Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Does that qualify for meaningless claim of the decade?
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    You know, I might not mind being spied upon if only they got a warrant. Not even first, just eventually. Because then I'd know they had a reason and weren't just going off a tip by my ex girlfriend or something. Of course, we all know that they got nothing. And even if they did, they'd have a tough time convicting because of due process. I wonder why ~30% of Americans don't get stuff like this.

    But then, if Clinton did it, those same people would be outraged. Outraged. So I think I just answered my own question.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    But haven't you heard? Clinton did the same thing! At least that's the righty talking point. Something about unauthorized physical searches of Aldrich Ames... probably a load of hooey I'm sure.
     
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    well, whatdya know:
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    "I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," Thomas Veil said of McClellan.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Look! We're as bad as Clinton was. No, wait... Clinton is as bad as we are. No that's not it either... Wait I got it... We're better than Clinton for doing the same thing -- even though he didn't actually do what we did.

    I think that's how they justify it anyway...
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    Just because it wasn't illegal, it was still bad for Clinton to do. But he rectified it himself when he signed that law. And electronic surveilance without a warrant is illegal, as is physical now since Clinton apparently signed it into law in '95. Plus Bush did it multiple times. Then hid it. Then lied about it. But this is just like the Abramoff thing. Dems are just as guilty, if not worse, for kinda doing the same things a little bit, only not really. :confused: Wait, what!?!
     

Share This Page