"There is not a shred of evidence that Terry Schiavo
needed, or wanted, or deserved a drink of water."
Posted on 05/21/2015 10:27:36 AM PDT by jimbo123
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) doesn't agree with critics of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.
"There's not a shred of evidence that anybody's civil liberties have been violated by it. Not a shred," Bush said Thursday in New Hampshire, in comments after a breakfast organized by the Concord Chamber of Commerce, according to the Huffington Post.
The comment puts Bush, who is considering a presidential bid, on the opposite side of one his likely rivals, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).
Bush vocalized his support for NSA surveillance just hours after Paul, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, ended a 10 hour Senate filibuster in protest of the government surveillance. Paul was speaking out againt the renewal of portions of the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism legislating signed into law in 2001 by Bush's older brother, former President George W. Bush. NSA surveillance is authorized through the Patriot Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.in ...
One of the things that has always concerned courts who have cognizance over issues like his is "standing".
I will say this. It is awfully effing hard to prove standing (thereby having a legitimate claim to go forward) if you do not have, cannot possibly have evidence of the claim because the government has kept the evidence hidden under the veil of secrecy. FISA court you say? Give me a break.
A choice between Jeb and Hillary is no choice at all, as far as I'm concerned. It's like being given a choice between watching your house burned to the ground vs. smashed to bits with a wrecking ball.
Well, if we aren’t allowed to see the evidence, it is easy to say there isn’t any. The FISA court and anything related is a farce...reasonable suspicion violates our civil liberties; that is WAY different than a search warrant which should be required for any surveillance.
The Republican party is hell bent on self destruction. Just {{{shaking my head}}}.
Is there any doubt...I mean ANY doubt that we have a uni-party system?
"There is not a shred of evidence that Terry Schiavo
needed, or wanted, or deserved a drink of water."
The lack of logic is stunning. We are talking about the NSA. Of course there is no evidence. How would we know what happens when it is done in secret by design?
lol
I meant to say smidgen. So now what is the order, by physical size, of a shred, a smidgen and a scintilla ? By mass? By distance away that it can be seen/observed? The question becomes: which word best describes the level above which the Jebster’s intelligence can be found, if at all?
May I please have a sip of whatever it is that Jeb is drinking?
Bush is an imbecile at best and idiot at worst.
No.
A few idiots claimed that he was smarter, but many pundits on this forum have always referred to Jeb as “G.W.’s dumber brother.”
Its the difference between your house burning up or burning down.
Once again, a shining example of dynastic inbreeding!
Jeb is not owed anything.
Jeb is on the wrong side of this NSA issue.
Unlike the blatant and admitted unconstitutional NSA surveillance, there is not a shred of evidence that Jeb is presidential material.
Even if NSA surveillance was technically in compliance with the laws, warrantless surveillance of US citizens within the United States should not be happening. It shouldn’t take a legal team to parse NSA’s activities and split hairs to argue that in a sense what NSA did was okay. FedGov should scale way back to its enumerated powers. Within those powers, FedGov should be Al Qaeda’s worst nightmare. Outside those powers, FedGov should be careful not to put even a toe across the line.
What could NSA find from just who called whom and when? Look at the analysis of group membership in Boston, 1772:
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
Paul Revere stands out as the person best able to raise the alarm and contact large numbers of individuals who opposed the British Crown. Math doesn’t lie — FedGov can get far more information than they should have, just by using the metadata they admit to collecting.
What should they do about terrorists and terrorism? Find them through lawful, constitutional means, and then blow them all up. I’m okay with that. But FedGov should not spy on Americans within the United States to accomplish that goal, not without a warrant based on probable cause and specifying the parameters of the search.
The comment should also disqualify him from holding any public office that requires an oath to preseve, protect and defend the Constitution.
The NSA has been creating maps of American citizens' social networks
Why do they want to do that?
What could social networks be used for in the hands of government? Consider:
Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere
How will such capabilities be used now?
How They Hunt
Is it already too late?...
It is an absolute certainty that the Founders would have taken up arms against the type of surveillance that the US gov't routinely does against US citizens. They well understood the danger when they put the 4th Amendment into the Constitution.
This guy has to be plant for some other RINO to come in.
Not even Dole or McCain let it rip this bad so early.
Op Jade Helm would be a good place to learn to use social network info....
“Another freeper on another thread about Hillary made an interesting observation: ‘evidence’ is a legal term, and without an investigation there is no ‘evidence’, so technically he’s right, but he’s also a word parsing lying sack like thunderthighs.”
Yes, language in the law is a very powerful tool. I probably would have made a great criminal lawyer but didn’t feel like selling my soul to scumbags
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.