ABCNews is reporting that federal agents are investigating a surge in the purchasing of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan:
The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.
“There’s very little audit trail assigned to this phone. One can walk in, purchase it in cash, you don’t have to put down a credit card, buy any amount of minutes to it, and you don’t, frankly, know who bought this,” said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI official who is now an ABC News consultant.
Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.
“The application of prepaid phones for nefarious reasons, is really widespread. For example, the terrorists in Madrid used prepaid phones to detonate the bombs in the subway trains that killed more than 200 people,” said Roger Entner, a communications consultant.
150 Phones in One Sale, 60 Phones in Another
The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.
In one New Year’s Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: “Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.
“Upon the arrival of officers, suspects were observed moving away from the registers — appearing to evade detection while ridding themselves of the merchandise.”
Other reports have come in from other cities, including Dallas, and from authorities in other states. Authorities in Pennsylvania, New York and other parts of Texas confirmed that they were alerted to the cases, and sources say other jurisdictions were also notified.
There’s more:
The Midland, Texas, arrest report police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:
“Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation,” the report said. “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.
When did the story on the NSA eavesdropping break? Dec. 16. I hope the “whistleblowers“ and those who once upon a time claimed to be so concerned about how leaks could damage our national security suffer some sleepless nights and restless days over this. A lot of them.
Others blogging about this: Anchoress, Brutally Honest, Flopping Aces, Right Voices, Mike’s America, Blog for All, Confederate Yankee, Junkyard Blog, Macsmind
(Cross-posted at California Conservative)
Updated: Michelle Malkin weighs in, and has posted links to AJ Strata, Daily Pundit, and Chris Christner on this issue.
We need to raise the roof on this one.
Related:
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
I only just heard about this last night. Something will probably get legislated about it, but maybe we should get “proactive”, and suggest that to our various legislators…
Comment by camojack @ 1/13/2006 - 9:12 am
I’m surprised the Democrats and the ACLU aren’t screaming because it was noted that the purchasers were Pakistanis and Iraqis. How racist. Racial Profiling, indeed. IT’S ABOUT ******* TIME SOMEBODY NOTICED!
Comment by PCD @ 1/13/2006 - 9:32 am
The next “fear-mongering” will focus on any person who buys more than 12 Halloween masks at one time or more than 1 box of rubber gloves. Are any of you guys storing weapons and food for armageddon? Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/13/2006 - 9:40 am
First off I’m not going to say I’m sorry for using profanity in my last post yesterday. I know I should not use such language but civilians who never have served when they question my patriotism gets my blood pressure raised. Baklava you should be ashamed for suggesting that I should be banned we’re both sailors and veterans. I disagree politically with most folks on this site but I’m an American who sered his country and did his duty well I would like to add. As far as ST most recent post is just politics as usual in my opinion. Most of our security folks can’t interpert Middle-Eastern languages in the first place so when us on the left bring up civil-liberty concerns youse turn around and call us weak on security. It’s 4 years+ after 9/11 a terrorist attack in which I personally lost 2 acquintances not so much friends but I knew the guys. Yet youse on the right scream and yell that the left doesn’t care about our national security. GROW UP ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. 43 hasn’t done much to make the homeland more secure look at our porous borders. Sister Toldah I’m sorry for using language which I shouldn’t habe used on your blog I did not mean any disrespect to you.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 1/13/2006 - 10:24 am
Tommy,
Your judgement was being qustioned. You are right on actions speak louder than words. W has taken action which you are screaming about him not being able to take. I asked you what actions Clinton took in reaction to the Cole and you blew your cork. That says a lot.
Since 9/11 how many American ships, planes, and territory have been attacked?
Clinton did nothing except respond to attacks with search warrants and blaming others for his inaction.
Comment by PCD @ 1/13/2006 - 10:44 am
Plenty PCD remember that incident in Suez canl when a couple of katuyasa rockets flew over the bow,the rockets attacks against our choppers in Iraq, The phony terror alert colors,etc,etc…… Bush 43 used to blast Clinton about nation building in the balkans if not mistaken but I guess it’s a different story when he’s calling the shots. Talk about tossing stones in glass houses. I think you need to start smoking weed man it will help you understand better on how people in power spin the truth. It helped me.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 1/13/2006 - 11:13 am
My guess is that if Congress tries to pass a law to ban these non-trackable phones that there will be a cry from the “left”.
Tommy wrote, “Baklava you should be ashamed for suggesting that I should be banned we’re both sailors and veterans.
We are both Americans. We both have free will. We both have the ability to control our own actions and words. Nobody “makes” you cuss. When I was in the Navy, almost every other word out of most guys mouths was “f” this and that. I never fell into that trap for my 6 years. One day I was mad at one guy and cussed and everyone turned to look at me. Marriage Counseling 101 you will learn that you cannot blame anyone for your actions and words. You need to take responsibility for your own words and actions. That does not mean:
1) Diverting the conversation to others who do wrong
2) Trying to gain the support of “brothers”
3) Blaming someone else for your words and actions.
Tommy wrote, “As far as ST most recent post is just politics as usual in my opinion
It’s her blog and she has the right to post what matters to her. Commenting on the substance would be done in some other way.
Tommy wrote, “Yet youse on the right scream and yell that the left doesn’t care about our national security.
We have a right to our opinion. It might be wise (behoove you) to stop and think about why someone might hold the opinion.
Tommy wrote, “43 hasn’t done much to make the homeland more secure look at our porous borders
We agree on that topic. He has done some things but not NEARLY enough. Not many people think Bush is perfect and nobody is saying so. What we are saying (as conservatives) is that a lot of your “accusations” are without merit (incorrect)
Look at your first and last sentence. They contradicted themselves. OK.
I’m nitpicking 
Comment by Baklava @ 1/13/2006 - 11:31 am
Tommy, I wonder why you characterize things the way you do. The way you characterize things don’t match up with reality.
1) You wrote, “The phony terror alert colors What position are you in to assert this as phony? This accusation by the left that these were used to play with people’s emotions is just that - an accusation. Accusations aren’t reality bud.
2) You wrote, “Bush 43 used to blast Clinton about nation building in the balkans if not mistaken Not sure why you used the verb “blast” but W simply stated his position that he disagreed the use of our troops for nation building. This rhetoric was pre-lessons-learned before 9/11. Also, when you REMOVE a government (ala Germany and Japan - 10 and 7 year reconstruction) you need to reinsert government services and security. If you WANT to call that nationbuilding to “blast” bush the criticism seems to me to lack perspective.
Tommy wrote, “It helped me
That’s what happened. My neighbor thinks like you and has done the same thing. Trust me it hasn’t helped. It takes away perspective (my opinion). My neighbor thinks that Arnold is far right!!
Comment by Baklava @ 1/13/2006 - 11:39 am
Tommy, that explains you.
Again, what did Clinton ever do besides bomb an aspirin factory, send a few cruise missles at OBL when Monica’s stained blue dress was authenticated and proved he was a liar and perjurer, and Clinton bombed an Iraqi Intelligence building killing a janitor.
Clinton didn’t take OBL when offered him by the Somalis because Gorelick had DOJ sitting on information implicating OBL in the 84 Trade Tower Bombings.
Now, what attack have you had lately that W failed to stop?
Comment by PCD @ 1/13/2006 - 11:40 am
Now, what attack have you had lately that W failed to stop?
An attack of the munchies.
Comment by shingles @ 1/13/2006 - 3:14 pm
I hate to inform you people of this this phones have been used like this for at least 3 years. Just watch HBO’s season three of “The Wire” the criminals employed this technique. Even funnier the writers came across the idea for the actual criminals and police.
Comment by Jiro @ 1/14/2006 - 12:56 am
Cruising around and came to this thread. Interesting points.
Noticed similar sentiments as being published elsewhere and put forth by the administration. Namely that the person who “leaked” this story jeopardized national security.
That’s really hard to believe. Does anyone really think that terrorists were talking with impunity on their phones, thinking they couldn’t be tapped? Seriously? That’s why intercepts that have been publshed (including those regarding their 9/11 plans) are always cryptic.
I really do think that it’s a tactic for public consumption that’s been used repeatedly to paint dissenters as unpatriotic or somehow dangerous to the country. It’s a shame because it drives the country further apart at a time when unity is critical.
But, if you do believe that the “leak” is a national security threat, then I think you have to consider that had Bush used the secret FISA court as required by law to obtain warrants, this never would have been made public. So, by his own definition, it is he who jeopardized national security, in addition to breaking his pledge that all wiretaps were obtained by warrants and infringing on our civil liberties.
The rebuttal to the FISA court issue (again put forth by the administration, then repeated) has been that the FISA courts are too slow. But, I’ve never heard a compelling explanation as to why the 72 hour retroactive warrant clause isn’t sufficient when exigency is an issue.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 3:46 am
I hate to say it, but I’m one of those who saw this coming:
“Naturally, if America’s security agencies are prevented from tapping American phones even when used by terrorists, all the terrorists need to do is pick up some disposable cellphones with American numbers and throw them away after one use, before a court order to tap them can be obtained. Thanks to the New York Times and whoever leaked information about a secret, legal tactic to gather information on terrorist activities, this will probably become standard operating procedure for terrorists in the future.”
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 8:18 am
>had Bush used the secret FISA court as
>required by law to obtain warrants
No warrants are required for military actions against the enemy. This isn’t about building a court case; it’s about preventing a terrorist attack. According to the 2002 FISA court, “the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” So please take your lies about what’s “required by law” over to DU or Kos, where they believe that stuff.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 8:26 am
Cavalier,
Your first comment again overlooks the 72-hour retroactivity clause in FISA. They can begin tapping the second the suspect begins talking on his/her new phone, then get a warrant later.
As for your second post:
“the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”
I’m not sure what youre citing there, but Title 50 makes this issue abundantly clear by setting the following as one of the conditions for warrantless tapping:
CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802
(a)(1)(B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
Additionally, even in warrantless wiretaps, the Attorney General is required to certify the condition above and others in writing and under oath.
I think it’s also instructive that not even the Bush administration (to my knowledge) puts forth the argument that FISA allows this. I’ve only seen them cite the notion that Congress granting them authority to use force somehow justifies it and that the constitution provides it by giving the president responsibility for national security.
And please don’t accuse of me of lying because I simply disagree. I don’t think you’re being dishonest, just expressing a different point of view. Let’s start from the premise that we both care about this country and are expressing our honest opinions, then go from there. Otherwise, there really is no need for dialogue.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 9:49 am
- 3rdparty - Nice try but no cigar. The point you and those on the left want so badly to ignore is exactly what CavalierX posted. You need desperately to frame the enemy in terms of criminal rather than combatant rolls, and deny the war. Otherwise your arguments are reduced to revisionist nonsense.
- Clinton used this same ploy to cover his butt over his 8 years of essentially doing as little as possible, playing to the Liberal base. No matter how many times you repeat the same meme, expect to be called out on it.
- At some point, when the hive mentality refuses to look at any reasonable evidence if it undermines their ideolog jargan, it becomes “willful ignorance”.
- Good luck with that.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 11:08 am
BigBang, you wouldn’t feel safe unless you personally, searched every individual on the planet. The rest of us want to be left alone. You know, privacy. Freedom. Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/14/2006 - 11:43 am
- When I see or hear of one single case of an American citizen who has been wire tapped with any meaningful repercussions, or had a single liberty denied, I will respond to that sort of specious absurdity. Until then its just more of the same Leftist malarky.
- You guys should really think about getting some new material.
- Bang -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 11:57 am
3rdparty wrote, “But, if you do believe that the “leak” is a national security threat
Well it sure wasn’t helpful…. Let’s just say on a scale of -10 to +10 it was a -1.
3rdparty is new to the debate and wrote, “had Bush used the secret FISA court as required by law”
There are Dems and constitutional scholars/lawyers who disagree with you 3rdparty that for foriegn intelligence gathering purposes that anyone in this country on an “international” phone call with a terrorist had to use the FISA court as you say which was “required by law”. FISA exempts specifically foriegn intelligence gathering done on “international communications”. Seems the sources you’ve been reading are one sided.
3rdparty missed the point entirely by saying to Cavalier, “Your first comment again overlooks the 72-hour retroactivity clause in FISA.
No warrant is required whether done in 72 hours or prior if it is foreign intelligence done on “international communications”. Period.
How about this law Cavalier (havent’ seen it on your sources have you):
(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,
Every liberal who comes on this blog acts like they are constitutional lawyers or that there isn’t even a debate as to whether some law was broken. They all act like it was clear that the law was broken. Fortunately for us none of them have been able to tell us their credentials. WILL YOU?
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 12:21 pm
Big Bang, Don’t you love people who know what you want or “when you’d feel safe” better than your own self? Great debate tactic of the left huh?
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 12:22 pm
- Well Baklava… you always know when you have your opponent on the ropes when they grab for the adhomenims…. In real life its usually manifested when they get red in the face and walk off in a huff… Which shows at least they’re wise enough to know better than to get in my face….I’m a pretty big guy and they seem to know instinctively theres a point where lying just isn’t worth getting your nose rearranged… *chuckle*
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 2:59 pm
Bang,
You said:
“3rdparty - Nice try but no cigar. The point you and those on the left want so badly to ignore is exactly what CavalierX posted”
Actually, I don’t consider myself left. That’s a frequent tactic I’ve noticed in my short time here. Characterize the dissenter as leftist/liberal so you can go into attack mode with the anti-left talking points, rather than defend the actions of this admin on its merits.
It’s a pretty good indication that you’re on auto-pilot. You even grouped me in with a “liberal” ex-president who has nothing to do with this discussion and whom I haven’t claimed or invoked. Have fun beating that straw man.
This is exactly why there’s no real discourse in this country. Clear your mind for a second and consider that you’re talking with someone who has no “leftist-agenda”, but who genuinely disagrees on the substance. Can you not believe that’s possible?
You said:
“You need desperately to frame the enemy in terms of criminal rather than combatant rolls, and deny the war”
You’re making my point. You’re assuming that all U.S. citizens being tapped are “the enemy”. Which may or may not be the case. We just have to trust Bush on it. And I’m not even questioning his trustworthiness–there’s no need. The whole point is that checks and balances were set up so that our entire democracy doesn’t rest on having to trust any one person.
I honestly (no spin, no partisanship…I mean honestly), don’t understand how you can’t see this.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 3:53 pm
Bang:
You said:
“When I see or hear of one single case of an American citizen who has been wire tapped with any meaningful repercussions, or had a single liberty denied…”
That entire sentence is oxymoronic.
If a single U.S. citizen was wiretapped without a warrant, as prescribed by law, then his/her liberty was already infringed upon under the 4th amendment. Period.
You’re attempting to justify the program based on its quality, rather than address its legality.
i.e. you’re saying, “Yeah, it’s illegal, but they did it real good”.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 4:14 pm
- Alright 3rdparty…. points taken…. lets go down the list and see whos mind is “closed”…
- The phrase “you AND those on the left” does not mean you are left. In fact I took the time to state you share their ideas by the very way I stated it, and I did so because of your posts in following this “auto-pilot” approach of some law has been broken, or at least theres good reason to believe possibly some law has been broken. Thats the common meme on the left. Start with the premise that if its Bush it has to be bad. They’ve been doing this non-stop since they lost in 2000. It’s all they’ve got, and completely transparant by now. I don’t characterise peoples politics when I can’t possibly know them. I’m simply reacting to the things you avered in your post.
But lets cut to the chase here.
You know it would be ever so much easier if the leftists, and/or people such as yourself that have bought into the Liberal scare tactics, would just take the time to do the homework. So many like Steve come here and drop antagonistic, fact empty bombs, knowing next to nothing about the subjects or issues. You can usually spot their posts real meanings if you just apply the “Bush derangement” test. I’m not suggesting thats your purpose, but coming late to the argument you’re reapeating several screeds that are left talking points and totally discredited. Thats sort of pointless.
Anyway. My point was, and still is, that the left “needs” to reframe this and most issues in their terms, in order to have any possible viability. They do that as a matter of course. This is one glaring instance. As far as I know not one single case of wire tapping of an “innocent” American civilian has come to light, and the NSA has been doing this since the late 60’s. In another post I explained I know this for a fact and thats all I’ll say on the subject. Thats a long time for a criminal activity to be going on that threatens our privacy, when to date not a single case has come to light of a single citizen having his liberties usurped, wouldn’t you say?
No you don’t have to take Bushes word for it. You have to take all the Administrations since Kennedy, and all the Congressional oversight committee’s, and all the Security panels, our entire governments and every one of the endless checks and balances that we have in place as reliable. Or not.
Instead you can listen to the raving of the Liberals that our President is some sort of evil minded villian that can’t wait to eavesdrop and enslave us all. Its a vituporous, nonsensical, immature argument ment for just one purpose: “Get Bush”.
Not seeing through this agenda is breath-takingly naive’…
I guess I’m just not cynical or paranoid enough to ever be a Liberal…. Or maybe its that I waited until I’d heard all sides of the issue before I formed any opinions…. you think?
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 4:21 pm
Baklava,
You wrote:
“Well it sure wasn’t helpful…. Let’s just say on a scale of -10 to +10 it was a -1.”
What evidence do you have that it even registers on a scale? Because disposable cell phone sales are supposedly on the rise? A little thin don’t you find? You really think the terrorists never considered using disposable cell phones? C’mon! You guys genuinely believe this stuff?
You said:
“Seems the sources you’ve been reading are one sided.”
My “source” is the U.S. Code.
You said:
“How about this law…”
Actually, I have seen it. You’re looking in the wrong place/reading out of context.
You said:
“Every liberal who comes on this blog acts like they are constitutional lawyers or that there isn’t even a debate as to whether some law was broken.”
You’re also assuming that I’m liberal, simply because I disagree. Like Bang, this shows you’re on auto-pilot. Ready to brand me a liberal then start with the talking points. That’s not showing an open mind.
You said:
“They all act like it was clear that the law was broken. Fortunately for us none of them have been able to tell us their credentials”
Why do you require those who disagree to show credentials? And, you seem to be as certain that no law was broken as I am that one was. Bit of a double-standard there.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 4:41 pm
No 3rd…you assumed I assumed you were left….Jumped at it actually, without noticing whata I actually wrote…. so whos mind is closed?
Hmmmmmm….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 4:45 pm
“You need desperately to frame the enemy in terms of criminal rather than combatant rolls, and deny the war”
Saying the enemy should be treated per-FISA does not frame it in terms of criminal law. FISA is not about criminality, but intelligence gathering.
Comment by andrew @ 1/14/2006 - 4:48 pm
>They can begin tapping the second the
>suspect …
What suspect? They were tapping phone numbers they got from al-Qaeda databases, not suspects. That’s why FISA simply did not apply in this case.
>I’m not sure what youre citing there
FISA 2002 Court of Review. If they don’t think the President needs their permission to conduct intelligence operations, then why do you?
>I’ve only seen them cite the notion that
>Congress granting them authority to use
>force somehow justifies it
Because. We’re At. War.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 4:52 pm
>You know, privacy. Freedom. Peace
If you’re exchanging hummus recipes with Uncle Osama, you don’t get any of the thre.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 4:54 pm
3rd wrote, “What evidence do you have that it even registers on a scale?
What evidence do you have it doesn’t? An accusation is just that an accusation. And boy are you going full bore. With no evidence and faulty view of laws that you haven’t even read.
Who cares if you aren’t a liberal. My view based on your PATTERN. If you aren’t. Again. Who cares. You are full of accusations without evidence and constitutional credentials.
I require it because you are making serious accusations without being up to speed on what the law is. Don’t you think you should at least read up on people who have made the case for the president and are constitutional experts?
You mentioned double-standard. And nope. I at least admit it could be against the law. But every liberal (and whatever you call yourself) who has come here claiming this is CLEARLY against the law have totally ignored the Democrats and constitutional experts who have made the case that it isn’t. Including yourself. Do you AT LEAST admit there is a DEBATE going on? Or are you going to continue being acting as the authority (without credentials)?
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 4:55 pm
Cav, Seems we got an expert with no credentials acting like there is no debate going on.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 4:56 pm
>Characterize the dissenter as
>leftist/liberal
I love it when Liberals run away from being called Liberals. Hey, if you’re spouting Liberal talking points and arguing according to the Liberal “rules” of arguing, don’t be surprised when people see through your clever disguise.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 4:57 pm
>Seems we got an expert with no
>credentials acting like there is no
>debate going on.
Typical of the Left, I have noticed. They act as though their point is already settled, and force their opponent into the position of having to disprove it. I don’t play that game. If a Liberal wants to debate with me, he’d better bring his proof to the table.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 5:00 pm
3rd, Quick question…
What percentage of income tax does the top 50% of income earners pay?
Any conservative knows this one….
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 5:00 pm
- And just to give you something “real” to consider, every administration since FDR has monitored all incoming and outgoing communications, in all forms, to the extent of the available technology. Until the late 60’s, ELINT was fairly primative. Now-adays its very sophisticated. The real question isn’t whether the actual data gathering has been going on. Thats a fact. The question, if you insist on worrying about such things, is what if anything is done with the data. The answer is absolutely nothing, if you don’t happen to be an “innocent” American planning for the next Al Qeada terrorist strike on American soil.
As to the question of legality, not with standing all Dem and Rep Administrations reserve this power of monitoring, both in war time or not, I suspect this is one of those grey area’s where, like personal Income tax, the Fed never got around to voting on it or passing formal laws for all the attendent good reasons.
- Anyway. If it was illegal to monitor combatants it wouldn’t be neccessary for the left to try to characterize them as innocent American citizens and the issue in terms of law enforcement, trying to yet again deny the whole WOT.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 5:00 pm
ST, Where’s the football thread? Redskins playing the Seahawks. Still 0-0.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 5:04 pm
Bang,
You said:
“No 3rd…you assumed I assumed you were left….Jumped at it actually, without noticing whata I actually wrote…. so whos mind is closed?”
Nice try with the word play. Might’ve actually worked if you hadn’t posted this right behind it:
“Until then its just more of the same Leftist malarky.”
Your bias is obvious. You can’t seem to suppress it even when you try.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 5:31 pm
>every administration since FDR has
>monitored all incoming and outgoing
>communications
I wonder what our friend thought of Echelon.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 5:34 pm
How about answering the easy question…
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 5:35 pm
Ohhhh…. then I take it 3rd you’ve basically given up the ghost on the illusionary “illegal wire tap scare” screed and would rather bloviate about anything else available….
- Methinks you protest too loudly….
- How about a novel idea. Something like reponding to the points that have been given to you instead of spinning into a tangent…
- If not I’m off the bus. Its degrading into a Nixonian “I am not a liberal” waste of time… *snort*
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 5:39 pm
3-7 Seattle just scored a touchdown.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 5:41 pm
- So Andrew. Then I take it you think the NSA monitoring of drug smugglers would be reasonable but not Al Qeada suspects. Kind of a tortured logic there wouldn’t you say. I agree FISA is a civilian wire tap statute. But what does that have to do with suspected “enemy combatants” in a time of war. Oh I forgot. The left, in its infinate wisdom, still doesn’t believe 2700 people died on 9/11 in an act of war, and the Rosenburgs never gave away atomic secrets to the Russians…..
- Like I said. Some people would call that “willfull ignorance”…
- Bang -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 6:09 pm
10-17 Redskins just scored and are 7 points down.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 7:03 pm
Seahawks fumble and Redskins recover at the 40 yard line
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 7:05 pm
Bang,
My mistake. I missed your post explaining why you made the left implication.
So, I retract what I said at 5:31 (on style if not substance
) and accept your explanation as to why you lumped me in with the left. In fact, I appreciate your acknowledgement of that and genuine effort to communicate.
That’s what’s missing here (read in this country). If I’m zealous, it’s because I believe what I believe as earnestly as you believe as you do. But I try to not make it personal. And I have to say that while everyone (Bush supporters vs. dissenters) is rabid, from my point of view, it goes like this:
Me: Bush was wrong.
You, et. al: You’re just part of the evil leftist spin machine that loves the terrorists and hates Bush. Your views are based on that alone and thus have no merit.
Then it’s straight to “attack-the-left/ personal-attack mode”.
I mean it goes directly from a discussion about our elected officials to personal attacks. It’s ad hominem of the highest order (somebody invoked that higher up–but it’s so ironically applicable here).
And, for the record, even if I was on the left, that’s not a valid response, or at least not one that leads to productive discourse.
But that comes from the party leadership, I’ve observed. They smear and discredit anyone who dissents which is not very democratic to say the least. Look at what was done to Murtha, the Plames, Richard Clarke to name a few. I’d mention Sheehan, but I’m afraid someones head might burst into flames. Even John McCain in the primaries back in 2000. How the hell can you smear that guy? Relatively speaking, he’s probably one of the most pragmatic, non-partisan guys in Washington, and has more integrity than many by most accounts.
But, most of the right seems to get behind it and engages in these personal attacks. The Plames are evil. Murtha is evil. And many times, they are suddenly evil in ways that have nothing to do with whatever issues arose. It’ just general smearing and, curiously, they were all perfectly ok until they dissented.
Anyway, I don’t think you’re evil because we don’t agree, and I believe that you want what’s best for this country. I seriously try my darndest to understand Bush-supporters’ position. But, my darndest just doesn’t seem to be enough.
And for the record, let me state for all that of course I know there’s a debate and I’m expressing opinions when I say “clearly a law has been violated.” I don’t consider myself an expert, nor have I seen evidence that anyone else here is. Again, I think it’s complete ad hominem for Baklava to discredit my right to express an opinion b/c “I’m not an expert”.
Further, I think it shows how much both sides have been caricatured that he and others actually believe that I think my word is law and my opinion fact. For him, I’d have to say “It is my opinion” before everything I say.
And Baklava, I’m not talking about you behind your back. It just flows naturally from this post and I don’t feel like opening another post for it.
I’ll return to the substance of what you said re: wiretepas in my next post.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 7:07 pm
Accusations galore.
Who said Murtha is evil 3rd? Seems you are doing the smearing with your accusations without credentials on the subject at hand.
WHy don’t you answer the question? What percentage of the income tax does the top 50% of income earners pay?
I’m GLAD you at LEAST recognized that there is a debate going on. Your opinion though is not merited (in my opinion) above the “experts” who have weighed in on the subject. Thanks for allowing me to say that.
Another accusation of yours is “Baklava’s to descredit my right to express an opinion”
You have the right just as much as I do and I never stated you didn’t so your accusation is just that - another charge that was baseless (quite the pattern). But until now you didn’t recognize that there are experts who have disagreed with your assuredness that it was against the law for Bush to do what he did.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 7:26 pm
Redskins lost. I didn’t expect them to beat Seattle. Now I hope either Seattle or the Panthers win.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 7:37 pm
Liberal or “progressive” or not, 3rdparty seems to have all the Leftist talking points down pat, along with the Lib trick of shotgunning them all out in one post.
>Look at what was done to Murtha, the
>Plames, Richard Clarke to name a few.
Oh, you mean endless media fawning on their lies and half-truths? Please.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 7:52 pm
Conservatives had substantive responses to these people. Liberals were incensed that we’d question their substance with better substance and didn’t even address the substance. The only substance that matters to liberals are their own talking points. As if there is no other argument in town.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 7:59 pm
I’m a religious anarchist, is that a Liberal or a Conservative? Peace
Comment by steve @ 1/14/2006 - 8:12 pm
Anarchist is extreme right Steve. That would make you opposed to the Democrats and Republicans and for very little government. Libertarians are for an 80% cut in government. Anarchists are to the right of libertarians.
Good luck with that!
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 8:29 pm
Baklava,
Whoa! Calm down. I have a life between posting to blogs. Give me a minute.
Besides, I’m trying to get back to the original issue, but you keep throwing up this other stuff.
Let me do the last thing first b/c it’s quick…
You said:
“Who said Murtha is evil?”
The spin/smear machine was revving up. I’d actually put “starting” before Murtha’s name but deleted it. Aren’t you astute? But make no mistake, it was starting. They just had to back pedal, which was actually funny.
But, what’s really funny is that I offered several names and you just picked one and said, “hey, we didn’t smear Murtha”. That was pretty much a sitcom punchline. Don’t know if you meant it to be funny, but if so, good one.
You said:
“Your opinion though is not merited (in my opinion) above the “experts” who have weighed in on the subject”
But there are experts on both sides. So, does that mean you merit the opinions of experts on the other side above your own? Hmmmm.
You said:
“until now you didn’t recognize that there are experts who have disagreed with your assuredness that it was against the law for Bush to do what he did.”
What? Of course I did. That’s a ridiculous assumption. I just weighed in with my opinion. Why is that so odd to you?
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 8:47 pm
Cavalier,
You said:
“I love it when Liberals run away from being called Liberals. Hey, if you’re spouting Liberal talking points and arguing according to the Liberal “rules” of arguing, don’t be surprised when people see through your clever disguise.”
I guess you caught me. Apparently you know me better than I do. Who’d a thunk it? You’re just too clever.
You said:
” If a Liberal wants to debate with me, he’d better bring his proof to the table.”
Yet when proof is offered, you ignore it and resume your “I hate lefties” rant.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 8:54 pm
I’m sorry. I know of no leader that called Murtha evil or was “starting” to call Murtha evil. Essentially they were saying that he didn’t vote for the Iraq war and were wondering why he was characterized the way he was characterized by the press and what the RESULT would be of leaving Iraq before you should be leaving.
I picked one because the pattern of the LEFT is to throw out a laundry list of ACCUSATIONS and I wanted to see you DEFEND your pattern of accusing (which is the same as the left). It’s so common. It’s predictable. The left thinks of conservatives so poorly and have a laundry list on the tip of their tongue of INCORRECT accusations. Don’t you get tired of accusing?
I don’t merit my opinion over the experts on the other side. Another accusation of yours. I recognize a debate. You didn’t. Thanks for admitting it’s there. It took you a few posts. Thanks again for doing it. Nice debating with ya.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 8:55 pm
Baklava,
Was it you who said I was going off on tangents. Good grief, I just saw your income tax question. Don’t know where that came from.
Anyway, I didn’t know the exact figures, but I was actually going to estimate 100%, given that there are poor people who pay none. Well, that and you seemed so proud of the question. I looked it up and saw that it seems to be 95.79% or so. But that was in 2000. Don’t know what it is after the recent cuts.
So, uh…how does this tie in to the wiretap discussion? Are we moving on?
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 9:13 pm
Not me. Another incorrect accusation.
You’re on a role.
You’re are INCORRECT. The answer is that it’s gone up and is over 96.04%. Your characterizations about the cuts and the not knowing is indicative of something. You tell us.
Moving on with your inaccurate accusations…. I guess… We’ve determined that it’s just an opinion of your and a laypersons opinion at that. Just like my opinion.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 9:25 pm
And with your record of inaccurate accusations I’d say my words are a tad/slight better than yours.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 9:28 pm
“So Andrew. Then I take it you think the NSA monitoring of drug smugglers would be reasonable but not Al Qeada suspects”
What makes you say that?
“I agree FISA is a civilian wire tap statute. But what does that have to do with suspected “enemy combatants” in a time of war.”
Who says FISA is only for civilians?
Comment by andrew @ 1/14/2006 - 9:40 pm
3rd party I have been reading your posts and have yet to see you offer proof of anything. You offer opinion, but that should not be mistaken for proof. You seem to think that this cell phone piece is a scare tactic. I came to that conclusion based on your statement That’s really hard to believe. Does anyone really think that terrorists were talking with impunity on their phones, thinking they couldn’t be tapped? Seriously? That’s why intercepts that have been publshed (including those regarding their 9/11 plans) are always cryptic.
I really do think that it’s a tactic for public consumption that’s been used repeatedly to paint dissenters as unpatriotic or somehow dangerous to the country. It’s a shame because it drives the country further apart at a time when unity is critical. This is no scare tactic, this is 2006 and this is our life. Many things changed on 9/11. We started to aggressively pursue our enimies rather than sit around and pay lip service. We have an immigration problem in this country that is out of control! All e-mail is basically filtered through the US, so for them to use cell phones is not that unusual. What are the chances of the gov’t being able to trace all 150 in that 1 buy? The 1 out of 150 is the one that counts.
You also seem to think that the unwarranted wiretips were illegal. The Democratic Senators confirming Alito must have said it at least 200 times, but repeating a lie does not make it the truth. The truth is, the POTUS does have certain powers afforded to him in the COTUS and if there was one lesson to be learned from the Alito hearings, it was that we need to review the definition of war and duration of the power that the POTUS is granted this right. You see, as it stands, we may have 4 more POTUS’s before the War On Terror is concluded. It is very possible, it may never end. Should his/her right to continue such surrveilance go on indefinitely? Those are the questions that should be addressed by our lawmakers in Washington. Instead they chose to play gotcha every single day! Well they didn’t get him. GWB broke no law, just as Clinton before him. This is well within the Presidential Powers to conduct such surveillance! If they spent just 1/4 of the time working on this issue as they do on abortion, just think how much easier things could be.
Comment by Pam @ 1/14/2006 - 9:44 pm
Cavalier,
Finally got to the FISA reviewyou referenced. To your quote:
“the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information”
Now, I’m NO EXPERT HERE, but the way it reads to me says you’re taking it completely out of context. That quote was the finding in the Truong case in 1976. And it does assert the president’s right as you believe.
BUT, Truong was in 1976 (pre-FISA). As I UNDERSTAND IT, these issues were the reason FISA came about. That is, to ensure that the president’s real needs in upholding national security could be met in a way that would be consistent with the 4th amendment.
So FISA was codified into law as the solution. It supercedes the Truong ruling and places very specific requirements on obtaining warrants, but allows 72-hour retroactive warrants where time is critical.
Out of 19,000+ requests, the court has only denied 5 warrants.
Still, if the Bush admin decided that FISA wasn’t sufficient, they should’ve worked through Congress to change the law, not just ignore it.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 9:51 pm
>That quote was the finding in the Truong
>case in 1976.
No, it was not. Please pay attention when you read. Here’s the quote in question from the 2002 FISA Court of Review:
“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” (emphasis added)
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 10:16 pm
Bang,
Still catching up. Boy, you guys are not just flat-out wrong, you’re prolific!
Seriously:
You said:
“People such as yourself that have bought into the Liberal scare tactics…”
Not sure what you mean by this. I’m not trying to scare anyone. In fact, that is so overwhelmingly ironic that I hope it’s not lost on you. EVERYTHING since 9/11 ha s been justified by this admin with “the enemy wants to kill us”. Good grief. We know already. Most take it VERY seriously I’d say, but it doesn’t give this admin carte blanche to do whatever they please as long as they say “hey, national security…you know, those terrorists”. And I don’t underestimate or make light of the seriousness, but that whole thing has become such a predicitable caricature that it’s as if they are parodying those who pardody them.
In fact, we dissenters are saying that we take the situation so seriously that we’d prefer not to make the situation worse.
You said:
“That’s a long time for a criminal activity to be going on that threatens our privacy, when to date not a single case has come to light of a single citizen having his liberties usurped, wouldn’t you say?”
How on earth would I know if my liberties had been usurped? If someone listened to one conversation without following the law, then yes. But I don’t know. And still, THAT’S NOT THE POINT! There’s a law and a Constitution. I don’t understand why you don’t get that. I don’t know who did what in the past, and I don’t know if it was consistent with the law at that time. I’m just talking about right now.
That’s another frequent tactic, BTW. Point the finger and say “but look what they did”.
“No you don’t have to take Bushes word for it. You have to take all the Administrations since Kennedy, and all…”
Again, don’t care what they did. Nothing I can do about it. If I’d known about it then, I’d have been equally concerned.
You also mentioned that I have to trust our entire system of checks and balances. Yes! Which he circumvented. And of course the whole thing can fail, but it’s much less likely than one branch/person going astray. Again…that’s the point.
You said:
“Instead you can listen to the raving of the Liberals that our President is some sort of evil minded villian that can’t wait…”
Why does it have to be all of that? Why can’t I just disagree and be concerned? So is it really the case that you either agree with Bush, or you believe all that other stuff?
“Not seeing through this agenda is breath-takingly naive’…”
”
Sure there are people politicizing this but that’s always the case and is on both sides. Just b/c some are politicizing it doesn’t mean it’s right.
“Or maybe its that I waited until I’d heard all sides of the issue before I formed any opinions…. you think?”
Honestly? No, I don’t think. I think you made your decision because you trust Bush categorically, then you backed into your arguments.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 10:25 pm
- 3rd - FISA passed on the question at the base of your argument and declared THEMSELVES they have no jurisprudence in the area of war power conditions. Or are we supposed to ignore them because that wouldn’t fit the party talking points.
- Now I know that things have changed in the public arena in terms of “progressive” thinking in the past 50 years since WWII. But in truth they really haven’t.
- If you act in sedition or traiterous adventure agianst the soveriegnty and safety of the US and its citizenry you pay forfeit to your rights. - SC, 1931, Charky vs the US….
- The only “rights” you have the instant you step over that line is those of the Geneva convention which the US is a party signitore too. Any discussion beyong that is purely fanciful revisionism, a favorite pasttime on the left.
- Heres a few more:
- Acting in behalf of a foriegn government in the capacity of agent forfeits all rights to constitutional defense beyond those of the Geneva convention.
- Non-citizens have no birth right to Constitutional protections or defense beyond that of the Geneva conventions.
- Enemy combatents and or prisoners [are] afforded only those rights as outlined in the Geneva conference and issuance thereof, and are entitled to trial by military tribunal.
- You know the Constitution is not a suicide pact. In times of war, whether you and the left like to admit it or not, its not an excuse to start playing peacnik no matter how clever your pithy rhetoric may seem.
- Just be happy ChimpyBush didn’t declare National Marshall law. It can get really nasty under those extremes. Make your liberal head spin. *chuckle*
- We live in a Representative Democratic Republic. The Socialist states are all over that way. Get used to it.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 10:28 pm
No no, you all are missing the whole point. Those weren’t Islamist terrorists buying all those cell phones, those were covert Republican operatives who were doing it. It is all a sinister plot by Karl Rove to make it LOOK like the leak actually did some harm! Those damned crafty evil Republithugs are at it again.
Comment by Severian @ 1/14/2006 - 10:28 pm
Baklava,
“Your characterizations about the cuts and the not knowing is indicative of something. You tell us.”
That’s so flagrantly ridiculous and transparent.
You’re trying SOOOOOO hard I can hear you straining over the net. I answered your question very matter-of-factly and very much in the neighborhood.
And I didn’t “characterize the cuts” I simply said that the figures I found were from 5 years ago (read pre-cut) and I didn’t know what effect the cuts had on them. Which could’ve included none, by the way.
Next time you try to bait me, try not to be so painfully obvious. I didn’t even nibble and you’re trying to force feed it to me.
If you want to know how I feel about it, just ask.
Or, tell me you were kidding with that comment too and just forgot to add a smiley.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/14/2006 - 10:44 pm
- You know I start to extend you the curtousy of a congenial debate and then you say things like:
“Honestly? No, I don’t think. I think you made your decision because you trust Bush categorically, then you backed into your arguments.”
- What is it that makes the opposition think that casting aspersions, or assigning an attitude to your advisary in any way changes the facts on the ground. It does not. That right there is why the left is seldom taken seriously anymore. The Dems have evolved into more of a cult than a viable party. But I digress.
- Assuming you are just speaking as a concerned citizen, I guess I can understand a certain amount of culture shock if you didn’t understand what giving the President war powers really means. But it is what it is, so beyond that I don’t know what to tell you, other than I for one am very happy to allow him whatever powers he needs to meet his constitutional duty, and protect us at all costs.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/14/2006 - 11:12 pm
You answered the question in the neighborhood by looking it up and then “FELT” that it must be lower because of tax cuts. Your characterization of tax cuts is why I questioned you. You seem to “believe” and “feel” something that isn’t true about what happens when ALL income tax payers are given a tax cut. Checkmate and you don’t even know it.
EVERY conservative on this blog I think knows without looking up the figures and also they know better about the liberal talking points what happens after a tax cut for ALL income tax payers.
BTW, Do you think the tax cuts for all income tax payers are the reason for the defecit? Since you asked me to ask…
Comment by Baklava @ 1/14/2006 - 11:48 pm
>Not sure what you mean by this.
Running around screaming that our rights are being destroyed, without being able to name a single person who has had one right abrogated.
>Good grief. We know already. Most take
>it VERY seriously I’d say
No, I really don’t believe you do.
>How on earth would I know if my
>liberties had been usurped?
You don’t even know, and yet you seem so upset by it. It’s as if someone just told you you lost your freedom, and you just blindly believed them without evidence…
>In fact, we dissenters are saying that
>we take the situation so seriously that
>we’d prefer not to make the situation
>worse.
Sure, when I’m sick I prefer not to make the situation worse by taking medicine. Come on, tell us how the situation can be worse than terrorists running around freely, plotting the mass murder of thousands or millions of Americans. I really want to hear that.
>There’s a law and a Constitution. I
>don’t understand why you don’t get that.
Oh, we get it. And we prefer to follow it. And according to the courts whose word you prize, the President has the Constitutional powers you claim he doesn’t.
>I don’t know who did what in the past,
>and I don’t know if it was consistent
>with the law at that time. I’m just
>talking about right now.
That’s one of the biggest problems with Libs.
>Point the finger and say “but look what
>they did”.
Some refer to it as “precedent.”
>our entire system of checks and
>balances. Yes! Which he circumvented.
You keep saying that despite all the evidence to the contrary. It’s just another debunked talking point.
>Why can’t I just disagree and be
>concerned?
When reasonable people disagree with policy, they examine the evidence and come to a decision; they don’t just reject all explanations out of hand so that they can run around expressing vague concerns. The evidence shows that no wrogndoing has occurred, yet you reject it so you can continue to spread your corrupt memes.
Comment by CavalierX @ 1/14/2006 - 11:59 pm
- Hmmmm…. looks like its time to go to four layers of tinfoil Severian - *snort*
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/15/2006 - 12:11 am
Pam,
You wrote:
“3rd party I have been reading your posts and have yet to see you offer proof of anything.”
I offered the U.S. Code, the Constitution, my take on the FISA Reivew, and yes, opinions.
“This is no scare tactic, this is 2006 and this is our life. Many things changed on 9/11“.
Are we really any more vulnerable than we were pre-9/11? I mean this Iraq fiasco notwithstanding, as I’d argue has given Bin Laden exactly what he wanted and is making us less secure.
Aside from that, we just woke up to the reality that the rest of the world lives with. But that’s no reason to dismantle our democracy and live the rest of our lives utterly terrified.
Really. What are we doing in Iraq? How is it helping? And after all the morphing of rationale, how can you still support it in good faith? At what point do you say…”hmmm, this is a little odd”?
Re: The cell phones.
I never doubted that terrorists used cell phones Pam. I’m just saying that they’ve always known we trace them. So, this notion that now they know to buy disposables as if they’d never considered it before is inane, in my opinion. It’s just part of the ongoing campaign designed to make any dissenter look like he/she’s on Bin Laden’s side.
“The Democratic Senators confirming Alito must have said it…”
There are concerned Republicans too.
“You also seem to think that the unwarranted wiretips were illegal”
Yes, I do.
“It is very possible, it may never end.”
The way it’s being fought now, I agree. We’re providing the fertile recruitment ground and the justification OBL needs to raise his armies against us. We are fomenting more hate and ensuring that generations of Americans to come will have to deal with this.
We cannot kill these people as fast as they are being created. Rumsfeld himself said it at one point. Why do we think that will change as long as we occupy that land and act unilaterally?
And I agree with you on the hearings. I’d actually call it farcical. I would much rather have seen real discussion on executive authority, individual rights, etc.
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/15/2006 - 2:14 am
Bang,
You said,
“What is it that makes the opposition think that casting aspersions, or assigning an attitude to your advisary in any way changes the facts…”
Wow, that’s extraordinary. I think you should re-read about 72% of what you guys have been saying to me. The whole left thing started instantly, which you’ve already admitted. And that was just the beginning.
But, I do agree about the Dems. They are in disarray and offer no clear vision.
You said:
“I guess I can understand a certain amount of culture shock if you didn’t understand what giving the President war powers really means.
I’m not familiar with any law that says the president can spy on American citizens with impunity during a war.
obviously, we’ll have to agree to disagree. If this makes it to the SC (as I suspect it will), there’s a pretty good chance that the President will win given that Alito will be on the bench by then.
Still don’t know why you’re so eager to give up your rights, but Pam’s point becomes interesting here. This’ll be going on for a while. You prepared to give them up indefinitely? And how far does it go?
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/15/2006 - 2:49 am
Baklava,
You said:
“You answered the question in the neighborhood by looking it up and then “FELT” that it must be lower “
Wow, your amazing powers know no bounds. You actually know what I felt. I stand in awe.
Yeah, you’re right. Whatever game you’re playing you must’ve won, b/c I still don’t know what you’re talking about with “characterizations of the tax cut”, etc. I merely stated that there were changes which could’ve affected the allocations about which you asked.
No, I don’t walk around with the exact figure in my pocket (not sure if that means you checkmated me again in your game), but it stands to reason that the allocation could’ve changed over 5 years especially where tax code changes (in this case, cuts) have been involved. And guess what? According to you they have.
So, outside of your amazing powers and the feelings and beliefs that you have ascribed to me, is there something you’d like to share?
Comment by 3rdparty @ 1/15/2006 - 3:47 am
Ok 3rd. I’m going to try this one more time, then call it a day. Here are some “facts” that do not suffer the torment of argument or someones “opinion”. Make of them what you will.
- Most “laws” must be signed by the Pres. to be duly inacted. That means by dent of his position as CIC, and according to the Constitution, he has the power and authority to adjudicate. Normally its basically accepted he may/does defer to the SCOTUS when questions of Constitutionality arise. Some argument might even be made that in peacetime hes obligated to do so.
- Under Art. II of the war powers act, he is given war powers that allow him to adjudicate and act to almost absolute extent in order to insure to his capability the safety and soverenty of the US and its electorate, which meets his Constitutional sworn duty. That requirement trumps any other consideration, and only a suicidal maniac would argue otherwise.
- What you and the left, and the ACLU seem to be arguing is that the Congress has the power to limit the Presidential powers in a time of war. I wouldn’t want to be the guy arguing that in front of the SCOTUS, much less the electorate. Its rhetorical nonsense.
- War is war, and we have NEVER fought a war where we were not obliged to trust our government to take extra-Constitutional steps. The President was duly elected as CIC. Then he was given the reins of war powers by the Congress. If you now want to turn around and go all paranoid on him I guess thats your right. But thats what it is. Paranoia, pure and simple. I will tell you that this area has been challenged on many occassions over the decades and what always happens is calm heads prevail and the Congress backs the President. Thats true for both parties. Someone has you and others all whipped up in a needless frenzy because its creates the kind of mayhem they need to have voice.
- I personally worked on Elint programs, which started back in the late 60’s. I can no