Democrats seek criminal probe of Bush 'abuses'

[Eyeball Chambers]

I expect nothing more from a man like you.

[tonymctones]

"Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S."

and im guessing its your belief that this goes against the constitution?

[Yamalia]

it will be the only good thing democrats have done if they charge bush and cheney wih crimes

[Eyeball Chambers]

and im guessing its your belief that this goes against the constitution?

Yes, if they did it to American citizens without a Warrant. 

"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."

The courts haven't always agreed on that, I know.

[tonymctones]

Yes, if they did it to American citizens without a Warrant. 

"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."

The courts haven't always agreed on that, I know.

How do you know there where unreasonable searches? or what makes you think there where unreasonable searches?

[Eyeball Chambers]

How do you know there where unreasonable searches? or what makes you think there where unreasonable searches?

The only people that know if the 4th Amendment was violated are probably the violators themselves.  There is evidence that Bush and Co. did some things they shouldn't have. That's why it should be investigated.

[tonymctones]

The only people that know if the 4th Amendment was violated are probably the violators themselves.  There is evidence that Bush and Co. did some things they shouldn't have. That's why it should be investigated.

what evidence is what im getting at?

[Eyeball Chambers]

what evidence is what im getting at?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

[tonymctones]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

no where in there that i read did it say or imply that there where unreasonable searches...this doesnt say much about giving cause to initiate a criminal investigation. Sorry but NO

[Eyeball Chambers]

no where in there that i read did it say or imply that there where unreasonable searches...this doesnt say much about giving cause to initiate a criminal investigation. Sorry but NO

From the article.

President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11

Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas

If you can't see how that could be construed as a violation of our fourth amendment rights I can't explain it any further.

[tonymctones]

Yes, if they did it to American citizens without a Warrant. 

"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."

The courts haven't always agreed on that, I know.

when they were talking to ppl overseas, police dont need a warrant when they have probable cause if ppl where talking to known terrorist or ppl with ties with terrorist i would say that would be probable cause would you not?

If you believe that to be a violation of the 4th amendment rights of these ppl why does there need to be an investigation at all he already says that he did it?

[Eyeball Chambers]

when they were talking to ppl overseas, police dont need a warrant when they have probable cause if ppl where talking to known terrorist or ppl with ties with terrorist i would say that would be probable cause would you not?

You need a Warrant to wire tap American citizens.  It's that simple.

If you believe that to be a violation of the 4th amendment rights of these ppl why does there need to be an investigation at all he already says that he did it?

That's not the only area a possible Investigation would cover. 

[tonymctones]

You need a Warrant to wire tap American citizens.  It's that simple.

That's not the only area a possible Investigation would cover. 

thats not what i got from that but again if it is then there is no need for an investigation b/c he openly admits it so it should if it has traction that is go straight to prosecution. At any rate i agree with what he has done although i actually do believe that it is a violation of the constitution certain things need to be done its just the simple fact of the matter. freedom isnt free

[Eyeball Chambers]

At any rate i agree with what he has done although i actually do believe that it is a violation of the constitution certain things need to be done its just the simple fact of the matter. freedom isnt free

I appreciate your honesty sir. 

[mightymouse72]

You two aren't for investigations until you first know the outcome? 

ass backwards

ROFL

I guess anyone that calls themselves 'Ron Paul Fan' I would expect a comment as quoted above.

In my line of work you investigate because there is evidence of a crime.  The crime, 99.9% of the time, comes first.  And then you investigate to obtain more evidence to control the outcome in your favor.

You, on the other hand, seem to already know the outcome of a crime of which there is no evidence. 
You would suck as a criminal investigator, so don't quit your day job.

 

I'm sorry if I had to put it in grade school terms but I think you may need it that way, RP Fan


BTW, here is a quote from you on another thread.....

It's really sickening how you act like it's your team against their team.  We're all Americans.

You seem awful eager to villify the POTUS, if for absolute no reason at all, to justify you hatred for him and then you make a comment like that!

Aren't we all Americans?  Aren't we on the same team?

[tu_holmes]

I guess anyone that calls themselves 'Ron Paul Fan' I would expect a comment as quoted above.

In my line of work you investigate because there is evidence of a crime.  The crime, 99.9% of the time, comes first.  And then you investigate to obtain more evidence to control the outcome in your favor.

You, on the other hand, seem to already know the outcome of a crime of which there is no evidence. 
You would suck as a criminal investigator, so don't quit your day job.

 

I'm sorry if I had to put it in grade school terms but I think you may need it that way, RP Fan


BTW, here is a quote from you on another thread.....



You seem awful eager to villify the POTUS, if for absolute no reason at all, to justify you hatred for him and then you make a comment like that!

Aren't we all Americans?  Aren't we on the same team?

I thought destroying 3 buildings by unnatural means WAS a crime... Hence, why you would investigate.

[240 is Back]

I thought destroying 3 buildings by unnatural means WAS a crime... Hence, why you would investigate.

actually, all 7 of the WTC buildings came down.  easier on the insurance forms, ya know.

[mightymouse72]

To quote Harry Carey:  "HOLY COW!!"

I am amazed this 9/11 stuff is still on here.

Haven't either of you gone to therapy for your "condition"??

Let me guess.....have the Loose Change kids changed their documentary again? 

[tu_holmes]

To quote Harry Carey:  "HOLY COW!!"

I am amazed this 9/11 stuff is still on here.

Haven't either of you gone to therapy for your "condition"??

Let me guess.....have the Loose Change kids changed their documentary again? 

What condition is that?

You disagree that 3 buildings being destroyed by unnatural causes is criminal?

[240 is Back]

What condition is that?

You disagree that 3 buildings being destroyed by unnatural causes is criminal?

he doesnt care. 

[mightymouse72]

What condition is that?

You disagree that 3 buildings being destroyed by unnatural causes is criminal?

OK, I may have misunderstood you so let's go back to your original statement.

Are you stating that G.W. Bush is the cause of the unnatural destroying of WTC's??
If you answer yes to that then, you do have a condition.

If I misunderstood you and the answer is no.  Then I apologize. 


Now, to answer your first question.  This is why you investigate a crime:

And then you investigate to obtain more evidence to control the outcome in your favor.

[tu_holmes]

OK, I may have misunderstood you so let's go back to your original statement.

Are you stating that G.W. Bush is the cause of the unnatural destroying of WTC's??
If you answer yes to that then, you do have a condition.

If I misunderstood you and the answer is no.  Then I apologize. 


Now, to answer your first question.  This is why you investigate a crime:

No... I didn't say G.W. Bush caused anything.

I said that 3 buildings fell down by unnatural causes and that is generally suspicious enough to require an investigation.

I didn't say any single person did anything... I merely commented on this:

I guess anyone that calls themselves 'Ron Paul Fan' I would expect a comment as quoted above.

In my line of work you investigate because there is evidence of a crime.  The crime, 99.9% of the time, comes first.  And then you investigate to obtain more evidence to control the outcome in your favor.

Hence why I think you could validate an investigation.

[mightymouse72]

he doesnt care. 

You're right.
I don't care what you think happened.  You're so freakin' warped in your mind set that it's laughable what you think.

I'm still waiting on this evidence that's been coming out for years.

 

[mightymouse72]

No... I didn't say G.W. Bush caused anything.

I said that 3 buildings fell down by unnatural causes and that is generally suspicious enough to require an investigation.

I didn't say any single person did anything... I merely commented on this:

Hence why I think you could validate an investigation.

It's called The 9/11 Commission Report.

I believe there's a book out.

[tu_holmes]

It's called The 9/11 Commission Report.

I believe there's a book out.

Aren't there people on the commission who want another investigation though?