Re: Where the *** Was Cheney?


"William Clark" <wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wclark2-FC94E4.21090106052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4a01ddfc$0$23784$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:clark-541A54.14151306052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <76dpc0F1cf90pU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4a01905f$0$23767$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:clark-BD2304.09140806052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4a017c3b$0$23766$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:clark-9156A3.17302205052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4a009b5e$0$23737$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:clark-36D479.15025505052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4a0034a6$0$23755$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:wclark2-9FFC93.20054104052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
u..
.
In article <sceuv4pjis7hmjjo42l21n2mo94t5ntbtn@xxxxxxx>,
Don Kirkman <donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that The moderator wrote
in
article
<49ff310f$0$23766$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
in
message
news:clark-09ABD0.13511804052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
edu
...
In article
<49feff14$0$23766$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark"
<clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in
message
news:clark-70E2BC.09443204052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
te.
edu.
..
In article
<49fec145$0$23739$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The Moderator" <sparky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
in
message
news:wclark2-22C0E2.13445803052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
o-s
tate
.ed
u..
.
In article
<49fd07b0$0$31187$882e0bbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
assimilate@xxxxxxxx wrote:

On 2-May-2009, William Clark
<wclark2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Please list a cite for the controls Obama
instituted.

Well, just using FISA as the law is written
would
be a
start.

right, a law that predates wireless, internet,
and
the
communications
revolution in general should be used to set the
rules
of
monitoring
said
cpmmunications.

The technology has absolutely nothing to do with
it.
It is
the
importance of obtaining legal sanction BEFORE
(or
at
least
within 24
hours) intercepting that is the key point that
the
Bush
administration
trampled all over.

But, when Obama does it, everything is fine.

No, I don't happen to like it - although you
clearly
do,
unless
the
Democrats do it. However, abiding by the law as
contained
in
FISA
would
at least be a step forward from the Bush/Cheney
era.

It is a step forward since Obama is doing the same
thing
that
President
Bush
did? I am sure it is in your world.

Is he? Is he really wiretapping without court approval
within no
more
than 24 hours? Has he really said that FISA is
irrelevant? I
am
sure
you
can cite the evidence that he is. I am sure we all
look
forward
to
seeing it.

Obviously you have no idea what Obama is doing. He
filed a
stay
order
in
the lawsuit filed against the Government to stop
wireless
wiretapping.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/files/alharamai
nob
ama.
pdf

So in the face of this evidence will can see that Obama
has
continued
the
eavesdropping program.

Stay orders are issued by the judge in a case, not by a
President
or
attorneys--participants *request* stays, which they are
doing
in
this
document; there is no indication of the court's response
to
the
request. What is at issue in the docket matter you cite
is
whether
further proceedings in one specific case should be stayed
until
a
pending appeal is considered. This is routine legal
procedure
that
applies to whatever type of case is at issue.

Yes, but you don't seriously expect him to understand
that,
do
you?
In
the first place, he would have to have read it, in the
second,
he
would
have then to have understood it, and in the third place,
it
wouldn't
fit
his anti-Obama prejudice. I think we are 0 for 3 on this
one.


Now can you point to evidence that Obama is "doing the
same
thing
that
President Bush did" (specifically, not general
allegations)
or
"continued the eavesdropping program"?

No, he can't. I have asked and he just can't. Not
surprising,
because
there isn't any evidence of that.

I presented evidence of that. Show me the executive order
changing
the
eavesdropping program. Can't do it?

No you did not. You presented no "evidence" at all. And the
issue
is
not
really "changing" the executive order, it is simply abiding
by
the
requirements of FISA, something the Bush administration
deemed
quite
unnecessary. So you show me something, anything, that says
that
the
Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration
illegal
practice of wiretapping without ever seeking the required
warrant
to do
so under FISA. Go on, I dare you.

Provide evidence that the program was illegal.

FISA is the law - the Bush administration chose to ignore it. If
I
ignore the laws against burglary, I get arrested.

QED.

Translation - You have nothing, but we see that every day. Almost
caught
your tail that time. You crack me up.

Translation - you cnanot (will not) answer the question put to you
by
at
least three posters - i.e. what is your evidence that the Obama
administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of
wiretapping without the legal approvals required under FISA? You
keep
bleating about "things being the same", so let us see the proof.

Either that, or just admit you have none, and withdraw.

I provided proof. You dismiss it to suit your purpose. What have
you
provided to support Obama has done anything different than President
Bush?

Nothing.

I like how you hold everyone else to a higher standard than you hold
for
yourself.

Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses
"sovereign immunity" from suit for conducting electronic surveillance
that
violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However,
FISA
is
only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to
wiretap.
The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and
claims
that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under
the
two
remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the
Stored
Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed
that
the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance
under
any
federal statutes.

Again, the gulf between Candidate Obama and President Obama is
striking.
As
a candidate, Obama ran promising a new era of government transparency
and
accountability, an end to the Bush DOJ's radical theories of executive
power, and reform of the PATRIOT Act. But, this week, Obama's own
Department
Of Justice has argued that, under the PATRIOT Act, the government
shall
be
entirely unaccountable for surveilling Americans in violation of its
own
laws

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush

Nice cut and paste. And what are the names on the original suit? Thanks
you.

Classic Clark deflection. He will say anything except admitting his
mistakes.

Except that here there are none to admit to, other than wasting time
trying to talk rationally with a dead to the world wingnut, who refuses
to address the issue.

*See my post above.*



.

Loading