Didn’t I already address that? That’s in title 18. Does it talk about what title 50 prohibits? Title 50 contains FISA.

Or better yet here the pertinent FISA law is:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system

Yep. Because they are baseless accusations without evidence. If you have evidence I welcome anyone to come to the table so that we can start criminal proceedings. Your pattern of accusations without evidence is not enough (especially during war time) to even warrant a discussion.

Mark wrote again, “Heaven knows that war is cart blanche for a president to do whatever the hell he wants

You know Mark. This is easy. You make it hard. NOBODY is saying the pres can do whatever the hell he wants. What they are saying is that your accusation that they were domestic calls and therefore against the law is INACCURATE. He was following the law and you have no evidence otherwise.

Mark wrote, “I’m not making the charges.

Nope. Just irresponsibly repeating them.

Mark wrote, “the charges HAVE been made

Without evidence presented to back them up.

Mark wrote, “I’d like to have something more than just his word they are not

Mark raped me. No evidence. Just the accusation. Is that irresponsible or not. Yes. So… you tell me Mark.. will you learn that your pattern is irresponsible or not?

Mark wrote, “Frankly, you people scare me”

You scare me too. Good discussion point. Let’s dwell on this. Mark scares me because in a time of war he is interested in making serious charges against the president (or repeating them) without evidence. According to what’s been stated by the President, constitutional lawyers (including Democrats) have stated that the activity is legal. Mark knows better I guess.

Mark: and ‘personal responsibility’.

How are you being personally responsible again? Oh yeah. You aren’t.

Mark wrote, “Then they got that taste of power, and here we are.

Conservatives aren’t really in power Mark. This country has moved LEFT every year for over 6 decades. While the left is going bonkers they don’t realize that both parties are to the left of center and you as an extremist (libertarians want an 80% cut in government) want to get on conservatives when we are centrists who can’t even get a FREEZE in the size of government.

Mark: and idolotry

How about Setting the Record straight from irresponsible people making accusatios without merit and no evidence. I don’t agree with Bush probably 1/2 the time and yet you want to ASSERT idolotry. More irresponsible rhetoric from ya!

Mark wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I agree with ya. Unfortunately, conservatives have been VERY frustrated as we can’t get our ideas or policies or solutions even discussed. The left has been in charge for over 6 decades. The change to Republicans has not moved the country to the center or right. Hope you agree. Hope you tone it down…

It is correct that the constitution doesn’t protect me from punishment for violating the local laws of that country. However, just because I”m in that country doesn’t mean that the governement is no longer restricted in regards to me. They can’t send someone to arrest me, try me secretly, and execute me without due process just because I’m no longer on american soil. I’m still an american, with all of the rights and privileges that that entails.

Case in point:

Nope. Reading comprehension bud. Not what I said. Read again. Recognize that there is a debate is what my point was.

Which I did, despite your having claimed to ask me that when you did not. (You asked steve). I did so here:

There appears to be some question as to whether or not they were domestic calls.

Which got this response:
What evidence do you have to make this accusation?

For the sake of your argument, I granted that what you said was true, that there is a debate, and that it is possible that they may not have been domestic calls. In response, you ask ME what my evidence is.

Yes. AND in a time of war. Great going Mark ! WOOHOO! You are a winner ! Without any evidence you are making “extremely serious charges”.

Oh, yes, of course. In a time of war we dare not ever address charges that have been made against the president. Heaven knows that war is cart blanche for a president to do whatever the hell he wants w/out worrying about facing charges. That’s a brilliant idea.

And just one more time, not that anyone will actually listen. I’m not making the charges. However, the charges HAVE been made, and so I want to know if they are true or not. Given that the charges are against the president, I’d like to have something more than just his word they are not, however much I may not trust the media as a whole in this country.

Frankly, you people scare me. Conservatives in this country used to be for things like ’smaller government’, ‘rugged individualism’, and ‘personal responsibility’. In fact, I can even remember when this was the case…why..it was before they swept into power during the contract with america. Then they got that taste of power, and here we are. And the republican party that used to be full of individualists who held their own party to a certain standard, now seems to be suffering from the same sort of groupthink and idolotry that we always made fun of the left for. It truly is a sad display.

“Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end…liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition…The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern…Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” –Lord Acton

No no no. Only non-terrorists have the rights to kill americans. Once they’re terrorists I think they lose all their rights.

Because I don’t allege that, would be the obvious answer.

Does it say that? Does that mean there is no article II power in guantanamo?

You’d rather go with an accusation with no facts to back it up. We could have a field day with that policy about you…

Mark wrote, “I just checked and you never asked me that. I’m sure some democrats do feel that way. I’m not sure what your point is”

Then you are lost. I’m sorry. You ACT Mark like you are the authority and that Bush broke the law. I ASK Mark if you recognize that there actually is a debate as to whether he did or not and there are articles by Democrats and Constitutional scholars who differ with you. Continued condescension isn’t pursuasive.

Mark asserted incorrectly, “I can only assume that your mentality is such that if a political party feels a particular way, then a member of that party should also feel that way.

Nope. Reading comprehension bud. Not what I said. Read again. Recognize that there is a debate is what my point was.

Mark wrote, “You accuse me of being condescending”

You have been.

Mark wrote, “No, actually, I didn’t insist that Bush broke the law. I insisted that spying on domestic citizens IS breaking the law.

And that my friend is your opinion. I disagree. And the more I read FROM you the more I disagree because you MISTATE the case. Way to be unpursuasive.

Mark wrote, “There appears to be some question as to whether or not they were domestic calls.

What evidence do you have to make this accusation?

Mark wrote, “I merely made the point that spying on domestic citizens without a warrant IS a violation.

Not if the citizens were in an international call with a terrorist. The president retains the right to gather international and foriegn intelligence and FISA excludes these activities from needing a warrant. Go READ!

Mark wrote, “I’d like to see some corroberating evidence. Something other than Bush’s say so.

Where it stands is for folks like yourself and liberals who have the same pattern of attack and accuse… you do not have the evidence to back up your accusations. To continue with your accusations without any evidence is the KEY problem here.

Mark wrote, “but because it’s an extremely serious charge,

Yes. AND in a time of war. Great going Mark ! WOOHOO! You are a winner ! Without any evidence you are making “extremely serious charges”.

Mark wrote, “It’s an international flight. But even while on the plane, and in another country, I retain my citizenship, and my rights under US law.

Yes. and your right is to be monitored when on an international call according to FISA. Game over. Go read.

Or better yet here the pertinent FISA law is:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system,

You can INSIST that he did over and over again but there are scholars and lawyers who HAVE written pieces telling everyone in America why it is that Bush DIDN’T break the law.

No, actually, I didn’t insist that Bush broke the law. I insisted that spying on domestic citizens IS breaking the law. There appears to be some question as to whether or not they were domestic calls. I don’t have enough information to say one way or the other on that point. I merely made the point that spying on domestic citizens without a warrant IS a violation. If he did it, then he broke the law, if he didn’t, then he didn’t. Either way, my point stands, that it is a violation.

The evidence is Bush’s speech where and Q and A by the press afterward where he keeps correcting reporters where Bush said that it was calls only with people in the U.S. talking on an international call to a known terrorist.

I’d like to see some corroberating evidence. Something other than Bush’s say so. Not because I think he’s a pathological liar like Clinton was, but because it’s an extremely serious charge, and now that it has been levelled I’d like som real evidence that the charge is false.

Another question. If you get on a flight from Dulles Airport to France is that called an “international” flight to you?

It’s an international flight. But even while on the plane, and in another country, I retain my citizenship, and my rights under US law.

what kind of sense does this make?