listened into thos calle, even though they originated in the US? We could have stopped the attack!

Now I happen to think the best intl we have couldn't have found any of those conversations. If they had stumbled across one, they probably would have been squashed like several of the FBI info was, but how do I respond to something like that?

They can wiretap people in the USA (and could have wiretapped the 911 hijackers) by going to the FISA court and asking to do so.

And of course, the argument that they needed to act quick is also moot because they were allowed to begin wiretaps without going to the court so long as they went to the court sometime in the following 3 days (72 hours).

The court almost NEVER said now. I don't have the stats at my fingertips...it has been something like only 5 times out of 19,000 requests did they refuse.

Not terrorists, but Democrats, freedom-lovers, moral people, you know, all those pains-in-the-ass.

in fact they did.

They knew about the attack. One of their informants was LIVING with two of the highjackers in San Diego. They play dumb, but do you think they really didn't know?Given the way they treated Colleen Rowley's request for a FISA? ome on.

They were warned numerous times by people with more credibility than an anonymous voice on a cellphone. They were told who would do it and how and how soon. The heads of intelligence in at least 3 nations warned us specifically. That didn't help them stop it. Do you think "the" phone call would have been the magic trick?

We aren't a democracy anymore if something as trivial as a "war on terror" can allow the president to act like a dictator. When that happens they have won. We didn't do it in WWII, a real war, why would we do it now for these greedy fools?

Maybe they didn't want to stop it. Think about that. They have had their way in every way since then. Think that is a concidence?

:shrug: ... along with FBI and PDB warnings.

WHAT could possibly justify NOT using a court which, in secret, retroactively allows you to get warrants and has almost never refused a warrant (4 out of 19000)?

Speed (as Bush said, faster, quicker) needed in the 9/11 changed world is no argument, given the 72 hours of free tapping.

The "war" powers of a president do NOT trump the amendements to the constitution.

We had quite a bit of fun with those & more in this thread :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5671138

on Hardball I think. She said these FISA requests were very cumbersome. They're 500 pages long!!!!

Now, I'm not an Attorney, and I sure don't know the requirements for a FISA warrant, but 500 pages wounds like BS to me!!!!!

Don't forget to direct them to the previous comments about wiretaps uttered by thier beloved POS here:

http://canofun.com/blog/viddate.asp

Countdown rules!

I really, really, really hope you're right!

Here's the FIRST thing we'll hear from the puffed and polished TV whores: "Isn't America really still recovering from the last president's impeachment... wouldn't it weaken the country to do this again SO SOON??"

You'll know when the first TV asshole makes that comment, because you'll be able to hear my scream all the way from where I am, to wherever in the country you happen to be.

I DON'T CARE IF WE IMPEACH EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM!!! IF THEY'RE AS BAD AS THIS, THEY NEED IT!!! AND WE NEED TO CONVICT THIS TIME!!! AND I WANT PRISON TIME!!! AND FOR TREASON, THE PENALTY SHOULD BE EXECUTION!!!

Can you summarize the refutation? Thanks.

The Executive Orders (which are also linked in the topic post and which you should have no problem getting to) of Clinton and Carter both had the same qualifier. I quoted it in the topic post.

This qualifier is what makes these PUBLIC executive orders completely different than Bushs SECRET and seemingly illegal orders. Again, read topic post.

The second video link I put in later is a compilation of Bush on many occasions since he began secret spying telling Americans that they don't wiretap without a court order.
Currently Melman and the rest of the rightwing BS'ers are claiming that the best known example of this which was highlighted on Hardball was the President talking ONLY about the patiot act. That is perhaps legally sellable in a "I didn't have sex with that woman" sort of way....but all these other occasions Hardball dug up are more broad and unspecific conversations and speeches and he continues to repeat the same claim.
Good luck with your video efforts, you're missing a lot if you can't watch canofun.com vids.

She did what the authors of "All the President's Spin" prove journalists haven't done - separate fact from fiction, give stories a context, and do more than play parrot of he said/she said.

Hardball gets a bad rap around here, but they've given us some of our best moments.

cheers to them.

I may need this.
:hi:

see even more info below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

(a)
(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—

<snip>

(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


DON'T LET THOSE PUKES DISTRACT YOU BY OBSESSING ON THE "WITHOUT A COURT ORDER" PORTION, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHY THIS ACT IS NOT A PRECEDENT FOR BUSH.

IT'S BECAUSE HE SPIED ON AMERICANS.

And by shortening the word "Christmas" into "Xmas" please realize I mean no offence to those who would shorten the word "Christmas" into "Christ" and thereby attempt to take posession of this wholly secular and commercial holiday. You lost, Walmart won!!

Merry XMAS!!