Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   New York Times, 1982: "Federal court ruled it's OK to tap phone calls between American citizens and foreign nationals." New York Times, 2005: "BUSH IS A CRIMINAL"   (newsbusters.org) divider line
1041
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

19769 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 22 Dec 2005 at 7:11 PM (17 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



1041 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
jimmyhaha
2005-12-22 5:40:08 PM  
With a warrant, idiot.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:40:41 PM  
Of course, the case in question (Salisbury v. United States, aff'd, 690 F.2d 966) happened in 1979--when Jimmy Carter was president.

Still waiting for all those shrieking about Bush being a criminal to cite exactly which law he broke. Please don't spout off about the 4th Amendment. Instead, let's hear why the above-cited ruling doesn't apply to Bush.

/ what liberal media?
 
Pocket Ninja [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2005-12-22 5:43:03 PM  
How long will these idiots keep submitting this stupid link before they realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with what Bush is doing?
 
Redhalo
2005-12-22 5:43:16 PM  
Wow, TF is really hanging on to this one. Let it go, people.
 
Kohl
2005-12-22 5:43:49 PM  
Of course, the case in question (Salisbury v. United States, aff'd, 690 F.2d 966) happened in 1979--when Jimmy Carter was president.

Still waiting for all those shrieking about Bush being a criminal to cite exactly which law he broke. Please don't spout off about the 4th Amendment. Instead, let's hear why the above-cited ruling doesn't apply to Bush.

You need a FISA court warrant for what he did. he decided all by himself that he had supreme jurisdiction beyond the bounds of powers granted him by congress; his position invalidates the necessity of both a congress and judiciary. Go sit in on a high school civics class about that "checks and balances" thing.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:44:08 PM  
jimmyhahah

with a warrant, idiot

Irrelevant. The basic rules set by Executive Order 12333, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and a few court decisions are as follows: NSA can intercept any communication -- phone call, fax, electronic mail, etc. -- as long as at least one end is in a foreign country.
 
Lionel Mandrake
2005-12-22 5:45:48 PM  
oh man...you can tell how desperate the wingers are when all they can say is "but....Carter!!"

apples != oranges
 
zn0k
2005-12-22 5:46:15 PM  
i am starting a foundation. it will be a foundation that gives people that use the term "liberal media" a lot $10 so they can go and buy a pound of common sense.
hopefully, it'll be tax deductible.
 
Kohl
2005-12-22 5:46:17 PM  
Irrelevant. The basic rules set by Executive Order 12333, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and a few court decisions are as follows: NSA can intercept any communication -- phone call, fax, electronic mail, etc. -- as long as at least one end is in a foreign country.

ONLY if the agent on american soil is a foreign agent: if they are a citizen, you need a warrant. Now STFU and GBTW.
 
Mosey
2005-12-22 5:46:19 PM  
The CraneMeister: . The basic rules set by Executive Order 12333, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and a few court decisions are as follows: NSA can intercept any communication -- phone call, fax, electronic mail, etc. -- as long as at least one end is in a foreign country.


Source?
 
kabloink [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:46:34 PM  
Did see the read the comments?

"The difference between the surveillance conducted on Jabara and the surveillance in question now is that, in fact, no surveillance was conducted on Jabara - the NSA was monitoring international communications for certain key words, and intercepting those communications that contained those key words. Some of Jabara's communications were thus intercepted. The issue today is that FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, deals with "intentional" surveillance, which appears to be what the Bush administration was allowing without warrants, something FISA makes clear is a no-no."
 
GaryPDX
2005-12-22 5:47:05 PM  
2005-12-22 05:44:08 PM The CraneMeister [TotalFark]

The basic rules set by Executive Order 12333, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and a few court decisions are as follows: NSA can intercept any communication -- phone call, fax, electronic mail, etc. -- as long as at least one end is in a foreign country.

But according to BushCo, FISA is cumbersome and outdated. He doesn't even need that. And with no checks or balances..who's to say my call to my mother 50 miles away isn't being tapped?
 
Mosey
2005-12-22 5:47:11 PM  
Lionel Mandrake: oh man...you can tell how desperate the wingers are when all they can say is "but....Carter!!"

Well if it was predident, then it isn't But... anything.

""the slaves are free"
"Look at you using "but Lincoln..."
 
Kyosuke
2005-12-22 5:47:13 PM  
The CraneMeister

Here, have some more FlavorAde.
 
Lionel Mandrake
2005-12-22 5:48:40 PM  
Mosey: Well if it was predident, then it isn't But... anything.

care to put that in english?
 
millifoo
2005-12-22 5:48:58 PM  
Green lit?!? Huh?
 
Howie Spankowitz
2005-12-22 5:49:01 PM  
Mosey: Well if it was predident, then it isn't But... anything.

""the slaves are free"
"Look at you using "but Lincoln..."

Eh?
 
Asa Phelps
2005-12-22 5:49:07 PM  
Right, because that's foreign intelligence.

The CraneMeister

Yes, and what we're upset about is interception without a warrant where no party involved was in a foreign country or a foreign national.

That truck driver who wanted to demolish the brooklyn bridge? Lets ignore for the moment the fact that he's a harmless nutter - the calls they intercepted were entirely domestic.

I'm tired of ignoring the fact that he's a harmless nutter, though. The dumbass was planning to use pneumatic axes. It would have taken him about an hour and a half per cable, and someone probaly would have spotted him at it.
 
djemonk
2005-12-22 5:49:37 PM  
jimmyhaha: With a warrant, idiot.

The thread was over with the very first person to post.

/nice filter dodge (I hope)
 
djemonk
2005-12-22 5:50:12 PM  
millifoo: Green lit?!? Huh?

The conservative admins are on duty today, I guess.
 
onecanshort
2005-12-22 5:50:39 PM  
Anyone got any popcorn?
 
damageddude [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:50:42 PM  
Who need checks and balances anyway?
 
Pocket Ninja [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2005-12-22 5:50:44 PM  
Ok. Since this for some reason got greenlit, I'll say this once and then flee from what will surely become a discussion filled with inanities and unprovable bluster.

One of these cases being discussed allowed government agencies to monitor international communications on a broad level for certain critical phrases or other elements. Basically monitoring traffic, in other words, without any real direction or specific intent. Any further investigation into found phrases would require warrants and oversight.

The other of these cases allows government agencies to specifically pick you out of a crowd and listen to every single message *you*...just *you*....send to an overseas source. Filtering out everything else and only listening to *you*. Without a warrant and with completely meaningless oversight.

If you can't see the difference between those, if the difference between those doesn't outrage you, you don't deserve to live here and quite frankly probably couldn't pass a basic citizenship test.

And that's all.
 
keylock71
2005-12-22 5:51:13 PM  
Oooooo, a blog that "combats Liberal Media Bias".

Must be a regular think tank over there...
 
Hender
2005-12-22 5:51:48 PM  
GaryPDX

But according to BushCo, FISA is cumbersome and outdated. He doesn't even need that. And with no checks or balances..who's to say my call to my mother 50 miles away isn't being tapped?

My God. I agree with both Weaver95 and GaryPDX on an issue. If bevets and a few other notable conservative Farkers were to join in, too, I'd think that the 7th seal was getting ready to open.

It's telling that so many people are against this, both in the populace and in the government. I honestly don't understand why people are still chanting "It's a good thing! It's legal!"

On a side note, GaryPDX, you coming to the PDX Fark party that unmoderated is trying to organize?
 
Redhalo
2005-12-22 5:52:09 PM  
onecanshort: Anyone got any popcorn?


*passes popcorn*

Greenlit, to boot. Hi liters! WE'VE been doing this all week!
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:52:25 PM  
BTW: Clinton and Carter both signed executive orders authorizing warrantless searches:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

I'm not saying Bush should get away with it if they did. I'm saying let's not apply a double standard to this debate.

The debate is, or should be, about the tension between presidential powers vs. checks & balances, and national security vs. civil liberties.

For a lot of people, though, these issues are irrelevant compared to the chance to throw dirt at Bush. It's widely known that NYT sat on this story for nearly a year. Why? To coincide its release with the release of a book AND to influence debate on renewal of the Patriot Act.

Those scumbags don't give a crap about national security if they have a chance to hurt a politician they dislike. That's what I REALLY hate in these discussions, and it doesn't matter who the politician is.

I despised Clinton but I can also tell you at least a dozen things he did that I agree with. Lot of people on my side of the aisle couldn't do that, I fear. And the loony left wouldn't be able to find something nice to say about Bush if he resurrected Mother Teresa live on national television.
 
Kohl
2005-12-22 5:52:33 PM  
The conservative admins are on duty today, I guess

This was probably the best conservative headline to pick, being that the point trying to be made here is entirely indefensible and misinterpretted. The above court decision is totally unrelated, is talking about an entirely different type of spying, and even then, Cranemeister's citations reference case law that STILL says you need a warrant to intentionally listen in on americans [lest you violate the 4th amendment].
 
chakalakasp
2005-12-22 5:52:34 PM  
[image from img.photobucket.com too old to be available]

Sorry, there isn't much left to this thread. Everything important and relevant was said in the Boobies, and everything that comes after will be smart people trying to teach dumb people how to read the Boobies, while dumb people repeatedly hit their Coulter Playbook to keep the ball in play.
 
Gecko Gingrich
2005-12-22 5:52:59 PM  
Can't both headlines be right?

In 1982 a Federal court did rule as stated.
A case can be made that Bush has committed criminal acts.
 
Hender
2005-12-22 5:53:24 PM  
Since this is my first day of TotalFark'dom, I want to say something I've alway wanted to say:

GREENLIT?!? OH CRAP, HERE COME THE LITERS!
 
kronicfeld
2005-12-22 5:53:35 PM  
The CraneMeister: Irrelevant. The basic rules set by Executive Order 12333, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and a few court decisions are as follows: NSA can intercept any communication -- phone call, fax, electronic mail, etc. -- as long as at least one end is in a foreign country.

So, uh, you're just going to copy/paste the comments from that blog post?

At least you're admitting that all you know about the subject is other people's talking points.
 
chakalakasp
2005-12-22 5:53:40 PM  
Dear, God, I was filterwnd! Lol -- I haven't had that happen in probably a good year now. Ah, I love this place. :)
 
Dancin_In_Anson
2005-12-22 5:54:45 PM  
chakalakasp: Dear, God, I was filterwnd! Lol -- I haven't had that happen in probably a good year now.


And a twofer to boot!
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:54:53 PM  
kohl

ONLY if the agent on american soil is a foreign agent: if they are a citizen, you need a warrant.

Wrong. The case cited above said it doesn't matter if the person on American soil is foreign agent or citizen. In fact, it doesn't even matter, according to the ruling, if the person is not even a suspect in anything.

Don't like that? Cool; let's talk about it. But let's quit pretending Bush is the antichrist and acknowledge that he's doing something every president has done since FISA was passed.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2005-12-22 5:55:17 PM  
Hender: My God. I agree with both Weaver95 and GaryPDX on an issue. If bevets and a few other notable conservative Farkers were to join in, too, I'd think that the 7th seal was getting ready to open.


Who wants to see the end of the world? Okay, I'm game. I can agree with this just to see what happens.


*Crack*Crumble*Shake*


Just kidding! Just Kidding!


*rumble*...*silence*


Whew.
 
Hender
2005-12-22 5:55:42 PM  
The CraneMeister

BTW: Clinton and Carter both signed executive orders authorizing warrantless searches:

The rallying cry that so many people defending Bush on this issue seem to keep missing is:

So what? That other Presidents did it doesn't make it excusable, moral, right, or more importantly, legal.

There. I've said it.
 
kronicfeld
2005-12-22 5:55:49 PM  
The CraneMeister: BTW: Clinton and Carter both signed executive orders authorizing warrantless searches:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

On non-U.S.-persons.

The top of the Drudge Report claims CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER Its not true. Heres the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person. That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bushs program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clintons 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.

What Carters executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Quite simply, there is absolutely no comparison, and all this "But...but CLINTON DID IT!!!" is just proving how little justification Bush really has.
 
Flab [TotalFark]
2005-12-22 5:55:53 PM  
Hender: If bevets and a few other notable conservative Farkers

bevets only shows up for religious flamewars.
 
bulldg4life
2005-12-22 5:56:01 PM  
I just want to say that I love reading boobies and also feel that everybody should learn how to read boobies.
 
whidbey
2005-12-22 5:56:23 PM  
The CraneMeister: Still waiting for all those shrieking about Bush being a criminal to cite exactly which law he broke. Please don't spout off about the 4th Amendment. Instead, let's hear why the above-cited ruling doesn't apply to Bush.

I really don't care, it's much more sickening to hear you support the surveillance of American citizens without either their knowledge or the warrant that satisfies the Due Process of Law guaranteed in the FIFTH Amendment.

So, yeah I know you don't want to hear about the following passage, so cover your damn ears:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sickening that you dismiss this because you believe the White House has the "right" to subvert it to their paranoid and embarrassing "War" on "Terror."
 
Ditto
2005-12-22 5:56:31 PM  
But, but,...THE CRUSADES!!!

/wrong flamewar
 
kronicfeld
2005-12-22 5:56:40 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Okay, I'm game. I can agree with this just to see what happens.

My dog and cats just began cohabitating.
 
swingbozo
2005-12-22 5:56:53 PM  
Can we get that impeachment started already?

What does Bush have to do to get some consequences for his illegal actions? Bugger a 12 year old on live TV?
 
ArbitraryConstant
2005-12-22 5:56:55 PM  
djemonk: "The conservative admins are on duty today, I guess."

Check out the other one that just got greenlit.
 
zn0k
2005-12-22 5:57:07 PM  
2005-12-22 05:55:17 PM the_gospel_of_thomas

that was the funniest thing i read this week, dude.
 
LordKaT
2005-12-22 5:57:09 PM  
George Bush needs to eat more cookies.
 
onecanshort
2005-12-22 5:57:25 PM  
Redhalo

Sweet, thanks! Here, have a beer! *tosses Redhalo a cold one*
 
Kohl
2005-12-22 5:57:43 PM  
Those scumbags don't give a crap about national security if they have a chance to hurt a politician they dislike. That's what I REALLY hate in these discussions, and it doesn't matter who the politician is

Those dirty bastards, trying to string bush up for breaking a law and trying to invalidate the authority of not one but TWO branches of government.

I despised Clinton

Good thing y'all on the right didn't do any silly witch-hunting for any possible law he broke just for political reasons, especially if what he did harmed no Americans. Because then that would make you coming here today sort of... stupid.
 
bulldg4life
2005-12-22 5:57:55 PM  
The day newmoonpuppyhead and weaver95 shake hands is the day the seventh seal is broken and all the particles on the planet stop moving and all explode at the speed of light.
 
Displayed 50 of 1041 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Can't get enough Fark in your life? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.