What makes this (NSA program) different from what Clinton did?

[norml]

Please leave your answers here.

[Vickers]

1. Clinton did it while getting sucked off by an intern.

Hope this helps.

[norml]

3. I'm looking for counter arguments I can use on the air,

not Clenis jokes.

[Vickers]

14. It's not a joke.

And I didn't see in the OP where you were looking for airtime answers. :eyes:

[norml]

15. Sorry if I was too harsh. This is mainly a drill, in which I get to be...

the lazy one who asks the stupid questions, and challenges the answers.

I do this from time to time.

I believe this sort of exercise helps all of us have answers at the ready, for whatever purpose they may be required.

Thank you for your participation, and your contribution.

Though it was both clever and true, I wanted more.

[papau]

2. Clinton's was legal, used a Court when required to do so - a bit different

from Bush NSA SOP.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

4. exactly! using a court of law makes it Constitutional not a violation

of our Bill of Rights so many have died to protect.

[Bucky]

5. I don't recall his warrentless wiretapping & millions of phone call DBs

Refresh my memory. I'm sure Clinton did something to abridge the Bill of Rights. Practically every president since Rutherford Hayes has. It's the scope and scale of the Republicans' abuse that makes it notable--along with the fact that they were such hypocrites about impeaching Clinton for minor technical, gray-area infractions of perjury laws while Bush is hand waving away two centuries of Constitutional precedent at the core of our civil liberties.

[norml]

8. What about Echelon?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=echelon&btnG=Google+Search

[endarkenment]

10. Echelon was within the FISA rules.

Monitoring was, as far as we know, outside the usa only. Domestic to foreign data traffic was excluded. However, there is a long standing rule bending arrangement between US, GB, and NZ (if I remember correctly) where we all essentially share the echelon system and each of the three listen in on the other's domestic - foreign traffic.

Bush broke the rules when he opened up domestic traffic to echelon type snarfing. Not only the rules, but the explicit letter of the law.

[slide to the left]

6. clinton got the warrants from fisa

it doesnt really matter that bush is doing it, he can tap anyone if he gets a warrant.

[norml]

9. I'm thinking more of the current data base story, than I am of the tapping

story.

Never the less, what you say is true.

[Marnieworld]

7. Clinton worked within the law

When it was deemed that the law was insufficient to support the security needs he followed the appropriate procedures to change the law. He worked with the FISA court and had congressional oversight.

The * cabal just ignore laws they don't like. They don't believe in oversight because they want to do whatever they want without explaining or justifying themselves.

Fisa rejected the * admin requests more than any other admin. That's what provoked * to ignore FISA.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

11. Clinton also brought terrorists to justice and actually got convictions

How many convictions for bush? Mousoui is a wanna-be not an actual terrorist.

[Marnieworld]

12. Clinton also thwarted plots before they occurred

Bush stopped tracking of finances of terrorists and Saudis the moment they took office. With a constant Independent Counsel investigation if Clinton ever went out of the law we would have heard about it. Instead they had to concoct a perjury trap in a civil case about infidelity.

[man4allcats]

13. I believe you will find the following brief articles helpful.

1.) From American Progress Action Fund's "The Progress Report" dated 12/21/2005, scroll down the page to the article entitled "DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH." The last three sentences are particularly revealing:

The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore.

2.) Also note the Think Progress article "The Echelon Myth" which cites then CIA Director George Tenet's testimony before Congress on 4/12/2000 in which he stated:

We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

3.) See also the Think Progress article Wash. Times Pushes Surveillance Myths As “News”. In particular, the first two paragraphs of that article state:

The Washington Times has an article titled “‘Warrantless’ searches not unprecedented.” It demonstrates a startling degree of ignorance about the issue.

The opening sentence reads “Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush’s position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.” That isn’t even the issue. - (emphasis present in original text) The issue is whether the President can authorize electronic surveillance of U.S. persons without warrants. (No one disputes that it can do so abroad. That’s what it means to have an intelligence operation.) - emphasis added