I thought Dems were against Wire Tapping?

[JustRalph]

Unless of course it benefits their cause................


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/us/politics/30mabus.html?_r=1

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif
March 30, 2009
Navy Secretary Nominee Drew Notice Over Divorce

By JIM RUTENBERG
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nominee for secretary of the Navy was involved in a divorce that drew national attention for his secret taping of a conversation between his wife and his family priest that he used against her in court proceedings.

The nominee, Ray Mabus, is a former governor of Mississippi and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and he served in the Navy during the Vietnam War. Mr. Mabus, a Democrat, was a strong supporter of Mr. Obama in the campaign last year.

In 1998, as Mr. Mabus and his wife, Julie (now Julie Hines), sought to work out their marital problems, he surreptitiously recorded a meeting the couple had with the Rev. Jerry McBride, a mutual friend.

Mr. Mabus had told Mr. McBride in advance that he had been advised by a lawyer to tape the conversation, according to court records. Neither man mentioned the recording to Ms. Hines. During the session, she admitted having an affair and told her husband, “I will hate you till the day I die, and I will tell my children.”

An expert psychiatric witness for Mr. Mabus referred to Ms. Hines’s recorded comments as evidence that he should get legal custody of the couple’s two daughters. The judge in the case awarded legal custody to Mr. Mabus and split physical custody between him and Ms. Hines.

After the ruling, Ms. Hines, who expressed regret for her comments, sued Mr. McBride, his church and the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, alleging malpractice and fraud. She did not sue Mr. Mabus, who broke no laws by recording the meeting.

The suit drew attention in 2002 as a potential test case for privacy rights involving churches. Ms. Hines went on something of a media blitz, describing in nationally televised interviews what she called a betrayal by her priest in collusion with her ex-husband. A judge dismissed her suit in 2006; the Mississippi Supreme Court is expected to consider an appeal this year.

A White House official, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations on a personnel matter, said that officials who reviewed Mr. Mabus’s background knew about the messy divorce and did not view it as material to his potential duties as Navy secretary.

In response to questions, the White House released a statement Sunday that said, “The president nominated Governor Mabus to be secretary of the Navy because he has the proven leadership and experience our nation needs to serve in this important position.”

more at the link

[PaceAdvantage]

1984, here we come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[mostpost]

1984, here we come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
EXCESSIVE USE OF EMOTICONS!!!!!! WHERE'S THE ADMINISTRATOR WHEN YOU NEED HIM:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Tom]

5 more and you would be joining 46. :D

[mostpost]

Democrats are against illegal wiretaps. The Bush administration wanted to bypass the FISA court and wiretap US citizens based on innuendo and hunch. Or if they disliked you. Read the sixth paragraph of your story where it says that Ms. Hines did not sue Mr. Mabus who broke no laws by making the recording.
Two things wrong with your argument; first, it wasn't wiretapping, it was an in person recording, and second it "broke no laws".

[jballscalls]

Democrats are against illegal wiretaps. The Bush administration wanted to bypass the FISA court and wiretap US citizens based on innuendo and hunch. Or if they disliked you. Read the sixth paragraph of your story where it says that Ms. Hines did not sue Mr. Mabus who broke no laws by making the recording.
Two things wrong with your argument; first, it wasn't wiretapping, it was an in person recording, and second it "broke no laws".

:ThmbUp: good point

[Lefty]

mostpost, the Bush wiretaps did not target u.s. citizens. the taps were on overseas lines and only if a u.s. citizen was talking to a suspected terrorist was he likely to be wiretapped. secondly, individual conversations were not listened to. Computers were listening for buzz words and repetitive statements. One time the words Brooklyn Bridge kept coming up. We saved the Brooklyn Bridge due to these wiretaps. A mall was saved in Ohio and who knows how many american lives were saved?
Thank You, George W Bush.

[Tom]

Too bad Obummer can't do that now, and the Taliban is threatening to strike the White House.......gee, too bad.

[JustRalph]

Democrats are against illegal wiretaps. The Bush administration wanted to bypass the FISA court and wiretap US citizens based on innuendo and hunch. Or if they disliked you. Read the sixth paragraph of your story where it says that Ms. Hines did not sue Mr. Mabus who broke no laws by making the recording.
Two things wrong with your argument; first, it wasn't wiretapping, it was an in person recording, and second it "broke no laws".


You ever heard of Sarcasm? I know it wasn't wiretapping. It was just a case of him being a prick. He setup his wife (no angel herself) by getting his buddy the priest to go along with his plan.......shame on her for being so stupid..........

you have no sense of humor? or what? The thread title was in jest..........

[mostpost]

You ever heard of Sarcasm? I know it wasn't wiretapping. It was just a case of him being a prick. He setup his wife (no angel herself) by getting his buddy the priest to go along with his plan.......shame on her for being so stupid..........

you have no sense of humor? or what? The thread title was in jest..........
Considering most of your contributions here, It would be tough for me identify that thread title as sarcasm. Perhaps you should have used one of these:rolleyes: .

Apparently, some of the others who replied also took you seriously.

[ddog]

mostpost, the Bush wiretaps did not target u.s. citizens. the taps were on overseas lines and only if a u.s. citizen was talking to a suspected terrorist was he likely to be wiretapped. secondly, individual conversations were not listened to. Computers were listening for buzz words and repetitive statements. One time the words Brooklyn Bridge kept coming up. We saved the Brooklyn Bridge due to these wiretaps. A mall was saved in Ohio and who knows how many american lives were saved?
Thank You, George W Bush.

and i have a bridge in alaska to sell you.

what you described CANT WORK OR BE DONE IN THE REAL WORLD.

think lefty think hard, when did we come to "suspect" a terrorist???
How did that work and then how would you filter just those conversations out of trillions of junk?

buzzwords, i luv it, did that come from the buzzing in your head!!!

You are a riot a scream .

[JustRalph]

Considering most of your contributions here, It would be tough for me identify that thread title as sarcasm. Perhaps you should have used one of these:rolleyes: .

Apparently, some of the others who replied also took you seriously.


emoticons don't work in thread titles......... I will try to paint a better picture next tim..........

[mostpost]

mostpost, the Bush wiretaps did not target u.s. citizens. the taps were on overseas lines and only if a u.s. citizen was talking to a suspected terrorist was he likely to be wiretapped. secondly, individual conversations were not listened to. Computers were listening for buzz words and repetitive statements. One time the words Brooklyn Bridge kept coming up. We saved the Brooklyn Bridge due to these wiretaps. A mall was saved in Ohio and who knows how many american lives were saved?
Thank You, George W Bush.
There is some question as to how credible and how far along those plans were. In fact, Lyman Faris who was tasked with scouting the Bridge reported back to his superiors that the structure of the bridge and the heavy security made the plan unworkable.
That being said, it would be a huge mistake to ignore intelligence like this. The point I am trying to make is that it is better to obtain said intelligence through legal channels. Current law gives the government a grace period of (I think) 48 hours to obtain authorization AFTER they begin an electronic surveiilance.
You say the Bush wiretaps did not target US citizens, and that may be true,now. But if we give the government unfettered power to decide who needs to be listened to, what is to prevent them from listening to and keeping a dossier on those who are not subversive, but merely have a different viewpoint.
Finally, looking at the Brooklyn Bridge case, after Lyman Faris was convivted, his attorney appealed the verdict based on the fact the U.S. based its case on evidence obtained through illegal wiretaps. I do not know how that was finally adjudicated, or if it has been, but why risk overturning a conviction when you can do things the right way.

[PaceAdvantage]

Apparently, some of the others who replied also took you seriously.I certainly hope you don't consider my reply as one of the serious ones. Man you guys are easy marks.

[sammy the sage]

"""I certainly hope you don't consider my reply as one of the serious ones. Man you guys are easy marks.""" :lol: :D

But for ONCE...you ACTUALLY got IT RIGHT! :p ;)

[Lefty]

dog, that's the way it was described. Do you think a human being could moniter all these conversations. You use a computer but do not seem to know what they are capable of. You must get some masochistic joy in being wrong.

[Lefty]

mostpost,i'll ask you a qyestion. why risk losing bridges, malls, and lives when it can be stopped. your rights were not abrogated.
But now, under Obama, look out.

[mostpost]

mostpost,i'll ask you a qyestion. why risk losing bridges, malls, and lives when it can be stopped. your rights were not abrogated.
But now, under Obama, look out.

I don't know how I can say this more clearly. I am all for intelligence gathering which is constitutionally certified. The FISA court was set up for this purpose. And it isn't even necessary to go to the court before initiating the surveillance. There is a grace period if the agency feels that a threat is imminent.
When this controversy was going on, I seem to remember hearing that the FISA court was extremely reluctant to deny the government's request.

The Bush administration wanted to be able to wiretap or "mine" conversations without oversight. And without providing evidence to justify a particular action even after the fact. What is to prevent them, or future goverments from spying on its citizens just because they are of a different political party or are active in a union, or are active against a union, or make over 32000 posts to an online forum. (I'm sorry...that's just silly...that would never happen.) The point is with the present laws the information can still be gathered and if the people in the government abuse their power the law can be brought to bear. There may be times when circumstances dictate a bending of the rules and that can be determined. Without laws anything goes.

"But now, under Obama, anything goes"

I don't know what this means. The Obama administration is not seeking to circumvent the FISA court. The Obama administration is working to close Guantanamo. The Obama administration is seeking trials for the accused. The Obama administration is not trying an end run around the second or fourth Amendments.

Please provide me with specific examples of how you think Obama is threatening our freedoms.

You know what really drives me crazy? You're "Lefty" but your ideas are so "Righty" :confused:

[Lefty]

A grace period if a threat is imminent, wow. So what happens during the grace period? Probably the terrorists strike. The fisa law is burdonsome in fighting terrorists. I can't make this more clear: You weren't wiretapped unless you spoke to terrorists. The conversations were monitered by computers.
Thanks, G Bush for keeping us safe from terrorists and stupidity.
Obama running wild on our rights on the economy.
He won't even use the term war on terror, so if push comes to shove, I don't think he will be a good defender of this country. That big budget he's coming out with slashes the defense budget and gives more money to social prgms.
Gawd.

[cj's dad]

Quote from Lefty "He won't even use the term war on terror",


The new term is

"people who don't like us and who are trying to kill us and if they don't stop it we're going to be really angry and, and .... well please, can't we all just get along".

How quickly this bulls--t could end if only the right people were in charge.

[mostpost]

Quote from Lefty:
A grace period if a threat is imminent, wow. So what happens during the grace period? Probably the terrorists strike

Wow, Lefty, that is an incredible misreading of my statement. You make it sound like the grace period is for the terrorists to proceed with their plans while the government is forbidden to perform surveillance until they receive proper authorization. IT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Co urt

Key points: Out of more than 18000 requests only five were denied.
In an emergency, surveillance, wiretapping etc. can begin IMMEDIATELY, the government then has 72 hours to obtain authorization retroactively.

You want to give government carte blanche to spy on its citizens. I recognize the need to gather intelligence on known or suspected enemies, but respect a persons right to privacy.

[mostpost]

Quote from Lefty:

Thanks, G Bush for keeping us safe from terrorists and stupidity

Yes, Thanks George Bush!
Except for the 3000 plus who died in the World Trade Center, because you ignored all the warnings. (During the Clinton years, the White House Task Force on Terror met almost daily and Met with President Clinton once or twice every week. During the period from Jan. 20, 2001 to Sept. 11, 2001 it met one time!!)
And except for the 4000 Americans who were killed in Iraq in a war that you started that had little or nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11. 4000 Americans who were killed by terrorists who entered that country after we did.

And except for who knows how many still to die in Afghanistan because you pulled troops out on the verge of capturing Osama Bin Laden so they could fight in your war of choice. Talk about stupidity!:bang:

[mostpost]

Quote from Lefty:

He (Obama) won't even use the term war on terror.

First of all, terror is a tactic. You can't wage war on a tactic. You can wage war on those employing a tactic (Terrorsts) Second, the decision to not use the term "War on Terror" signals a willingness to change tactics in the battle against TERRORISTS, because the previous plan worked so well:rolleyes:. A willingness to use diplomacy:eek: to attempt to isolate the terrorist rather than just killling him (and , by the way, everyone within 100 meters of him.), a willingness to reach out to moderates and through them to the more militant.
An example of this: During the Bush Administration we refused to talk to Syria unless they banished Hamas from their country. Now, of course they would not do this. Even if they wanted to, the government of Syria could not be seen as kowtowing to the United States. On the other hand, the Obama Administration said to Syria, "Hey we don't like the fact that Hamas uses Syria has a base of operations. But we recognize your situation and we ask that you do what you can to encourage them to act moderately. In return, we can perhaps begin discussions on the problems between us"

It's the difference between cooperation and fanaticism.
As I said, the Bush way worked so well:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Yes, Thanks George Bush!
Except for the 3000 plus who died in the World Trade Center, because you ignored all the warnings. (During the Clinton years, the White House Task Force on Terror met almost daily and Met with President Clinton once or twice every week.

9-11 was hatched under Clinton's nose. The Cole was hit, attacks on barracks and embassy's were regular. We got hit as often as those guys met. For all that talk, they missed every plot against us and allowed Al Qeda to grow and develop. One hit and Bush took care of business.

So yes, THANK YOU GEORGE BUSH FOR ACTING LIKE A CNC INSTEAD OF A SEX-STARVED TEENAGER LIKE BILL CLINTON, THE FATHER OF MODERN TERROISM.

[mostpost]

9-11 was hatched under Clinton's nose. The Cole was hit, attacks on barracks and embassy's were regular. We got hit as often as those guys met. For all that talk, they missed every plot against us and allowed Al Qeda to grow and develop. One hit and Bush took care of business.

So yes, THANK YOU GEORGE BUSH FOR ACTING LIKE A CNC INSTEAD OF A SEX-STARVED TEENAGER LIKE BILL CLINTON, THE FATHER OF MODERN TERROISM.

First World Trade Center Bombing: More than twenty people in prison, most during Clinton's Admin. Khobar Towers bombing: Perpetrators captured and executed by Saudi Arabia. OK City bombing: Perpetrator captured within hours. (ok..he was an idiot). Attack on the Cole: Clinton Admin. sent 1500 FBI Agents to yemen to aid in investigation. When Bush took office, the US ambassador to Yemen ordered them out of the country. Some of the people responsible were later captured.

"One hit and Bush took care of business" In what way? He sent troops to Afghanistan to hunt down and destroy Bin Laden and his organization, but then removed many of those troops just when they had him in their grasp. He
used false information to take our eye off the ball and invade Iraq. He declared "Mission Accomplished" before most American casualties in that war occurred. He is responsible for 7000 American deaths. And no one has been held legally responsible for the attacks which pecipitated all of this.
A Sex Starved Teenager could have done better

[Marshall Bennett]

He is responsible for 7000 American deaths.
Iraq is a far far better place than before Bush was involved . He is not responsible for 9-11 . I suppose you also beleive FDR was responsible for 300,000 deaths . LBJ for 50,000 , and so on . I beleive your twisted logic is only typical of most liberals that measure the cost of freedom in a vacuum .

[Lefty]

well, post, if we have to wait 72 hrs then that gives the terrorists a 72 headstart, eh what?
We had 9-11 not because Bush ignored the warnings, we had 9-11 because of the WALL a dim political device that made in unlawful for various law enforcement agencies to share information. Under that scenario nobody could've predicted or prevented 9-11. But Bush sure as hell thwarted anymore 9-11's and with the help of wiretapping terriorists which you oppose. wise up.

[mostpost]

well, post, if we have to wait 72 hrs then that gives the terrorists a 72 headstart, eh what?
We had 9-11 not because Bush ignored the warnings, we had 9-11 because of the WALL a dim political device that made in unlawful for various law enforcement agencies to share information. Under that scenario nobody could've predicted or prevented 9-11. But Bush sure as hell thwarted anymore 9-11's and with the help of wiretapping terriorists which you oppose. wise up.

I give up!:bang: :bang: :bang: You obviously don't read what I write...or you don't comprehend it!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Lefty]

OR, your writing isn't all that clear. What did I not understand? You blamed Bush for 9-11. I punctured that fantasy balloon. Pig Simple.

[mostpost]

OR, your writing isn't all that clear. What did I not understand? You blamed Bush for 9-11. I punctured that fantasy balloon. Pig Simple.

Let's leave aside the question of whether Bush was to blame for 9-11. We agree to disagree. The issue is if requiring approval of a wiretap gives an advantage to terrorists and put the country in danger.

I said: Key points: Out of more than 18000 requests only five were denied.
In an emergency, surveillance, wiretapping etc. can begin IMMEDIATELY, the government then has 72 hours to obtain authorization retroactively.

Your reply was:
well, post, if we have to wait 72 hrs then that gives the terrorists a 72 headstart, eh what?

Your reply made it seem that I was saying the exact opposite of what I WAS saying.
Let's see if this makes it clearer. Let's say we go out to eat. We go to a restaurant; we order and then eat. Only after we have finished our meal do we have to pay. In like matter, our intelligence agents can perform surveillance on suspected terrorists (Eat their Meal) then obtain the authorization, (Pay the bill)

[Tom]

I give up!:bang: :bang: :bang: You obviously don't read what I write...or you don't comprehend it!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:

Or recognize nonsense when we read it.

[Lefty]

post, ok, didn't you say it takes 72 hours to get the authorizatation? that's the way I read it. Don't you think it possible to wreak a lot of havoc in 72 hours?
Face it, Bush did the right thing. Result: No more 9-11's.

[PaceAdvantage]

post, ok, didn't you say it takes 72 hours to get the authorizatation? that's the way I read it. Don't you think it possible to wreak a lot of havoc in 72 hours?
Face it, Bush did the right thing. Result: No more 9-11's.No, he said the gov't can start wiretapping IMMEDIATELY if there is a perceived immediate threat, and THEN the gov't has 72 hours to get authorization to CONTINUE to wiretap....

Basically, mostpost is saying the Bush policy was unnecessary, since the gov't was able to wiretap at will when certain conditions were met. Sort of a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that was already in place.

If this is the case, then why did Bush push for expansion? What was it he needed that he wasn't getting? I direct this question to mostpost.

[mostpost]

No, he said the gov't can start wiretapping IMMEDIATELY if there is a perceived immediate threat, and THEN the gov't has 72 hours to get authorization to CONTINUE to wiretap....

Basically, mostpost is saying the Bush policy was unnecessary, since the gov't was able to wiretap at will when certain conditions were met. Sort of a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that was already in place.

If this is the case, then why did Bush push for expansion? What was it he needed that he wasn't getting? I direct this question to mostpost.

For paragraphs one and two; Thank You! I was starting to think I was crazy. (I even asked the nice man in the white coat for extra medicine!!)

As to your question in paragraph three. I don't know. Some would say that he was just trying to accrue extra power. But I am willing to concede that he honestly felt he needed it. However, I and many people disagree. We feel that the present system serves the purpose and protects our civil liberties.

[Lefty]

Ok, Pa, you 'splained it better than the post. But it seems like a stupid an irrational way to do it, so I understand why Bush opted to do it the right way; his way.