Toyota Nation Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.

Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.

The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
On 21 Dec 2005 11:11:01 -0800, "Learning Richard"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
>strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.
>
>Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
>nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.
>
>The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
>cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.



Excellent.

Oh, and ...

DEBUNKING THE WAR RESOLUTION MYTH: President Bush said on Monday that
he did not have to secure warrants to spy on Americans because "after
September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me
additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda." Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales made the same case, in greater detail. But
Congress clearly did not intend for the AUMF passed after 9/11 to
authorize such activities. When the authorization was debated on
September 14, 2001, members of Congress were extremely clear about the
limited authority it gave the President. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
noted that it provided "no new or additional grant of powers to the
President." Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) argued, "Some people say that is a
broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this
country. It is not. It is a very limited concept." Several additional
statements here.

DEBUNKING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MYTH: Conservative activist Matt Drudge
yesterday posted the following headline on his popular website:
"Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search on Americans Without Court
Order." This is false. Drudge highlights one sentence from an
executive order issued by President Clinton in February 1995: "The
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order." But the order also includes the following text:
"Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance] Act (FISA), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to
acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one
year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by
that section." That section of FISA requires the Attorney General to
certify that the search will not involve "the premises, information,
material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S.
citizens or anyone inside of the United States. In stark contrast,
Bush’s program permits, for the first time ever, warrantless
surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United
States. Neither Clinton’s 1995 executive order, nor President Carter's
1979 executive order (which Drudge also claims allows warrantless
searches of Americans) authorizes that.

DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by
Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed
Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy
Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony that "the
President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical
searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the
testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the
time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under
FISA. It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical
searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton’s
backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. The
distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a
criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a
set of recommendations they could ignore.

DEBUNKING THE ECHELON MYTH: Another variation of the "Clinton did it"
argument involves a top-secret surveillance program employed by the
Clinton administration, code-named Echelon. The conservative outlet
NewsMax presents the basic case: "During the 1990’s under President
Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private
phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries
under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks." This is
false. The Echelon program complied with FISA. Before any
conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was
obtained. Then-CIA director George Tenet testified to this before
Congress on 4/12/00: "We do not collect against U.S. persons unless
they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law.
We do not target their conversations for collection in the United
States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by
the Justice Department."

Reposted from one of the many sites republicans don't want people to
read; American Progress.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
In article <[email protected]>,
"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
> strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.
>
> Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
> nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.
>
> The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
> cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.


Means we'll have less dependence on middle east oil, right?
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
In article <[email protected]>,
Gary L. Burnore <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 21 Dec 2005 11:11:01 -0800, "Learning Richard"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
> >strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.
> >
> >Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
> >nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.
> >
> >The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
> >cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.

>
>
> Excellent.
>
> Oh, and ...
>
> DEBUNKING THE WAR RESOLUTION MYTH: President Bush said on Monday that
> he did not have to secure warrants to spy on Americans because "after
> September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me
> additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda." Attorney
> General Alberto Gonzales made the same case, in greater detail. But
> Congress clearly did not intend for the AUMF passed after 9/11 to
> authorize such activities. When the authorization was debated on
> September 14, 2001, members of Congress were extremely clear about the
> limited authority it gave the President. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
> noted that it provided "no new or additional grant of powers to the
> President." Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) argued, "Some people say that is a
> broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this
> country. It is not. It is a very limited concept." Several additional
> statements here.
>
> DEBUNKING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MYTH: Conservative activist Matt Drudge
> yesterday posted the following headline on his popular website:
> "Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search on Americans Without Court
> Order." This is false. Drudge highlights one sentence from an
> executive order issued by President Clinton in February 1995: "The
> Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
> court order." But the order also includes the following text:
> "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign
> Intelligence Surveillance] Act (FISA), the Attorney General is
> authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to
> acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one
> year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by
> that section." That section of FISA requires the Attorney General to
> certify that the search will not involve "the premises, information,
> material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S.
> citizens or anyone inside of the United States. In stark contrast,
> Bush’s program permits, for the first time ever, warrantless
> surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United
> States. Neither Clinton’s 1995 executive order, nor President Carter's
> 1979 executive order (which Drudge also claims allows warrantless
> searches of Americans) authorizes that.
>
> DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by
> Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed
> Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy
> Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony that "the
> President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical
> searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the
> testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the
> time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under
> FISA. It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical
> searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton’s
> backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. The
> distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a
> criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a
> set of recommendations they could ignore.
>
> DEBUNKING THE ECHELON MYTH: Another variation of the "Clinton did it"
> argument involves a top-secret surveillance program employed by the
> Clinton administration, code-named Echelon. The conservative outlet
> NewsMax presents the basic case: "During the 1990’s under President
> Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private
> phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries
> under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without
> a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks." This is
> false. The Echelon program complied with FISA. Before any
> conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was
> obtained. Then-CIA director George Tenet testified to this before
> Congress on 4/12/00: "We do not collect against U.S. persons unless
> they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law.
> We do not target their conversations for collection in the United
> States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by
> the Justice Department."
>
> Reposted from one of the many sites republicans don't want people to
> read; American Progress.


OH MY GOODNESS!!!
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi
 
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
The benevolent dbu wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
> > strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.
> >
> > Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
> > nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.
> >
> > The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
> > cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.

>
> Means we'll have less dependence on middle east oil, right?


Actually, market forces are easing our dependence on middle eastern oil
much faster than destroying ANWAR ever would.

See FORD, GM, SUV.
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
In article <[email protected]>,
"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The benevolent dbu wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
> > > strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.
> > >
> > > Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
> > > nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.
> > >
> > > The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
> > > cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.

> >
> > Means we'll have less dependence on middle east oil, right?

>
> Actually, market forces are easing our dependence on middle eastern oil
> much faster than destroying ANWAR ever would.
>
> See FORD, GM, SUV.


OH?? Now it's "market forces"? What's your next excuse?
--
"Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit."

Vince Lombardi
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Reminds one of the days when the environuts said drilling for oil on the
north slope in Alaska would destroy the area and kill the caribou. Since
the caribou have had the Alaskan pipe line to follow and keep them warm the
heard is larger than ever LOL

mike hunt


"Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> The benevolent dbu wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Learning Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Now, the genius Republicans in the Senate need to determine how to
>> > strip the ANWAR provision from the Defense bill.
>> >
>> > Huge defeat to Republican Senator Ted "30 billion dollar bridge to
>> > nowhere" Stevens of Alaska.
>> >
>> > The 56-44 vote fell 4 votes short of the three-fifths margin needed to
>> > cut off debate. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-member Senate.

>>
>> Means we'll have less dependence on middle east oil, right?

>
> Actually, market forces are easing our dependence on middle eastern oil
> much faster than destroying ANWAR ever would.
>
> See FORD, GM, SUV.
>
 
F

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Reminds one of the days when the environuts said drilling for oil on
> the north slope in Alaska would destroy the area and kill the
> caribou. Since the caribou have had the Alaskan pipe line to follow
> and keep them warm the heard is larger than ever LOL
>
> mike hunt


I hear you used to mingle with 'em. Probably should've worn a hat.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
FanJet wrote:

>Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Reminds one of the days when the environuts said drilling for oil on
>> the north slope in Alaska would destroy the area and kill the
>> caribou. Since the caribou have had the Alaskan pipe line to follow
>> and keep them warm the heard is larger than ever LOL
>>
>> mike hunt

>
>I hear you used to mingle with 'em. Probably should've worn a hat.


LOL
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top