View Full Version : Bush Authorized NSA Eavesdropping in U.S.
VelociMorte
12-16-2005, 10:13
Report: Bush Authorized NSA Eavesdropping in U.S.
Friday, December 16, 2005
NEW YORK — President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States — without getting search warrants — following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports.
The presidential order, which Bush signed in 2002, has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, according to a story posted Thursday on the Times' Web site.
Before the new program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders to do so. Under the post-Sept. 11 program, the NSA has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.
The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.
Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.
But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."
Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."
The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.
The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.
:boohoo
Personally, I don't have a problem with this. What I do have a problem with is that someone ran their f*cking mouth about it and compromised an ongoing operation that has undoubtedly saved the lives of countless Americans.
rubberneck
12-16-2005, 13:24
The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
How is this even news? The Administration directed the NSA to conduct survellience on US Citizens with the full knowledge of the Court and the Senate yet some how it was done in secret. From what I understand the intercepts were done on the receiving end not here in the states. What the times also failed to disclose is that the author of the article also is the author of a book that is due out shortly and that the times sat on the story until shortly before the books release.
What ever respect I had for the left in this country is long gone. God forbid we try to protect ourselves. It's not like Lincoln held people without charging them. It's not like Roosevelt rounded up tens of thousadns of Americans and locked them up. It is not like Roosevelt tried and executed German spies outside of the US legal system. If the day that another attack happens on US soil let it be the NY Times building. Maybe then they can see the folly of their ways.
Here's all I'm hearing-
ACLU: Wah wah wah wah waaah
While government monitoring is a serious issue, America's security agencies are still far more regulated than France or England's in terms of eavesdropping, arrests, etc... I suppose this is because America has only had limited (before 9/11) contact with Terrorism, whereas England had the IRA and France the.. well, everyone hates the french. ;)
Either way, I agree with Rubberneck that this is not big news. It is and deserves to be, however, news in that the American public deserves to be kept informed of regulation of their civil liberties.
JMO,
Solid
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is not a bad thing to watch the government.
longrange1947
12-16-2005, 17:55
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is not a bad thing to watch the government.
While that quote is true, no one in this gov't has that power. Please do not act as if it was so.
This was a political ploy to stop the Patriot Act from being extended. These piece of crap Pols that acted all shocked knew very well what was going on and would have screamed bloody murder is we had not stopped something through this program.
My bet on the leak was a pol that was first informed sometime ago but was against the Patriot Act from being extended. He knew that a tempest in a tea pot would scuttle it.
They look for key words and names. They can not look at everyones damed conversations. Lets get real here, 500 Americans, wonder what their background is? Maybe if you join a terr group or talk about blowing up the Empire State Building, then yuou might attract attention.
rubberneck
12-16-2005, 17:57
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is not a bad thing to watch the government.
You're right that absolute power corrupts absolutely and in this case that applies more to the NY Times than the Bush administration.
If the Times had reported the story correctly it should have read "The NY Times now reports that the NSA at the direction of the President, with the Knowledge of the Senate Intelligence Committee and with the approval of the national security court has conducted eavsedropping operations on US citizens. The Times can also report that because of intelligence gathered by the NSA the Bush administration was able to thwart an operation to destroy a landmark in NYC saving countless innocent lives. The suspect was later convicted of the plot and sentenced to a lengthy prison term". Instead we get a piece that claims that these operations were conducted secretly (despite the knowledge of Congress and the Federal Courts) and written in such a way as to portray this as a sinister act. I suspect that those who would have died if that plot was successful would agree with that but who cares. This is all about making the President look bad even if that means some people have to get hurt.
I guess we shouldn't snoop and then cry when hundreds or thousands die.
BMT (RIP)
12-16-2005, 18:14
I monitored cell phones before they went digital. The most exciting thing i heard was "Babe I'working late tonight". Bride "if you sleep with her tonight you better have me a new fur coat before you get home'.
BMT
I think one of the best responses was from a talking head on I think Fox the other night.
NSA monitors a conversation between a terrorist in Iraq and his buddy in the USA. The terrorist asks "What building are you going to bomb in the morning?" and the USA guys replies "-------" THE PRECEEDING STATEMENT WAS BLACKED OUT DUE TO US LAWS.
Kyobanim
12-17-2005, 09:33
Seems that the Times sat on the story for a year and refused to let the reports that wrote the story to talk about it, all this with the full knowledge of the WH. There's probably a lot more to this than we will ever know, such as an executive order.
Firebeef
12-17-2005, 10:52
Newsworthy? Does anyone doubt that Pres Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter...etc... never issued such an order?? ....that we will never know about.......and quite possibly only a handful of people will ever know about? After Sept 11th, these same media types screamed bloody murder about what woulda coulda shoulda been done to prevent those attacks. Let's see the current population of the US is around 280 million (+/-) .... that "up to a thousand" folks were hyper-scrutinized based on actions or key words that showed up in e-mails or in phone conversations doesn't quite sound like gestapo tactics to me. Of course Ted Kennedy and pals were on TV, rabid, outraged and foaming at the mouth and cryin for the Prez to "restore" democracy. Gimme a break and pass the Tylenol, puh-leeeze!
Radar Rider
12-17-2005, 11:03
The left is so hypocritical that they make me want to vomit. This is not new, nor limited to government agencies. Think back to 1996, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. On December 21st of that year, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, were going Christmas shopping, and "just happened" to have a scanner and tape recorder in the car with them. They claimed to have "accidentally" monitored the cell-phone conversation of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as he spoke from his car in a conference call with several other key Republicans, including Gingrich. They just "happened" to record it "for history."
I'm sure it's common for people to accidentally intercept and tape private cell phone conversations while going Christmas shopping. Happens to me all the time.
The Martins then turned the tape over to Washington Democrat Jim McDermott, a member of the House Ethics Committee, which was about to rule on Gingrich's ethics violations. McDermott, in turn gave the tape to the New York Times and other newspapers. The New York Times then printed a transcript of the call's participants discussing how Gingrich should respond to the Ethics Committee.
Of course, it's just a "coincidence" that the Martins are active in Florida Democratic politics, just as it was a "coincidence" that they gave the tape to a Democrat on the Ethics Committee instead of the Independent Counsel or the Republican committee chair. Perhaps it was also an "accident" that McDermott gave the information to the press, rather than discussing the tape with his fellow committee members.
I suppose that as long as a democrat is doing it, then it's okay. :rolleyes:
I am still going to say it is important to watch the government. You QPs are all used to working with the best and brightest. That is not the case for the rest of us, as a general rule the vast majority of government is staffed and directed by the merely adequate.
This is not a left right issue. I am not attacking POTUS or the White House; I am asking to closely watch all politicians. The political animal (left, right, liberal, conservative, commie, socialist, libertarian, all of them..) is scum who would sell any of us out to get reelected. I am not comfortable letting that person have a free hand with my rights (or my pay check or my family or or or.). I am watching the erosion of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments and I fear that the second amendment is not going to be far behind. We have to draw the line on what we are going to give up to the Muslim extremists.
We as a nation have to be ever vigilant of our rights and freedoms or we will loose them. As it stands now we have good people fighting a good fight. I am more concerned down the road if people who are not so scrupulous have such a free hand. What is to stop a political party from using the NSA to gather some intel on their opposition party? You are going to say that is nonsense and liberal whiny crap but it is a pretty common tactic in South America/old Soviet/Chinese politics. List your opposition as a terror or rebel group and then destroy them. It is not out of the realm of possibility here, is it?
The GWOT is the most complex military/social problem to face our nation in a very long time and it is not going to be solved quickly or easily. If we are going to give up freedom for security I would like to vigorously debate that trade off. It is easy to give rights away; it is very hard to get them back.
Our government is for the people by the people, we need to remind the jackasses in Washington of that sometimes.
What is to stop a political party from using the NSA to gather some intel on their opposition party?
Something is wrong only if it PO's the Libs and the MSN.
So just who did take all those FBI files over to the White House? Who looked at them? What was in them?
Who in congress told the IRS to look into individuals tax records?
Voter fraud/the dead voting/voting in FL and NY at the same time?
There is plenty of abuse in the system right now. Most of it done by the libs and seconded by the MSN. Everything is "OK" if it moves the liberal cause forward. Even the death of US troops and the defeat of US forces on the battlefield.
Peregrino
12-17-2005, 13:23
What is to stop a political party from using the NSA to gather some intel on their opposition party?
Where is J. Edgar Hoover when we really need him? :munchin Peregrino
Something is wrong only if it PO's the Libs and the MSN.
So just who did take all those FBI files over to the White House? Who looked at them? What was in them?
Who in congress told the IRS to look into individuals tax records?
Voter fraud/the dead voting/voting in FL and NY at the same time?
There is plenty of abuse in the system right now. Most of it done by the libs and seconded by the MSN. Everything is "OK" if it moves the liberal cause forward. Even the death of US troops and the defeat of US forces on the battlefield.
Right! we need to stop all abuse.
VelociMorte
12-17-2005, 13:34
The headline should have read: " New York Times Conspires with Traitors to Undermine National Security".
GreenSalsa
12-17-2005, 13:58
These people (who are leaking) sicken me:mad:
I am getting weary and tired of these types of leaks…we need to at a minimum imprison some folks here for a LONG time and potentially execute a couple for treason.
I feel that it is important at this point in the argument to interject and remind everyone that both sides, republican and democrat, are equally guilty of the crimes mentioned here, just at different times and depending on who you listen to.
This is the nature of the system. Turns out people aren't all inherently good... who would've guessed?
Back on subject:
I started my posting in this thread by ripping it out of the ACLU and reactionaries to the new NSA eavesdropping authorization. To be fair, there is ALWAYS a potential for actions like this to lead to usurption of power- and bad things can come of this.
For example (both sides of the coin) Ollie North or Richard Clarke. Power was accumulated and in both cases misused in some way, despite supposed checks on this kind of behaviour. It CAN happen, so the role of the press to expose it is important. Both sides of the press. It just so happens that this fits the liberal media's purposes right now- you can bet that if this happened with the dems in office, the rightwing media would be doing the same.
JMO,
Solid
BMT (RIP)
12-17-2005, 16:31
Anyone remember the movie and book "Seven Days in May"?
BMT
Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?
Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?
Depends on who you are talking to. If you are talking to a terrorist who lives overseas and the NSA is recording his calls then I would guess "No" to protection, your calls are fair game.
If you are talking to your better half on the cell phone about what to bring home for chow and when you mention Chilie and you're called a terrorist then I would say "Yes" your call is protected.
So, who you been talking to?
Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Even under the above, if a judge grants a wire tap on a suspect and that suspect calls you up that phone call is recorded.
Take care with your friends, you sleep with the dogs and you wake up with fleas.
rubberneck
12-17-2005, 17:55
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Go back and read the damn article. It said quite clearly that the Bush administration went before the national security court to get approval. Since those documents are secret I doubt you will see them in public for a long time. The fact of the matter is the President did this legally and above board. Those pissing and moaning about this only do so to gain political advantage.
Go back and read the damn article. It said quite clearly that the Bush administration went before the national security court to get approval. Since those documents are secret I doubt you will see them in public for a long time. The fact of the matter is the President did this legally and above board. Those pissing and moaning about this only do so to gain political advantage.
no need to get hostile, I was answering part of JMI's question.
no need to get hostile, I was answering part of JMI's question.
Recording a conversation between a terrorist overseas and his buddy in the states is not the same as recording a conversation between Joe Bubba and Slick Weed. The MSM, ACLU and Dim-Wits claim that they are.
This has been pointed out a few times in this thread but some still are following the herd.
rubberneck
12-17-2005, 18:30
no need to get hostile, I was answering part of JMI's question.
You didn't even answer his question. He asked:
Is it legal for the POTUS do authorize this activity? Does the constitution protect citizens from eavesdropping?
The answer to the first question is yes with court approval. The answer to question two is no but the bar to do so is set fairly high.
VelociMorte
12-19-2005, 08:01
Recording a conversation between a terrorist overseas and his buddy in the states is not the same as recording a conversation between Joe Bubba and Slick Weed. The MSM, ACLU and Dim-Wits claim that they are.
This has been pointed out a few times in this thread but some still are following the herd.
USSID 18 is the applicable Directive. Like all laws, it's all a matter of interpretation.
I am still going to say it is important to watch the government. You QPs are all used to working with the best and brightest. That is not the case for the rest of us, as a general rule the vast majority of government is staffed and directed by the merely adequate.
Would you mind sending me the contact information of your first line supervisor so I can get an objective reading on if you're the best and brightest in your line of work, or merely adequate? If you're only the latter, should we require you find another job? Should everyone working in your field be the absolute best and brightest, and everyone else be fired? Be careful to demand excellence in others if you're not up to the task yourself.
BMT (RIP)
12-19-2005, 09:43
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml
Guess this time it was ok! Slick was only checking up on who knew what about
the BIMBO.
BMt
[QUOTE]The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.[/QUITE]
Same, same shit!! GWB says he wants to find and stop the leaks, I hope he does!!
OTOH is it possible the media is fishing throwing out a bunch of chum hoping to get a bite. To fail to confirm or deny is spun into confirmation but there is no OFFICIAL confirmation.
rubberneck
12-19-2005, 10:50
I wonder if the source is a US Senator who had been consulted but decided to try and score some cheap political points by leaking the story.
VelociMorte
12-19-2005, 10:56
September 29, 2004 — The Justice Department has charged that a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office — potentially endangering the lives of federal agents.
The stunning accusation was disclosed yesterday in legal papers related to a lawsuit the Times filed in Manhattan federal court.
The suit seeks to block subpoenas from the Justice Department for phone records of two of its Middle Eastern reporters — Philip Shenon and Judith Miller — as part of a probe to track down the leak.
The Times last night flatly denied the allegation.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
“It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times,” Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times’ legal department.
Judith Miller...the same one involved in the Plame case? Yep.
Let's see now..., NYT reporters divulge classified information. NYT reporters charged with crimes related to the Patriot Act. Justice subpoenas phone records of two Times reporters. NYT files suit blocking subpoenas, but denies involvement. Time passes......Patriot Act goes to Congress. NYT divulges classified information and releases story on phone taps it held for over a year on same day Patriot Act goes to Congress. Patriot Act not approved.
Sounds to me like we should be monitoring anyone and everyone who has contact with the NYT. Being a reporter does NOT grant one immunity from National Security laws. It's about time we had a good ol' fashioned public execution by firing squad.
Sonnds like there need to be more unexplained disappearances -- perhaps alien abductions or flights into the Bermuda Triangle.:D
I have heard this said several times recently and agree: they need to record and post all names of MOC and Senators against the Patriot Act and then repost those names after the next terorist attack when people demand to know who is responsible.:mad:
VelociMorte
12-19-2005, 12:33
Testifying to the House Select Committee on Intelligence on October 30, 2003 on "Collecting Intelligence under the law," former DOJ attorney John Yoo wrote:
"During wartime, the military engages in searches and surveillance without a warrant. We do not, for example, require the armed forces to seek a warrant when it conducts visual or electronic surveillance of enemy forces or of a battlefield, or when it searches buildings, houses, and vehicles for the enemy. Nor must military operations within the United States operate under a different rule."...
"Therefore, if al-Qaeda forces organize and carry out missions to attack civilian or military targets within the United States, government surveillance of terrorists would not be law enforcement so much as military operations. In such circumstances, when the government is not pursuing an ordinary criminal law enforcement objective, the Fourth Amendment requires no search warrant."
We're at war. We're monitoring terrorists. Problem solved.
VelociMorte
12-20-2005, 11:48
"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States."
The POTUS was really pissed and IMO on the verge of using some of the language he has been accused of when asked about his use of "Unchecked Power".
I disagree with one metaphore he used. They aren't trying to deny our intelligence the power to connect the dots. They want to prevent even collecting the dots.
rubberneck
12-20-2005, 12:15
Time to buckle up. It is funny how this story suddenly sees the light of day after the President's approval rating jumps 10 points in the last week and a half. Within 24 hours Newsweek has a scathing Op-ed up on their website using overly partisan language.
The President is trying to protect this country while the Democrats and the MSM have no clue what to do other than trying to protect their own selfish interests. You can only play that game so long beofre the American people see right through it.
I sense the President's patience with the disloyal opposition and the media is worn out. I smell a donnybrook in the offing and IMHO it is long overdo. It is time for the President to expose his opposition for the frauds that they are. It is a fight he should fight and a fight he will win. This might be the point in his term that we look back 20 years from now and fondly remember as the turning point for the 2nd Bush term.
I find the behaviour of the democrats for the most part pathetic. It's one thing to mount a reasonable, logical and cohesive argument against an aspect of the Presidency or something else... but thus far the majority of their opposition has been characterized by purposeless negativism with no presentation of alternatives or poignant recommendations. The democrats lack a leader and lack a path forward, and I believe that this is why with every turn the CinC gets an earful of criticism from a disparate chorus of dems. If they had any kind of political backbone, there would be one voice and one message, not this senseless negative drivel.
This is not what a democracy is about, and it makes me sick to watch.
JMO.
Solid
VelociMorte
12-20-2005, 12:37
What I would really like to see is the arrest and conviction of the journalists and their sources on treason charges. I have no doubt that everything about this program is/was classified at the highest levels, and that the unauthorized release of this information has/will cause "Grave, Irreparable " damage to National Security. This "leak" shit has got to stop somewhere, and I think a firing squad is a good way to put the brakes on it. We are at war. There is no difference between divilging classified information to journalists, and divilging classified information to the Russians or Chinese. Somebody needs to be made an example of. We could start by demonstrating the difference between torture and humiliation and fear on one of these NY Times reporters until they give up their sources.
rubberneck
12-20-2005, 12:53
I would love to see the President summon Bill and Hillary to the White House for a little alone time. During that time he should tell them in no uncertian terms to get their party under control or he will declassify documents relating to Clintons spying on US Citizens through echelon. Not only should he threaten to do it he should threaten to do it a month before the first primary and threaten to get congress to hold hearings on the matter before super tuesday where Bill (who is still trying to rehab his image) and Hill (who wants to be king) will be the star witness.
If you can't get them to do the right thing than appeal to the only thing they can understand and that is threaten their hold on power.
The real problem is that there is no centre to the dem party right now. The party works in little groups of screaming liberals, no consolidated hierarchy or spokesperson, even with ultra-powerful personalities like, well, Hillary.
IF there was some kind of consolidation, I think that the criticism of the POTUS and other issues would be more intellectual and astute, offering alternative solutions or other recommendations, as opposed to the white noise eminating from the party right now.
Debate and dialogue are good things for democracy, especially during a time like this where many precedents will be set that could lead to long-term changes to American democracy.
JMO,
Solid
I don't say that the POTUS over stepped his authority but I agree with some Republicans who hint that he could/should have gone through the cxourt set up for such action., They have only denied four requests since inception.
VelociMorte
12-21-2005, 11:47
The real problem is that there is no centre to the dem party right now. The party works in little groups of screaming liberals, no consolidated hierarchy or spokesperson, even with ultra-powerful personalities like, well, Hillary.
IF there was some kind of consolidation, I think that the criticism of the POTUS and other issues would be more intellectual and astute, offering alternative solutions or other recommendations, as opposed to the white noise eminating from the party right now.
Debate and dialogue are good things for democracy, especially during a time like this where many precedents will be set that could lead to long-term changes to American democracy.
JMO,
Solid
IMO, the REAL problem with the Democratic Party is that is is mis-named. It should be called the Socialist Party, or the Communist Party. It is filled with a bunch of political hacks whos only concern is the accumulation of power at the expense of everything else. Too many of these "Democrats" are willing to sacrifice our entire Nation simply to obtain personal power.
Velocimorte,
With the exception of the nomenclature you suggested, I would argue that the same can be said for the Republican party.
Power = votes = Power = ability to effect America = power... it's a cycle that applies to both the Reps and Dems, and arguably all other parties on the face of this planet.
As for being communist or socialist, I suppose that when compared to the Republican party, the Dems are. When put next to most other left-wing parties, however, the Democrats look positively right-wing. In fact, the entire party spectrum in America is relatively right-of-centre to begin with.
But I digress. Bottom line of my argument is that the Dems are being PITAS right now because they lack organization and therefore fail to contribute meaninfully. All other debate and discourse is good for our country.
JMO,
Solid
As for being communist or socialist, I suppose that when compared to the Republican party, the Dems are. When put next to most other left-wing parties, however, the Democrats look positively right-wing. In fact, the entire party spectrum in America is relatively right-of-centre to begin with.
I agree, but think that the Democrats understand that using reform is a staged process, which is why they can't go straight out shouting for revolutionary changes. Burn the house down while you sleep, so to speak. You have to get people to not raise the buttstocks to their shoulders, it's not enough to just switch leadership and national course.
I don't think they care to cut the reform process short.
Geeks, though, are an interesting bunch. Much varied in political affiliations and seems a bit different, IMO, than other groups. Anyway, some of the vocal ones call the MSM right wing... a bit of a contrast.
Martin
BMT (RIP)
12-21-2005, 16:04
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
BMT
rubberneck
12-21-2005, 19:31
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
BMT
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."- Mark Twain.
In this case it was never about what was right or what was truthful, it was all about what hurts the President and his agenda the most.
longrange1947
12-22-2005, 09:23
I think he is also laying the ground work fo rwhen it comes out that Clinton di dthe same thing but on a much "Grander Scale". :D
Of course right now the Dems will ignore this because it may cost President Bush a few "popularity votes".
BMT (RIP)
12-22-2005, 09:34
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Clinton used it against gangs in housing projects.
BMT
longrange1947
12-22-2005, 09:45
Hmmm, good! Cats out of the bag.
NOW how are the dems and jerk offs going to handle this? :munchin
The Independent: Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece)
Not good...
Martin
Peregrino
12-22-2005, 13:14
The Independent: Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece)
Not good...
Martin
One of the differences between citizen and subject. Might also explain how "1984" came to be written by an Englishman. It's just another good reason to encourage vigorous but rational debate whenever any government seeks additional police powers. Britian is already pretty far along the "slippery slope" that pro-government/police advocates of population control measures would love to force the rest of the world down. Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with the NSA monitoring discussed in this thread. I am personally satisfied that the decision was made after complying with all due process and undergoing appropriate judicial review. I simply want to ensure that the rights of the individual are given the same weight as the rights of the collective. Anything else is tyranny and totally unacceptable. My .02 - Peregrino
The Independent: Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece)
Not good...
Martin
There are things you can do that hinder the ability of cameras to read a plate. When/if they begin to place "black boxes" in vehicles there will no doubt be a fix for that too.
longrange1947
12-22-2005, 13:19
Martin, I don't see how that is workable, except to note that I am interested in lic # XXX-XXX where has he been in the last two years. To "monitor" and to record is too different things. It is like recording the thousands of phone calls everyday but only "monitoring" those calls made by people of interest or those calls with key words.
When/if they begin to place "black boxes" in vehicles there will no doubt be a fix for that too.
Already there.
Just my opinion. I think the news papers are again blowing things out of proportion.
With all the cameras in use today, a fair record of your daily activites occurs right now. :munchin
Peregrino, completely agree.
LR, I have an inherent disdain for governments that try to become stronger than the people. That they cannot monitor everyone is good, but it is also slightly beside the point. They only need to monitor and pull up records for persons of interest and without being stopped in the process. The scope of this and the long user list (LEO and intelligence services) is disturbing as it brings down oversight.
Not directed at you LR, no offence intended, just venting what I've thought for a long time: Though personally, in regards to this last bit about the Brittish, I think it's an excuse for closing your eyes to who the enemies are. In Sweden, some organized criminals walk free not because the LEOs don't know who they are, but because they cannot touch them.
Almost the same thing with Islamist extremism, the point is not that the country exists to support the government and that the government should care for and decide what the people should do. People have eyes, people talk with each other. The extremists have friends and they have for years put up posters, newspapers, authored books in the Old Country of the Crown, and those who received those messages did nothing to carry the message forward. They did not protest the hatred, and when the hate spasmed, only under threat did some bemoan it. Then they acknowledged their allegiance in polls, that it is not with us.
We are the people of these nations and we, at least some of us, become government and we interact with government. The government only knows what we tell them. Government is here to perform a function, it is not here to keep records on whether I think Göran Persson is utterly incompetent (which he is) and act upon that to preserve itself. We are here to bear our responsibility to care for ourselves and our security as we see fit. Government provides the common security for us, not against us.
How about we take this moment of alleged commitment against the wretched filth and stop accepting meth labs to be created within our borders - give half the money seized to the police department who put them out of business -,that we look our politicians dead in the eyes and force them to answer just what they have done for our countries today. Look through business records, visit them, do they hire illegal aliens? Fine them, shut them down. Aliens need to support themselves. Then ease up on the restrictions and let willing people work their asses off.
Talk to the friends of extremists, find out where they stand on this little issue of Armageddon and demand that they prove it. And ask the Europeans to get a damn spine and recognize that there is a difference between freighting terrorists in LearJets and engaging in oil bartering with Iran and Sudan, and it is not in their favor. Do it openly.
I have no doubt that we can get rid of these menaces without compromising our dignity and freedom.
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, and if so, please remove it.
Just my .02.
Martin
longrange1947
12-22-2005, 15:26
No offense taken, a healthy exchange of ideas is the first defense against dictators. I am not good at forming ideas into words and at times my intent and what comes out does not always match. :)
Do not get me wrong. I am not infavor of the continueing increase of survailance, cameras, and snooping. I am only stating that the info coming in is so overwhelming that the average citizen can not be monitored. A person of interest in my mind is a terorist or those in direct communications with a terrorist. I have info that 'butt lick jones' is making or has made contact with a sleeper cell in the last 24 hours or next 24, it would be nice to know where ole butt lick went, or is going. I am not interested in his rights, and right now they have more rights then we do.
Does this open up an area of abuse, yes. But it is our job to make sure that it is not abused and that it is used within the powers meant. If we were to worry about everything that could be abused then we would immediatrely outlaw guns.
My 2 cents.
The Reaper
12-22-2005, 15:43
And cars. And alcohol. And tobacco products. Etcetera.
TR
There are things you can do that hinder the ability of cameras to read a plate. When/if they begin to place "black boxes" in vehicles there will no doubt be a fix for that too.
But then you are guaranteed to be in "violation of the law". Setting you up to be picked up whenever the police want to.
one-zero
12-22-2005, 15:55
And cars. And alcohol. And tobacco products. Etcetera.
TR
and prayer/christmas in schools, sanctity of marriage...oops, sorry guys those are already out the window.
Really though, good points by all. Gents this is being blown WAY out of proportion. You guys can compare this to how "green berets" are portrayed as demented super-comandos in the press...we all know the truth, committed men doing their profession...same with this program. I hope we are all together at the same time for some reunion someday to speak of things which can't be written.
Merry Christmas to all,
1-0
LR, :)
You're a good man.
LR, one-zero, TR, everyone, Merry Christmas.
Martin
longrange1947
12-22-2005, 16:35
Martin - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well.
May we continue to have open discussions. :)
But then you are guaranteed to be in "violation of the law". Setting you up to be picked up whenever the police want to.
Using the cover, in a few places.
DEPT OF JUSTICE LETTER TO RANKING MEMBERS OF THE SEN / HSE INTELLIGENT COMM. (http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf)
As you know, in responsc to unauthorized disclosures in the media, the President has
described certain activitics of the National Security Agency ("NSA") that he has authorized since
shortly after Septcmber 1 1,200 1 . As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain
international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to al Qaeda or an
affiliated terrorist organization. The purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning
system to detect and prcvent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the IJnited States. The
President has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the
Amer~canp eople from further terrorist attacks, and the NSA activities the President described are
part of that effort. Leaders of the Congress were briefed on these activities more than a dozen
tlnies.
The purpose of this letter is to provide an additional brief summary of the legal authority
supporting the NSA activities described by the President.
Anyone note that the latest thing the ACLU is complaining about is area monitoring for radiation in likely areas of attack or storage?
Edit: Even though they haven't complained too loudly about other forms of area monitoring for radiation before. IE: Monitoring for increased Light/Infrared to pinpoint potential "grow rooms" and drug labs.
Already legal to intercept/monitor radiation that leaks beyond the boundaries of one's property, has been for decades....
There are things you can do that hinder the ability of cameras to read a plate. When/if they begin to place "black boxes" in vehicles there will no doubt be a fix for that too.
Already there.
Just my opinion. I think the news papers are again blowing things out of proportion.
With all the cameras in use today, a fair record of your daily activites occurs right now.
<engage conspiracy theory mode>
Chrysler/Dodge develops ceramics near end of 70's that can withstand combustion pressures and temperatures, has money problems, gets bailed out by the government, ceramic engines never mentioned again. Chrysler/Dodge grows and consumes small competitors, now fat and happy. During the same period, ceramic guns appear in in the arms rooms of a select three letter agency. Obvious connections are made by "nuts."
GM develops On-Star, struggles with lagging sales, somehow manages to grow to number one selling vehicles through all sorts of creative new methods (including below cost for a very long period this past year) forcing everyone to adapt and take hits to their bottom line to keep up. On-Star disseminated widely, and even freely for extended periods to develop "dependence" as the technology becomes accepted. On-Star commercials begin to adopt the "Who will" protect us/watch over us/help us find our way/tell us where to go/save the children edge. Other car companies develop complimentary/competing products. BMW let's us know the car only called to schedule an appointment for maintenance, not to 'spy' on us. No apparent government encouragement, no big connection of note in general public consciousness. However, now that public acceptance is high, and product is embedded in nearly all new vehicles, whether the owners use it or not... those private "black boxes" are accessible to government entities.. either through liason at the operation centers for the service, or passive tracking of continuous emmission of individualized electronic fingerprints of the various devices and their cell phone technology based communications interface.
Yes, it is already there, more than people may realize.
LR, I fell outside amoung these great people here. I wish you have a great Merry Christmas....... Chag Sameach is good for me. As a Hispanic friend said. "Los familia est meuy importante". I pray all our love one's are safe. We who defend/ed peace, know family is what it is all about.
When I see our heros say Peace, I know they Know what Peace means, and what it it means to preserve Peace.
VelociMorte
01-18-2006, 08:11
Infiltration from the south feared
Terrorist smuggling denied by admitted drug runner
BY SERGIO CHAPA
The Brownsville Herald
January 15, 2006 — The back door to this country is unguarded, and the locks in place to protect it against terrorists are easy to pick.
Lawmakers and border security critics have repeatedly made this point, stressing the need for more funding, patrols and protection against illegal entry on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Officials are pointing to records in a South Texas drug case with alleged terrorist ties that they say underscores the lack of preparedness here.
The attorney for a jailed Gulf Cartel member cited in the incident, however, says his client was falsely accused of trying to smuggle Iraqi terrorists into this country. He maintains the claims were brought to increase the punishment for a drug offense against the accused.
The allegations are debated but the danger is real, warns U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz who believes federal lawmakers do not realize the exposure that exists on this porous international boundary.
“There is a huge disconnect between Washington and the border,” Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, said and called the security issue “alarming.”
‘Gente de Osama’
The January 2005 arrest of Noel Exinia and Cesario Nuñez appeared to be just another Drug Enforcement Administration bust on the border, until court documents in the case are examined more closely.
A few days before their arrest on federal cocaine trafficking charges, Exinia and Nuñez moved more than a quarter-ton of cocaine from Mexico through the Rio Grande Valley and on to New York City, the men told officials.
Nuñez, 33, pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge in September. His sentencing is set for Thursday.
Exinia, 35, eventually pleaded guilty to the same charge. His sentencing is expected in March.
Court documents filed in Exinia’s case make frequent references to his position in the notorious Gulf Cartel. The paperwork also contains details of a December 2004 incident in which he tried to secure transportation for 20 Middle Eastern “terrorists” waiting to enter the United States from Monterrey, Chiapas and Puebla in Mexico.
Recorded telephone conversations authorized under the U.S. Patriot Act and a court order captured the La Feria truck driver referring to the 20 men as “gente de Osama” or “Osama’s people.”
During a Jan. 5, 2005, telephone conversation, Exinia described the men as “Iraqis,” ages 25 to 33, who were willing to pay $8,000 for transportation past Border Patrol checkpoints in South Texas and into the U.S. interior.
Exinia mentioned that eight of the men were coming to Progreso, northwest of Brownsville. He said they were “dangerous” and “really bad people.” They carried guns and made the smuggler that was helping them “afraid.”
Court records show that Exinia tried to employ a pilot — who turned out to be a confidential government source — to fly the men from the Valley to the northeastern United States.
Federal prosecutors declined to comment on the documents in Exinia’s case, citing his pending March sentencing.
Nancy Herrera with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas said the documents filed in the case reflect the government’s position at the time they were filed.
“The pleadings are what they are and we have no further comment,” Herrera said.
‘A lot of hot air’
Exinia’s attorney John Blaylock said the FBI conducted a thorough investigation into the incident and cleared his client of any terrorism charges.
“This is an example of a lot of hot air with a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,” Blaylock said.
He said that the references to terrorism were kept in the court documents to “vilify” his client so they could be used to increase the length of his sentence.
Court records show that Exinia’s former attorney William May successfully argued to keep all references to terrorism out the October trial.
At a sentencing hearing for another client in an unrelated case, May told The Brownsville Herald he believed the terrorist allegations against Exinia were “true.”
“Otherwise,” he said, “I wouldn’t have filed a motion to argue against it.”
Blaylock maintains the allegations are false and being used as a tool to justify “massive government spending” and a “power grab.”
“Terrorism is the flavor of the week,” Blaylock said. “If they could have, they would have charged him with terrorism to justify the Patriot Act that is coming up for renewal.”
The USA Patriot Act, first adopted shortly after 9/11, is meant to “deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes,” according to the version approved by Congress in October 2001. It provides for, among other things, enhanced surveillance procedures, protecting the border, removing obstacles to investigating terrorism and strengthening the criminal law against terrorism.
A Patriot Act extension, signed by the president on Dec. 30, keeps anti-terrorism laws that were due to expire Dec. 31 in place until Feb. 3.
The extension allows the FBI to continue to investigate terrorism cases using powers granted in 2001, including roving wiretaps and the authority to intercept wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to terrorism, The Associated Press reported.
FBI officials declined to publicly comment on the Exinia case. One federal law enforcement official that asked not to be named, said the men labeled “terrorists” turned out to be undocumented immigrants from a “nation of concern.”
The FBI would not say if the group made it across the border or if authorities have located or detained them.
‘A serious flaw’
While attorneys debate the existence of terrorists connected to the Exinia case, Ortiz, a former Nueces County sheriff, said information found in court documents underscores the U.S-Mexico border’s vulnerability to terrorist infiltration.
“It is very alarming” he said, holding a copy of the court papers.
“We know there are terrorist cells in the United States. These guys are coming through our back door.”
In fact, Border Patrol agents found Middle Eastern clothes and money in the South Texas brush, according to a federal report issued last year.
Ortiz said drug cartels and other criminal organizations, including the Central American gang, Mara Salvatruchas or MS-13, are dangerous enemies against U.S. security.
Similar to Exinia’s story about the 20 Iraqis he dealt with, Ortiz said Mexican and Central American criminal organizations are sought out to help smuggle terrorists into the United States.
“If they have the money, they’ll bring them across,” he said.
The presence and power of such organizations has long been known to Valley law enforcement but their threat to national security is lost on federal leaders and lawmakers, Ortiz said.
In one anecdote, the congressman said he attended a recent terrorism conference in Washington, D.C., in which FBI officials did not know about the Mara Salvatruchas — one of the most notorious organized crime outfits with documented links to al-Qaida.
“There is a serious flaw in communication,” Ortiz said. “We need to correct it.”
Too bad their trials are already over. I suspect that rather than divulge sources and methods, and an ongoing classified program, the Feds let the "terrorism" charges slide. Now that traitorous scumbags outed it, things would probably have gone a little differently had the trials taken place now.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it is not a bad thing to watch the government.
I've seen this qoute a million times and I think it's BS. When at the end of the War for Independence and congress had fled, the whole world watched expecting Washington to declare himself king. However, the old soldier turned in a receipt for his personal expenses paid on behalf of his army and turned the reins back over to congress.
Absolute power does not always corrupt if you're dealing with people of character.
The Reaper
01-18-2006, 19:35
I've seen this qoute a million times and I think it's BS. When at the end of the War for Independence and congress had fled, the whole world watched expecting Washington to declare himself king. However, the old soldier turned in a receipt for his personal expenses paid on behalf of his army and turned the reins back over to congress.
Absolute power does not always corrupt if you're dealing with people of character.
Character of that level is an extremely rare commodity, and is not to be counted on.
TR
I've seen this qoute a million times and I think it's BS. When at the end of the War for Independence and congress had fled, the whole world watched expecting Washington to declare himself king. However, the old soldier turned in a receipt for his personal expenses paid on behalf of his army and turned the reins back over to congress.
Absolute power does not always corrupt if you're dealing with people of character.
The reason you have seen this argument so many times is that it is generally the case. Few dictators concerned themselves with the welfare of the people even though most started out under the guise of protecting the people they eventually screwed.
Senate Intelligence Chairman: Bush Can Spy By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 3, 8:13 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said Friday the Bush administration's domestic spying is within the president's inherent power under the Constitution, and he rejected criticism that Congress was kept in the dark about it.
ADVERTISEMENT
The program is "legal, necessary and reasonable," the Kansas Republican wrote in a 19-page letter, taking a particularly expansive view of the president's authority for the warrantless surveillance.
"Congress, by statute, cannot extinguish a core constitutional authority of the president," Roberts wrote.
Presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush have intercepted communications to ascertain enemy threats to national security, Roberts told the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roberts' letter came just three days before that panel was to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the surveillance.
All eight Judiciary Committee Democrats urged Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to call more top Bush administration in for questioning, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and ex-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Comey reportedly objected to parts of the program.
Roberts said the Bush administration's notification of just eight members of Congress fulfilled the legal requirement that the legislative branch be kept fully and currently informed.
Roberts has received a dozen briefings on the program; the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, half that many.
Rockefeller says he has not received enough detailed information about the surveillance to make a judgment about its legality, and that the full committee should be briefed.
A closed-door hearing is scheduled for Feb. 9, with testimony from Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence and a former National Security Agency director.
Committee Democrats are pushing for a vote on whether to authorize an investigation. A Feb. 16 business meeting of the committee is scheduled.
With Congress preparing to plunge into a hearing focused exclusively on the warrantless wiretapping, Vice President Dick Cheney said exposing the effort has done "enormous damage to our national security." The New York Times revealed the program's existence in December.
"It, obviously, reveals techniques and sources and methods that are important to try to protect," Cheney said. "It gives information to our enemies about how we go about collecting intelligence against them. It also raises questions in the minds of other intelligence services about whether or not they can work with the United States intelligence service, with our CIA, for example, if we can't keep a secret."
Cheney said he agreed with CIA Director Porter Goss, who told a Senate hearing on Thursday that such leaks are undercutting U.S. intelligence efforts. "I thought Director Goss was rather restrained in his comments, but he was absolutely correct," said Cheney.
Cheney's remarks came in a radio interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham.
WASHINGTON - Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said Friday the Bush administration's domestic spying is within the president's inherent power under the Constitution, and he rejected criticism that Congress was kept in the dark about it.
I can find nowhere that the POTUS, his cabinet, the NSA or any other intelligence agency has referred to DOMESTIC spying. This is the intercept of international signals.
The oponents of the POTUS use the word "DOMESTIC" incorrectly and IMO fraudulently to panic the citizenry. :mad:
one-zero
02-26-2006, 13:33
just when I thought I was surrounded by commies in the DC area, the local leftist paper screws up and prints a letter from a sane reader:
"I hereby expressly consent to the NSA eavesdropping on any telephonic, internet or other electronic forms of communications I may have (whether I initiate or am on the recieving end of the communication) with any person(s) the government has reasonable basis to conclude is a member of Al Qaida, affiliated with AQ, or a member of an organization affiliated with AQ.
I aver that I have no expectation of privacy with respect to any communications I might have with suspected or known AQ members or persons linked to AQ or related terrorist organizations.
Indeed, I'd like to meet the person who would pretend to be victimized by an interception of a call he had with Al Qaida" signed EJW, Falls Church , VA.
He's basically laying out the program for all the retards who think the NSA is willy-nilly listening to domestic calls...easier to bush-bash than actually look at the program's intent.
right-on,
1-0
The administration found a way to work within the contours of FISA.
Attorney General January 17, 2007 letter to the Senate (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf).
Court Will Oversee Wiretap Program
Change Does Not Settle Qualms About Privacy
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 18, 2007; A01
Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701256_pf.html).
I think that the concern is that is courts weren't involved ie no authorization and or no paper trail wire taps could be used as a weapon of the president against anyone they see fit. The reason for FISA was after all the watergate break ins and other abuses of power for political gain. Most people just want to be able to check that phones were tapped for good reason and that the information was used appropriately.
The Reaper
08-31-2007, 21:33
If it stops another 9/11, they can listen to me all they want.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
08-31-2007, 21:48
If it stops another 9/11, they can listen to me all they want.
TR
Me too.
3SoldierDad
08-31-2007, 23:09
Me too.
Me, too.
Ambush Master
08-31-2007, 23:35
I think that the concern is that is courts weren't involved ie no authorization and or no paper trail wire taps could be used as a weapon of the president against anyone they see fit. The reason for FISA was after all the watergate break ins and other abuses of power for political gain. Most people just want to be able to check that phones were tapped for good reason and that the information was used appropriately.
It seems that you tend to appear in controversial Threads (Starting with and continuing through the Dragon Skin Thread!!)!!
I am questioning your motives on this Forum !!!:munchin
They can listen to me also. Boooring :p but who cares.....if it stops another attack!