Congressman calls for Bush impeachment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spence Taylor:
So you disagree with the SCOTUS position on Roe v Wade but it’s position on the Patriot Act is Ok. Sounds to me like a secular version cafeteria Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Well now that is interesting-if I disagree with the USSC on any ruling I have to disagree with all their rulings??? That is one of the most abusrd contentions I have run across in my 20 plus years of posting on the internet.
.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
I’ve no idea. But just because the current government is using excessive powers wisely (if indeed it is) it is no guarantee the next one will.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I do worry about government abuse, which is why i favor sunset provisions. Our leaders are in the very difficult position of protecting us from terrorism while trying not to destroy freedom. Not an easy task.

I support Bush evesdropping on suspected terrorist phone calls. And I don’t blame him for keeping most senators out of the loop, since telling a senator a media-worthy secret would be about as bright as telling your wife’s best friend that you’re having an affair.

Evesdropping on bin Laden’s cell phone is how we almost got him once, until a senator revealed classified information on television (and thus, to bin Laden), and he stopped using his cell phone. Actually, he gave it to a colleague and they went opposite directions. Had there been a little more secrecy, bin Laden may not be at large now.

P.S. It isn’t about democrats vs republicans. For the record, the senator who revealed the information, and probably stopped us from getting bin Laden, is non other than Richard Shelby, R-AL. (If I lived in Alabama, I would do the rarest of things and actually vote for a democrat just because of Shelby’s collosal error.)
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Let’s try FoxNews then, eh?

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142118,00.html

As far as I can tell, the appeal is going on right now.

Mike
Click to expand...
There is an appeal of the ruling BUT the ruling was NOT over a any provision of the Patriot Act. No portions of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconsitutional. The ACLU claimed it was and managed to sucker in a willing MM but , as one can tell if they read the judges ruling, the Patriot Act was not even part of the lawsuit. Sorry but the facts are as they are.
 
40.png
Jay74:
Evesdropping on bin Laden’s cell phone is how we almost got him once, until a senator revealed classified information on television (and thus, to bin Laden), and he stopped using his cell phone. Actually, he gave it to a colleague and they went opposite directions. Had there been a little more secrecy, bin Laden may not be at large now.

P.S. It isn’t about democrats vs republicans. For the record, the senator who revealed the information, and probably stopped us from getting bin Laden, is non other than Richard Shelby, R-AL. (If I lived in Alabama, I would do the rarest of things and actually vote for a democrat just because of Shelby’s collosal error.)
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20…

File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under ‘Urban Myths’

President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device.

The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president.

But it appears to be an urban myth.

The al Qaeda leader’s communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 – and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.
 
Thekla said:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20…

File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under ‘Urban Myths’

President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device.

The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president.

But it appears to be an urban myth.

The al Qaeda leader’s communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 – and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was wrong. I remember reading it a couple years ago, then read it again yesterday at wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48019.

Oh well.
 
40.png
Jay74:
Perhaps it was wrong. I remember reading it a couple years ago, then read it again yesterday at wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48019.

Oh well.
Click to expand...
You were not wrong. The Washingtoin Post Story was an example of a MM opinion piece purporting to be a news story. The 9-11 commission looked into this supposed “urban myth” and reported:

"This information was more useful than it had been in the past; since the August missile strikes, Bin Ladin had taken to moving his sleeping place frequently and unpredictably and had added new bodyguards. Worst of all, al Qaeda’s senior leadership had stopped using a particular means of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times.105 This made it much more difficult for the National Security Agency to intercept his conversations. But since the tribals seemed to know where Bin Ladin was or would be, an alternative to capturing Bin Ladin would be to mark his location and call in another round of missile strikes. "
 
40.png
estesbob:
You were not wrong. The Washingtoin Post Story was an example of a MM opinion piece purporting to be a news story. The 9-11 commission looked into this supposed “urban myth” and reported:
"This information was more useful than it had been in the past; since the August missile strikes, Bin Ladin had taken to moving his sleeping place frequently and unpredictably and had added new bodyguards. Worst of all, al Qaeda’s senior leadership had stopped using a particular means of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times.105 This made it much more difficult for the National Security Agency to intercept his conversations. But since the tribals seemed to know where Bin Ladin was or would be, an alternative to capturing Bin Ladin would be to mark his location and call in another round of missile strikes. "
Click to expand...
Which makes it understandable–if not necessary–to keep most congressmen out of the loop.
 
A lot of stuff on the radio lately about the early colonial times of the United States and the amount of opinion published back then about the need for communications intelligence, codes and code breaking, and the need to keep the information AWAY from Congress. Ben Franklin was quoted at length.

The more people that know the secrets, the less secret it is.

Worth checking out. Apparently the need to keep one’s mouth shut was honored from the very earliest days of this country right up until the present Democrats began mouthing off the past couple of years.
 
Al Masetti:
A lot of stuff on the radio lately about the early colonial times of the United States and the amount of opinion published back then about the need for communications intelligence, codes and code breaking, and the need to keep the information AWAY from Congress. Ben Franklin was quoted at length.

The more people that know the secrets, the less secret it is.

Worth checking out. Apparently the need to keep one’s mouth shut was honored from the very earliest days of this country right up until the present Democrats began mouthing off the past couple of years.
Click to expand...
Which, if you read documents of some of the founding fathers, they decided a king-like figure was necessary. First, for quick decision making. Second, because you can’t trust dozens, let alone hundreds, of attention-hungry politicians to keep secrets.

Imagine where we would be if during the civil war, WWII, or the war on terrorism, all decisions about the military and security had to go through a congressional vote. We probably wouldn’t be here at all.
 
40.png
estesbob:
There is an appeal of the ruling BUT the ruling was NOT over a any provision of the Patriot Act. No portions of the Patriot Act have been ruled unconsitutional. The ACLU claimed it was and managed to sucker in a willing MM but , as one can tell if they read the judges ruling, the Patriot Act was not even part of the lawsuit. Sorry but the facts are as they are.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I’d forgotten we were in the middle of this before Christmas…

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but nevertheless if the judge’s ruling stands then the section of the Patriot Act will not be in the law, as it assumes something else that has been found unconstitutional. There is a hair-splitting difference between it being struck down itself, and assuming something else that is struck down, but it doesn’t seem enough of a difference to me to say that the reports in the media are downright wrong.

Interested to see you loop in Fox News into the ususally-derided ‘mainstream media’ too.

Nevertheless, I think we’ve been rather off-topic here,

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top