We were talking about Clinton's XO.

Clinton's XO would be legal, as I understand it. The president can issue an executive order to wiretap executive branch employees who have signed a release. That release, as I understand it, is required when accepting those high security positions. No judicial review required to authorize such surveillance of people such as Ames. But an executive order or something equivalent is required. That XO is legal.

George Jr authorized, by executive order, wiretapping of people who were not of the executive branch. He authorized this without judicial review as was required by law. And as we now know, the Asst Attorney General who was in charge at that time refused to condone it. People with questionable backgrounds then went to the hospital to pressure Ashcroft into giving approval. Ashcroft was reluctant but eventually gave in because he was told it was a matter of national security. George Jr's XO is illegal. The only way they could get even Ashcroft to agree was to pressure the man repeatedly in his hospital bed.

An executive order to authorize those wiretapping was not legal. It was just another George Jr half truth to justify illegal wiretaps for the greater glory of George Jr. Another example of a dictator demanding loyalty over American principles and laws. They even had a secret court and had 72 hours, after doing the wiretaps, to get court permission. And still that was not good enough? Their facts were as flimsy as the aluminum tubes for WMDs. So they created their own version of law - without judicial review. Knowing that even that secret court would reject their claims as bogus; these extremists justified wiretapping knowing full well that we will not demand impeachment or any other sanctions.

It’s rather silly to even think George Jr would have any respect for laws. He routinely subverts trade laws to protect big steel at the expense of American workers and their jobs. He unilaterally terminates international treaties on weapon proliferation and anti-missile defense. He lies about how much the drug bill will cost so that excessively high drug prices can be protected AND so that government will price support those profits. He unilaterally attacks another nation on bogus WMDs and outright lies. He has no qualms about a nuclear reactor with a Three Mile Island problem running in Toledo as long as he got his $450,000 fund raiser. His administration's connection to K Street corruption is unprecedented. Just a sampling of how his god (also called Satan) tells him what to do - such as run for the presidency or invade Iraq.

UT, if you think for one moment that this president is innocent, well, I have this mafioso friend who will make you a great deal on free money. This made man is also as honest as George Jr - and he reads his memos.

Speaking of lying, I just saw GWB giving a speech saying that if tax cuts are not made permanent, families making $50,000 a year will pay 50 percent more in taxes.

I'm trying to understand what kind of math he was using, or if he was playing games with words and that he wasn't actually saying that their total federal income tax of all or most families would rise by %50, but that some combination of circumstances and deductions made it theoretically possible to raise the taxes of one or more families by %50.

For example, a family living entirely on dividends from a stock in Yugoslavian eel farming.

I haven't found any analysis yet on factcheck.org. I'd be real curious about it.

From here.

Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.

Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.

UT - why does the XO have to say anything other than authorize the wiretapping of Ames? It does not. An XO order that wiretaps Ames is legal because Ames permits it as part of his employment.

Meanwhile, when George Jr authorizes wiretapping of all in the Cellar only using an XO; that is illegal? Do you say George Jr can wiretap all in the Cellar because Clinton wiretapped an administration employee? Clearly there is no logical thought in that rationalization.

An XO need make no mention anything other than to authorize the wiretap. Clinton's and George Jr's XO could be worded same - a single sentence. And yet Clinton's would be legal because of who it wiretapped. George Jr's would be illegal because he wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate, the Cellar, or a completely innocent lawyer in Oregon who just happened to be Muslim - whose child's Spanish homework was cited as part of a conspiracy to bomb trains in Madrid. Look at how absurdly psychotic this 'we must bug everyone' administration has become. Somehow they have the right to bug anyone - and somehow you agree?

UT, repeating the obvious fallacy in your ridiculous arguments - that question how your heavy breathing is affecting your intelligence - has no effect on you. You see. I too can post useless insults. Stop with the insults and explain why a Clinton XO that only says 'wiretap Ames' is not legal? An XO can authorize wiretapping of Ames, not say why, and be perfectly legal. So what is your point? That the XO must go into specific detail on why it is legal - else it is not legal? What is your point of even mentioning Clinton - a totally irrelevant topic?

Hypothetically: Clinton writes an XO that says one sentence: "Wiretap Ames". Nothing more. That is legal. George Jr writes an XO that says "Wiretap Mr. Joe Citizen". That too is a complete XO text. George Jr's XO would be illegal. Why do you have a problem with this obvious fact?

But then why is Clinton's legal wiretap even mentioned by UT? Clinton is not a president who seeks dictatorship much like Nixon did. The question is George Jr who clearly has no respect for laws - probably because god tells him what is right - or righteous. George Jr has but again violated the law. He authorizes wiretaps without judicial approval when judicial approval is required - by law. Why, UT, do you have a problem with patriots who again expose the president as a crook? He wiretaps because he is president and therefore has the right to wiretap anyone. That is criminal.

According to the George Jr admininstration, then J Edgar Hoover also did right to wiretap whomever he wanted. After all, Hoover's only interest was national security - right? Hoover also had no ulterior motives. Neither did Nixon. Clearly each was only violating law for righteous reasons.

I'm getting person because it's the only thing that works.

Clinton's XO does not mention Ames. It doesn't mention federal employees. It doesn't mention anyone. Of the examples you have given, in the post two up ^^, Clinton's XO would be of the illegal variety.

AGAIN, here is Clinton's XO, in its entirety. Read it. Show me where it is limited.

Section 302(a)1 of the Act which is mentioned is limited to communications

Of course, this is a newer version of the law and I cannot state for sure that this was the exact text in Clinton's time. At no point does Clinton mention including US citizens. In fact the phrase Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) means that he is limiting himself to the boundaries of the Act.

Once he ordered the surveillance of US citizens, GWB stepped outside the bounds of the Act. Whether the post-9/11 declaration gave him the right to do so is all that is left to argue here.

if "pursuant to" means "limited to", why would the XO say that physical searches are permitted pursuant to an act limited to communciations?

The second part states:
The point is that Clinton referred to the act in his order and limited the scope of the order to that allowed by the act, which meant not US citizens. That is a big difference from what was done by GWB. All he had to do was submit a request to the FISA court within 3 days after the intercepts.

But the XO says...

Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches,

...and you have pointed to section 302(a)(2).

Where? I only see references to 302(a)(1)(A)(i) and 302(a)(1)(A)(ii). 302(a)(1)(B) and 302(a)(1)(C) are also applicable.

oh yer right.

My drawing paper as a kid was tax law...

What about 303(a)(7)? :confused: