President Bush Seeks Broader Wiretapping Authority (1 Viewer)


More than 15K posts served!
Jul 16, 2005
Reaction score
Jackson, ms
President Bush wants Congress to broaden the government's powers to eavesdrop on private conversations without court approval. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports, a controversial public surveillance law is set to expire February 1.

President Bush says the government's ability to listen-in on telephone calls is critical to fighting terror.

President Bush speaks at a Republican lawmakers luncheon in Sulphur Springs, W.Va, 25 Jan 2008
"One of the most important tools is to be able to figure out the intentions of an enemy that still wants to do us harm," he said. "If they are making calls into America, we need to know why they are calling, what they are thinking, and what they are planning."

Let's see what the democrats that were elected to the Senate and Congress do. Remember them campaigning hard against the Patriot Act?

Considering a democrat sponsored H.R. 1955, the Homegrown Terrorist Bill or illegal thoughts bill was sponsored by a democrat and only had 6 votes against it I bet it goes through.

Yay Republicrats for making us "safe" from the boogie men of the world.


Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Sep 1, 1999
Reaction score
Stealing money would help a lot of Americans pay their bills, too. But that's not right either.

I agree that our Government needs to be empowered to fight terrorism but not if it means trampling the Constitution in the process. Figure out and utilize those methods that don't make a mockery of the standards we are supposed to uphold. For the sake of the liberty we cherish, maintain a level of oversight and due process.

In our ongoing mission to protect American lives, U.S. soil, and interests abroad, we're losing sight of those tenets, ideals, and the basic framework that supposedly makes any of that worth protecting in the first place.


Lint smoker
May 8, 2002
Reaction score
Alexandria, LA
Might as well just crown chimpy emperor and get it over with.

Like I said in another thread this bunch can't get out fast enough. Thing is, I seriously doubt the next one will be any better.


Sep 6, 2004
Reaction score
The sad thing is that all of the pieces that could have (conceivably) alerted our federal guardians to the 9/11 plot and enabled them to prevent it was already out there through pre Patriot Act methods. We were always told that they couldn't piece it together because they were swamped with data.

The federales solution? Backdoor the constitution...and add a whole lot more potentially confusing data to the equation! :shrug:

Do they really think they are going to intercept a call between terrorists that just point blank says "OK...remember, we're bombing the Golden Gate Bridge this Wednesday at 2 PM. Don't forget to swing by Salim's house at 201 Oak Street to grab the dynamite. Just a quick are the names, adresses, and physical descriptions of your 8 accomplises"?


May 26, 2007
Reaction score

In January 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his opinion: "There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away." He was challenged by Sen. Arlen Specter who asked him to explain how it is possible to prohibit something from being taken away, without first being granted.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4]</SUP>
As Robert Parry writes in the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:
<TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. Ironically, Gonzales may be wrong in another way about the lack of specificity in the Constitution’s granting of habeas corpus rights. Many of the legal features attributed to habeas corpus are delineated in a positive way in the Sixth Amendment...<SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[5]</SUP>
</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 36px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right" vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The Department of Justice has taken the position in litigation that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not amount to a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, on February 20, 2007, which the U.S. Supreme Court initially declined to review. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed its decision to deny review and took up the case in June of 2007




cell phones

how will it end?
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread


New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed



Top Bottom