AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying withi

[Eyeball Chambers]

AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying within two weeks of taking office

John Byrne
Published: Sunday December 16, 2007

Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”

Continues...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ATT_engineer_says_Bush_Administration_sought_1216.html

[Decker]

Bush's spying predates the attacks of 9/11.

So much for the 'keeping us safe defense' by Bush apologists.

Domestic spying is what Nixon was going to be impeached for.

Not Bush though, I guess this is what his supporters would characterize as another Bush administration success story.

Well we haven't been attacked again have we?

On the other hand, if domestic spying were effective, why didn't the Bush Adm. see 9/11 coming?

[rockyfortune]

Bush's spying predates the attacks of 9/11.

So much for the 'keeping us safe defense' by Bush apologists.

Domestic spying is what Nixon was going to be impeached for.

Not Bush though, I guess this is what his supporters would characterize as another Bush administration success story.

Well we haven't been attacked again have we?

On the other hand, if domestic spying were effective, why didn't the Bush Adm. see 9/11 coming?

because they were busy spying on the wrong people...d'oh!

[Decker]

because they were busy spying on the wrong people...d'oh!

Now I understand.  How can you find out what Al Qaeda is up to if you're only spying on your political enemies?

[Dos Equis]

Bush's spying predates the attacks of 9/11.

So much for the 'keeping us safe defense' by Bush apologists.

Domestic spying is what Nixon was going to be impeached for.

Not Bush though, I guess this is what his supporters would characterize as another Bush administration success story.

Well we haven't been attacked again have we?

On the other hand, if domestic spying were effective, why didn't the Bush Adm. see 9/11 coming?

Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies.  Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons? 

[240 is Back]

Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies.  Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons? 

LOL... you fuck.  you're justifying the spying because we can't prove he WASN'T using it on AMericans... you know, cause it's classified?

You make me want to spit.  Will you be okay with Prez Hilary spying on you, BB?

[240 is Back]

Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies.  Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons? 

defending the indefensible.  Let me be the first to call you a piece of shit.








have a nice day, you piece of shit

[Dos Equis]

LOL... you fuck.  you're justifying the spying because we can't prove he WASN'T using it on AMericans... you know, cause it's classified?

You make me want to spit.  Will you be okay with Prez Hilary spying on you, BB?

  How old are you?  Haven't you learned to stay out of discussions that actually require some thought?  Sit this one out son. 

[Dos Equis]

defending the indefensible.  Let me be the first to call you a piece of shit.








have a nice day, you piece of shit

LOL.  Says the 170 pound punk.  lol . . . you crack me up.  Go eat your wheaties.   

[Decker]

Nixon spied for political gain and to punish enemies.  Are you saying Bush was spying for the same reasons? 

I don't know who he was spying on in particular.  It certainly wasn't Al Qaeda.

He was spying on Americans without a warrant though.  That's illegal...even for the president.

[Dos Equis]

I don't know who he was spying on in particular.  It certainly wasn't Al Qaeda.

He was spying on Americans without a warrant though.  That's illegal...even for the president.

The "spying" label has been thrown around quite a bit.  Let’s assume he was "spying" (i.e., tapping phone calls without a warrant).  What do you think his purpose was? 

[240 is Back]

  How old are you?  Haven't you learned to stay out of discussions that actually require some thought?  Sit this one out son. 

Son?

You high school dropout, non-walton book reading liar.

[OzmO]

you 2 crack me up.


 

[240 is Back]

LOL.  Says the 170 pound punk.  lol . . . you crack me up.  Go eat your wheaties.   

you're a 38 year old high school dorpout who has been caught in many, many lies here.

You're defending spying on americans.  You're pathetic.  Some give me heat for not criticizing the war because I am alright with american expansion - but you... you're defending the violation of the constitution.  You're disgusting.


and until you post a pic, you're a 120 pound, 38-year old dropout.  thank you

[Dos Equis]

Son?

You high school dropout, non-walton book reading liar.

Now where is my fly swatter when I need it?  Have you threatend to kill your wife lately, Scott Peterson?

[240 is Back]

Now where is my fly swatter when I need it?  Have you threatend to kill your wife lately, Scott Peterson?

LOL... coward.  Post a pic, beach bum.  coward!

[Dos Equis]

you're a 38 year old high school dorpout who has been caught in many, many lies here.

You're defending spying on americans.  You're pathetic.  Some give me heat for not criticizing the war because I am alright with american expansion - but you... you're defending the violation of the constitution.  You're disgusting.


and until you post a pic, you're a 120 pound, 38-year old dropout.  thank you

LOL.  Nice try Scottie.  You are a friggin nut.  And you have zero credibility.  But you amuse me.  

[240 is Back]

seriously, beach bum.  you used to piss me off and i used to have fun debating you.


But today, you defended spying on americans.



You're the biggest piece of shit on this board.



You don't love your country.  You love being on the "winning" team.  And just like you voted for CLinton twice before, you are a sheep and a coward who just agrees with whoever is in charge.


You're a piece of shit.  No way around it.  I won't debate you anymore becase seriously, you don't love your country and you sure as hell don't even respect the constitution.

[Dos Equis]

seriously, beach bum.  you used to piss me off and i used to have fun debating you.


But today, you defended spying on americans.



You're the biggest piece of shit on this board.



You don't love your country.  You love being on the "winning" team.  And just like you voted for CLinton twice before, you are a sheep and a coward who just agrees with whoever is in charge.


You're a piece of shit.  No way around it.  I won't debate you anymore becase seriously, you don't love your country and you sure as hell don't even respect the constitution.

Now listen son, go back and look at about the last 50-100 exchanges we've had on this board.  Have you not figured out yet that I don't take you seriously?  We have not had debates.  You make dumb comments, ask ridiculous questions, I slap you around a little, but we don't debate.  You're not smart enough. 

I've suggested this to you before, but pay closer attention to a fellow liberal like Decker.  Smart guy, can discuss the issues, not a nut (like you).  Watch and learn.  He can teach you a few things. 

Now . . . isn't Sesame Street on?  Run along now . . . .

[Decker]

The "spying" label has been thrown around quite a bit.  Let’s assume he was "spying" (i.e., tapping phone calls without a warrant).  What do you think his purpose was? 

His purpose is irrelevant to the act itself.  If the constitution/fisa law says get a warrant, even retroactively, then he better get a warrant.  The burden is on the president to show a valid reason why he committed a felony.

Why do you think he ordered the phone taps prior to the Al Qaeda threat?

[OzmO]

Because JFK was killed by Al Queda? 

[Dos Equis]

His purpose is irrelevant to the act itself.  If the constitution/fisa law says get a warrant, even retroactively, then he better get a warrant.  The burden is on the president to show a valid reason why he committed a felony.

Why do you think he ordered the phone taps prior to the Al Qaeda threat?

I don't think it's irrelevant at all.  You compared him to Nixon.  Not sure if you were around when we first discussed warrantless wiretaps, but I've never approved of them.  I do, however, draw a distinction between acts done for (at least the perceived) benefit of the country, versus a criminal like Nixon. 

I'm not sure if and/or why he ordered warrantless taps before 911, but didn't Clinton do the same thing?  Regardless, I'm pretty certain he was provided some kind of legal counsel. 

But you didn't answer my question about the purpose.  I understand the argument people make about oil.  What I'm trying to understand is the rational for concluding Bush intentionally broke the law by spying.  What did he have to gain? 

[MB_722]

information

[Dos Equis]

information

For what?  A personal enemies list?  Suspected terrorists? 

[24KT]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all.  You compared him to Nixon.  Not sure if you were around when we first discussed warrantless wiretaps, but I've never approved of them.  I do, however, draw a distinction between acts done for (at least the perceived) benefit of the country, versus a criminal like Nixon. 

I'm not sure if and/or why he ordered warrantless taps before 911, but didn't Clinton do the same thing?  Regardless, I'm pretty certain he was provided some kind of legal counsel. 

But you didn't answer my question about the purpose.  I understand the argument people make about oil.  What I'm trying to understand is the rational for concluding Bush intentionally broke the law by spying.  What did he have to gain? 

I could be wrong, but i believe Clinton got warrants for his wiretaps.

As for what he'd have to gain? That's irrelevant. The point is he did something he shouldn't have.
If he had nothing to gain by it, ...then he is even more messed up than previously thought.