SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (272844)2/8/2006 9:58:35 AM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575906
 
"But the your counter argument post's wording is too vague to hold up in court."

Never said it was. But it certainly is enough to be suspicious, if the administration already felt they had enough power to do what, by that point, they were doing, then why ask for it?

We need clearer statements from the Congressmen involved in this at the time.



To: Elroy who wrote (272844)2/9/2006 5:01:51 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575906
 
It's possible Bush requested the right for blanket domestic eavesdropping, was denied it, but still thought he had the right to eavesdrop on communications where one party is in the US and the other party is both outside the US and is expected to have ties to Al Qaeda.

As it turns out, they were eavesdropping on calls of Quakers in FLA and anti war demonstrators in Santa Cruz [among others], neither of which were getting calls from al Qaeda.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News