Yep, as long as none of us pick up a phone or

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Looks like one of your own started the modern NSA wiretaps. I think the Democrats fail to realize there's this thing out there called the Internet and not just the bullhorn of the leftist media to give the peasants amnesia to what they've done in the past.

In 1994 Sen. Pat Leaky Leahy co-wrote a law that forced telecommunications carriers to build convenient wiretap features into their networks enabling the kind of telephone records collection now at the heart of the controversy over the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance operation.

In recent days Leahy has called the NSA's actions troubling and potentially illegal - saying they show that the Bush administration is treating Americans like terrorists.

'The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans? he exclaimed after USA Today blew the lid off the program last week. Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?

But according to the Rutland Herald, Leahy was singing a different tune 12 years ago, when he was pushing the Senate to pass his bill, the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA].

I suggest to senators if anybody does want to hold [CALEA] up, I hope that at this time next year, neither they nor their constituents, nor anybody they know, is a kidnap victim or victim of a terrorist, and have somebody ask why nothing can be done, and be told because a law that had probably 99 percent support in the House and the Senate did not pass.

Contacted by the Herald earlier this week, Leahy said there was an important difference between what his law authorized and the actions taken by the Bush administration.

That law talks of the technology of the interception and what technology can be used to intercept and it assumes very clearly that it can only be done with a warrant, the Vermont Democrat insisted.

Some legal experts say, however, said that assumption is not as clear as Leahy claims. Analyzing CALEA in 2003, the Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal explained:

CALEA requires a telecommunications provider to make 'its equipment, facilities, or services ... capable of ... enabling the government ... [without a warrant] to intercept ... all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier.'

The secret search and wiretap provisions could lead to an age of Big Brother-like surveillance, the American Civil Liberties Union complained in the same Law Journal report. Americans who oppose U.S. policies and who are believed to have ties to foreign powers could find their homes broken into and their telephones tapped.

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press WriterMon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET

Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 � as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was preposterous to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case.

Democrats plan to ask a federal judge Tuesday to order GOP and White House officials to answer questions about the phone jamming in a civil lawsuit alleging voter fraud.

Repeated hang-up calls that jammed telephone lines at a Democratic get-out-the-vote center occurred in a Senate race in which Republican John Sununu defeated Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, 51 percent to 46 percent, on Nov. 5, 2002.

Besides the conviction of Tobin, the Republicans' New England regional director, prosecutors negotiated two plea bargains: one with a New Hampshire Republican Party official and another with the owner of a telemarketing firm involved in the scheme. The owner of the subcontractor firm whose employees made the hang-up calls is under indictment.

The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people.

A GOP campaign consultant in 2002, Jayne Millerick, made a 17-minute call to the White House on Election Day, but said in an interview she did not recall the subject. Millerick, who later became the New Hampshire GOP chairwoman, said in an interview she did not learn of the jamming until after the election.

A Democratic analysis of phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls � mostly to the same number in the White House political affairs office � between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.

There also were other calls between Republican officials during the period that the scheme was hatched and canceled.

Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.

Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors tried a very narrow case, said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used.

The Democrats said in their civil case motion that they were entitled to know the purpose of the calls to government offices at the time of the planning and implementation of the phone-jamming conspiracy ... and the timing of the phone calls made by Mr. Tobin on Election Day.

While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime.

By Nov. 4, 2002, the Monday before the election, an Idaho firm was hired to make the hang-up calls. The Republican state chairman at the time, John Dowd, said in an interview he learned of the scheme that day and tried to stop it.

Dowd, who blamed an aide for devising the scheme without his knowledge, contended that the jamming began on Election Day despite his efforts. A police report confirmed the Manchester Professional Fire Fighters Association reported the hang-up calls began about 7:15 a.m. and continued for about two hours. The association was offering rides to the polls.

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

As policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer representing the Republican National Committee in the civil litigation, said there was no connection between the phone jamming operation and the calls to the White House and party officials.

On Election Day, as anybody involved in politics knows, there's a tremendous volume of calls between political operatives in the field and political operatives in Washington, Kelner said.

If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day, he said.

You're making dinner and trying to sit down with your family to eat after an exhausting work week and pouring over your 401K loss report. You have just found out that the $42,000 you had accumulated as of last spring is now worth $26,040. You've just turned off the burner under the hot veggies when, BRRRINNNGGGG, the phone rings. It's the McCain campaign delivering an urgent message to you in the privacy of your own home, assuming you never listen to network news, read a paper or go on line and are unaware of their latest breaking news....telling you that Barack Obama is a terrorist who hangs with other terrorists, on the off chance that it might capture your previously uncommitted vote. If it happened to me, I would be up with the chickens Monday morning at the early voting polls telling every single peson within earshot that I had just voted a straight Dem ticket. How dare they?

I truly do not like either McCain or Obama. I don't want to NOT vote. I don't want to stay in the same course we are in.....which counts McCain out. But I don't want to vote for change just for the sake of change. If it were a change I could believe in and have faith....okay....but I don't and so that counts Obama out. So now what?

Don't we pick which Bible adages we follow? The Bible also says turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others....yet many Christians in various venues (including these boards) chide others for being advocates of peace, tolerance and love for all citizens of the world.

The Bible has contradictions, it was written by men, after all and seems incredibly subject to interpretation.

Jesus Christ to be in his cabinet and you people would find some something to b**ch about that, too. Good grief!!

However, we are now at a point where time is the word of the day. Here's my problem with the situation. If he's so terrible, why are they voting him in? That applies to dems and pubs, as both sides have expressed concern. So, we know they're going to vote him in, so what's the point in all the delays? I think at this point it's just political grandstanding by the pubs. They did the same thing with Hillary. The guy that held that one up actually voted for her, and said he was going to vote for her, but still delayed the process.

For that matter, check out the attorney general position. What's the problem with Holder? On this one the pubs want to *question* him more about torture. Exactly what do the pubs want to hear? Maybe *torture is wrong, but we won't prosecute?* More pollitical grandstanding.

You said: "What about the voters of CA voting against gay marriage and now it's supposedly going to the Supreme Court? That's ridiculous. Since when is the Supreme Court allowed to overturn the voter's wishes? "

My question to you would be when was the last time it was okay for individual rights to be taken away with a popular vote? Individual rights are guaranteed by the constitution (which discourages discrimination), not subject to the vote of the day. That is why it needs to go to the supreme court. Do you think it would be okay to all of the sudden pop up and have a vote in 2009 on whether or not women can vote when we already have that right? On top of that, the state supreme court has now ruled that prop 8 stands, so at this point LGBTs cannot get married. However, (and here comes the double standard), LGBTs who are already married can stay married? What kind of reasoning is that? As far as I'm concerned, this is a textbook case of discrimination.

Maybe we should all check the facts before judging this guy. Actions speak much louder than words. Below are 2 sites, The first is a list of bills he sponsored. The other is his voting record.

MSNBC has a "Veepstakes" where you get to make picks on who McCain will pick for VP, and that's kind of fun. I have no idea who he will pick, but here are some names that are bounced around:

Bobby Jindal (I think too young at 36, but religious right seems to like him, which is more than I can say for McCain, so maybe that would help him there).

Charlie Crist (McCain totally owes him for helping him boost to front runner affter Florida, but he's kind of liberal for base's tastes).

Mitt Romney (the favorite in the "Veepstakes." Would help McCain in some places like Michigan, could hurt in deep south).