Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2013, 05:02 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,327,824 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Holder's refusal to address the question leads us now to ask if they did. I can't believe there is a single court anywhere that would have allowed this to happen if it did.

“Mr. Attorney General, I want to take you to the Verizon scandal and — which I understand takes us to possibly monitoring up to 120 million calls. You know, when government bureaucrats are sloppy, they’re usually really sloppy. Want to just ask, could you assure to us that no phone inside the Capitol were monitored of members of Congress that would give a future executive branch, if they started pulling this kind of thing off, would give them unique leverage over the legislature?" he asked.

Holder responded, “With all due respect, Senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue. I’d be more than glad to come back in a — in an appropriate setting to discuss the issues that you have raised."


Snooping Concerns Emerge Over Congressional Blackberries Serviced By Verizon

This would be the sort of actions that could get someone in a bunch of trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2013, 05:57 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,729,017 times
Reputation: 8798
Though probably only if rhetoric matters more than substance, and the imprecise nature of the act of data collection is thereby perverted into something deliberately nefarious. And that's precisely where I suspect Senator Kirk was trying to drive the discussion. Kudos to Holder for not falling into the trap. I also suspect that Senator would have been the first to defend against such insinuations when it came time for his political party to be responsible for fighting the war on terrorism and other crimes. It's just theater. The reality is that this kind of snooping is necessary to address real risks, and so no one except for folks who want chaos will seriously oppose such actions. What seems more likely is that someone like Senator Kirk will insist on adding layers to government to preclude the impreciseness or filter it out, and then turn around and complain about how much bureaucracy there is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:10 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,562,437 times
Reputation: 6392
ha ha ha.

Leftists created the concept of 'overreach'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,881,729 times
Reputation: 24863
I hope so. The potential for embarassment is too good to miss. We need to tape and release all those calls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:16 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,729,017 times
Reputation: 8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
Leftists created the concept of 'overreach'.
When they broke into campaign headquarters at the Watergate office complex in 1972. And when they sold arms to Iran in 1985-1986. And when they invaded Iraq claiming there were WMDs when they had no substantive evidence thereof.

Oh, wait....

Last edited by bUU; 06-10-2013 at 06:18 AM.. Reason: Of course, the cannibalistic right-wingers could always just label Nixon, Reagan and Bush as RINOs...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:32 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,327,824 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Though probably only if rhetoric matters more than substance, and the imprecise nature of the act of data collection is thereby perverted into something deliberately nefarious. And that's precisely where I suspect Senator Kirk was trying to drive the discussion. Kudos to Holder for not falling into the trap. I also suspect that Senator would have been the first to defend against such insinuations when it came time for his political party to be responsible for fighting the war on terrorism and other crimes. It's just theater. The reality is that this kind of snooping is necessary to address real risks, and so no one except for folks who want chaos will seriously oppose such actions. What seems more likely is that someone like Senator Kirk will insist on adding layers to government to preclude the impreciseness or filter it out, and then turn around and complain about how much bureaucracy there is.
It makes no difference what he would defend in a different situation. We should not allow what a politician might do to determine what our positions are.

There is not a court anywhere that would have allowed this if it indeed happened. With that being the case it matters none what someone might have defended in other circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:36 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,729,017 times
Reputation: 8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It makes no difference what he would defend in a different situation.
Sure it does: It puts his currently comments in their proper perspective (i.e., inconsequential).

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
There is not a court anywhere that would have allowed this if it indeed happened.
False. You should gird yourself for the possibility that this actually was ratified by a court, so you're not too shocked when that's revealed, or, more likely, the practice continues after theatrical repudiations to placate the media, because the secret court prohibits its judgment from being revealed - or even more likely, the practice is actually completely legal, according to current laws, that no court would bother even taking up the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:38 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,327,824 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Sure it does: It puts his currently comments in their proper perspective (i.e., inconsequential).
I find it sad that people would allow their standards to be set by what they think of a politician.

Quote:
False. You should gird yourself for the possibility that this actually was ratified by a court, so you're not too shocked when that's revealed, or, more likely, the practice continues after theatrical repudiations to placate the media, because the secret court prohibits its judgment from being revealed.
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:41 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,729,017 times
Reputation: 8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I find it sad that people would allow their standards to be set by what they think of a politician.
You've got it backwards (as usual): I set my standards based on the matter, my own intelligence, and the entirety of the information I have available to me - both sides, rather than just the side taken by the current talking head spewing rhetoric for their own personal advantage.

Get back to me when you have evidence of wrong-doing, rather than accusations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 06:43 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,327,824 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
You've got it backwards (as usual): I set my standards based on the matter, my own intelligence, and the entirety of the information I have available to me - both sides, rather than just the side taken by the current talking head spewing rhetoric for their own personal advantage.

Get back to me when you have evidence of wrong-doing, rather than accusations.
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top