Gore Says Bush Wiretapping Could be Impeachable Offense
Jan. 16, 2006
I ain
algore… 
:loco: :roflmao: :nyah: :joker: 
So what? Gore makes lots of silly statements. 
Did Gore attend an Ivy League school?
To quote my new ‘love’ match-- JDSmithe
“It can be” is a big CAN
I just like to think of the protester who once said outside the White House:
“Would someone PLEASE give him a bj so that we can impeach him” 
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Toe Tag”]
Did Gore attend an Ivy League school?[/quote][/quote]
No, but he did moderate the IP forum once upon a time…
Did Bush attend an Ivy League school?
For that matter, did he attend the Texas Air National Guard?
Good Grief?! Is this what it has come to? Al Gore critiquing Bush Junior? The Blind bashing the Inept… Most shocking state of affairs… 
is this all that the Mainstream Democrats can come up with? Are they truly doomed as a political force?
Good Luck, Hilary, uhm, Senator… 
algore - seek help
[quote]Gore Planned to Bug America
Charles R. Smith, Friday, Nov. 16, 2001
Secret documents show Gore rejected ‘due process.’
During the 2000 presidential elections, Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.
Gore’s dubious claim of techno-savvy came within days of his admission that he managed
to delete all of his e-mail concerning meetings with large DNC money donors.
Yet recently declassified secret documents show that Al Gore did help invent new ways
to violate the privacy of every U.S. citizen using the Internet. The secret documents,
obtained from the U.S. State Department through the Freedom of Information Act, show
that Gore rejected “due process” in an effort to force America to give up the Fourth
Amendment.
The Gore-led effort included classified memos describing ways to obtain access to all
private computer information using “key escrow,” or key recovery. The key escrow system
was designed to force U.S. citizens to give computer code keys in order to meet required
“law enforcement and intelligence” access.
In 1996, Gore proposed the legislation in order to restrict the use of “encryption,” a
technique of scrambling private information on personal computers with secret code keys.
According to a secret 1996 paper, “in August 1995, Vice President Gore approved a decision
memo to introduce ‘soft’ legislation to regulate key escrowers.” more at link
newsmax.com/archives/article … 3810.shtml[/quote]
Also do a Google on al gore + clipper chip
algore really cares about your privacy.
(And CCP money too!)
[quote]In 1993 the Clinton Administration had decided that there was just too much communicating
going out there that may or may not be susceptible to government interception. Their solution?
Endorsing the mandatory installation of a little gadget known as the Clipper Chip.
The Clipper Chip was designed to provide secure methods of private and business conversations.
Unless of course the people that wanted to listen were perceived as enemies of the state and one
may wonder the administration itself.
You see, the Clipper Chip was designed by the government, the NSA in particular, and was widely expected
to be adopted by all consumer electronics manufacturers. Who had the key? Why the NSA of course and their
political masters.
Of course this wasn
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
Yet recently declassified secret documents show that Al Gore did help invent new ways
to violate the privacy of every U.S. citizen using the Internet.[/quote]
I didn’t read anything in the articles that you provided stating that Gore argued to use the encryption ban in warrantless searches. If you have any proof that Gore intended to use the ban to search emails without a warrant, I’d like to see it.
With Bush, the issue is whether he authorized illegal and warrantless wiretaps. It appears that Gore is simply proposing a method of accessing email communication within the confines of warranted searches. Do you see the difference?
Also, the article states that Gore “proposed legislation,” which I take to mean that he would or did present his idea to Congress for their approval or rejection. This action seems a bit different from ignoring the FISA court established by Congress, which is one of the complaints against Bush.
If you wish to make a partisan attack on Gore, I suggest picking one that has merit.
Thanks Smerf for saving me the trouble. Hey, what Smerf said! :raspberry: :bravo:
Bodo
What’s all this silliness about impeaching Bush? What did the man ever do to deserve impeachment? I mean it’s not like he lied about a company that was going under or anything the way those pesky Clintons did…right? And for goodness sake’s, we all know that it takes a hummer (and a few million taxpayers’ dollars) to get any kind of impeachment trial underway.
By the way, this post is only a shameless plug for my new avatar seen to the left…
<–
Smerf, Bodo -
Regarding warrantless searches and seizures of evidence:
Executive order 12949 pursuant to FISA section 302 defined by FISA subsection 1801.
Completely legal and blessed by the former Clinton* Admin.
The physical search provision was added to FISA after the Clinton admin entered Aldrich Ames’ home without a warrant.
TITLE 50
CHAPTER 36–FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER I–ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER II–PHYSICAL SEARCHES [color=red]<- Look here[/color]
SUBCHAPTER III–PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENC
SUBCHAPTER IV–ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES
Lets not forget that the Clinton Administration had not only the NSA (think ECHELON) at it’s fingertips but also the IRS and the FBI.
Of course this was also done in the Nixon and the Johnson Administration and who knows before that.
But maybe the Republicans just don’t know how to do it so well . That’s why so many Clinton holdovers are still around.
And just for fun memories…
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Smerf, Bodo -
Regarding warrantless searches and seizures of evidence:
Executive order 12949 pursuant to FISA section 302 defined by FISA subsection 1801.
Completely legal and blessed by the former Clinton* Admin.
The physical search provision was added to FISA after the Clinton admin entered Aldrich Ames’ home without a warrant.
TITLE 50
CHAPTER 36–FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
SUBCHAPTER I–ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE[/quote]
check out SUBCHAPTER I, part (B)
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
I fully support the right of Muslim terrorists in America to make phone calls to their commanders overseas without having to worry about the US Gestapo listening in.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
The physical search provision was added to FISA after the Clinton admin entered Aldrich Ames’ home without a warrant.[/quote]
The Ames case is certainly closer on point with the Bush wiretaps than the articles you provided in your previous post. IMO, a warrant should have been obtained before searching Ames’ home, just as warrants should be obtained before the government listens in on telephone communications of U.S. citizens. I want some form of judicial oversight in these situations. Do you?
I’m glad to see that you did some research this time as I hate to read partisan arguments that lack merit.
:America:
[quote]In a 42-page legal analysis, the Justice Department cited the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the writings of presidents both Republican and Democratic, and dozens of scholarly papers and court cases in justifying President Bush’s power to order the N.S.A. surveillance program.
With the legality of the program under public attack since its disclosure last month, officials said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales ordered up the analysis partly in response to what administration lawyers felt were unfair conclusions in a Jan. 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The Congressional report challenged virtually all the main legal justifications the administration had cited for the program.
. . . . . . .
But Robert Reinstein, dean of the law school at Temple University, said in an interview that he considered the eavesdropping program “a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally,” and he said there appeared to be a broad consensus among legal scholars and national security experts that the administration’s legal arguments were weak.
[/quote]
NYT article relevant to our topic of discussion.
TC - I’m not a lawyer, so not steeped in the law, not adept at legal argument. But, as a US citizen - am concerned about the rule of law, the constitution, and concerned that these things are weakened when the executive branch of the gov’t decides it can encroach on the powers of the other two branches of gov’t.
Bodo
Don’t impeach him … FARM him! 
Don’t know why, but this pic in today’s press
reminded me of this
I’m not happy with Bush’s performance, and I didn’t vote for him. However, I think that impeachment would be a silly waste of time and tax dollars and probably make the country weaker. Do you think Cheney as pres would be an improvement?
I’m just waiting out the next three years in Taiwan. Shooby dooby dooooo…
Who cares? We all into DRAMA now!
Who cares? We all into DRAMA now![/quote]
You funny, JD.
And, uh, you got a point about the Prez Cheney thing, T.
Bodo