in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Gallup | Campaign 2012: Obama, Romney Each Has Economic Strengths With Americans |
0 |
| Chi. Sun Times | New Tone: Inside Sunday’s violent clash between ‘Black Bloc’ anarchists, cops |
0 |
| Power Line | Media Watch: “Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?” |
0 |
| WaPo | Shock: White House visitor logs provide window into lobbying industry |
0 |
| Politico | Interesting: Obama super PAC slump continues |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
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
RSS feed for comments on this post.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
And with your record of inaccurate accusations I’d say my words are a tad/slight better than yours.
“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?
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.
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.
>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)
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.
- 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
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.
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.
- 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.
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…
>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.
- Hmmmm…. looks like its time to go to four layers of tinfoil Severian – *snort*
- Bang
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.
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?
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?
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 not give you certain details for obvious reasons, but heres some things I can say.
- All intracountry communications have been monitored, to the extent and capability of the concurrent technology of the time, since the 60′s.
- The process is a tree of screening words and phrases. At each level of screening a more severe pertinant set of triggers must be met or the data is discarded.
- After a a significant number of screening levels the remaining data is added to a flagged group and considered viable ELINT for human examination.
- The problem, and always has been, the sheer volume of daily information. I won’t get into the numbers but just to say its mind boggling. The chances of uncle Teds sex habits being reviewed by a human is below the sound level of an ant farm. You have a better chance of being kidnapped by Elvis leading a band of LGM’s from Roswell.
- But hey. I know its more fun to speculate. So knock yourself out. I don’t want to spoil your fun.
- Bang
Cavalier,
You said:
“Running around screaming that our rights are being destroyed, without being able to name a single person who has had one right abrogated…”
I’ve made the point so many times that I’m getting on my own nerves, but you still don’t get it. This’ll be the last time. It doesn’t matter! It’s about the law and the safeguards in our democracy.
“You don’t even know, and yet you seem so upset by it.”
No, I do know that the potential exists, and yes, that disturbs me. Maybe one day it’ll disturb you too.
You said:
“Come on, tell us how the situation can be worse than terrorists running around freely…”
How about more terrorists runnng around freely…
You said:
“That’s one of the biggest problems with Libs…some refer to it as precendent”
Actually the opposite is the problem with the right. Instead of addressing problems today, you’d rather divert and point to who else did it. Just because it was done, doesn’t make it right.
You said:
“You keep saying that despite all the evidence to the contrary…”
What evidence to the contrary? The check and balance here was the FISA court. He didn’t use it. Pretty simple.
“The evidence shows that no wrogndoing has occurred, yet you reject it so you can continue to spread your corrupt memes.”
That’s silly and juvenile. And according to one of my other new friends, there’s still a debate among “experts”. So maybe instead of being “corrupt”, I just agree with the other side. Mind-blowing huh?
>Still don’t know why you’re so eager to
>give up your rights
WHAT RIGHTS? You have been asked repeatedly to name a single citizen who has lost a single right, and you just can’t do so, can you?
>What are we doing in Iraq? How is it
>helping?
If you’re too dense to understand how despotic regimes spawn terrorism, no one here can help you.
>And after all the morphing of rationale,
Never happened in real life, only in the media. All the reasons for Iraq were carefully laid out in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. I really wish you Liberals would just stop lying.
>The check and balance here was the FISA
>court. He didn’t use it.
Once again, the FISA Court itself stated that “the President does have that authority” and that “FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” I’m sorry if facts and reason are so foreign to you that you continue to insist that the President does not have the authority that the court you demand he should have consulted agreed that he has. It’s really pitiful to witness.
“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”
Can you sort out this cite? I’m not finding a Charky vs. US
“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.”
All laws need either a presidential signature or overriding a veto. That is not ‘adjudication.’ The judicial power belongs to the courts.
“You have been asked repeatedly to name a single citizen who has lost a single right, and you just can’t do so, can you?”
Don’t we all have a right that the laws be followed?
>The judicial power belongs to the courts
But not executive power, nor military decisions, nor the authority to gather intelligence on the enemy during wartime.
>Don’t we all have a right that the laws
>be followed?
So, not a single right has been removed from anyone, has it? Just admit that all the crying about our rights being taken away is just wholesale fear-mongering, will you?
3rd party said-It’s just part of the ongoing campaign designed to make any dissenter look like he/she’s on Bin Laden’s side.
There is no campaign going to make those on the left look like OBL sympathizers. The left in this country just has the uncanny ability to open their mouth and out comes their words, not ours. How ridiculous to think that, but usually one with a problem does tend to try to blame it on others.
I offered the U.S. Code, the Constitution you offered a code to fit the arguement. There are other codes involved.
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. How you come up with that is beyond me. How are you less secure?
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.
Again it gets back to this is our fault? You might want to learn a bit about the history of this prior to making such a ridiculous statement. We are not causing any of this. We are reacting to it. You obsiously have no idea what the cause is do you?
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?
First of all, we do have link buttons at our disposable. Use it when citing Rummie or anyone else making a statement. Secondly, You have us fighting the WOT in Iraq only. It is being fought globally, including within the borders of the USA!
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.
It would take one of the people that have been spied on to bring it to the SC, which is unlikely. There have been 36 instances and the appropriate members of Congress are aware of who they are. And How is it that one can be so sure of what the SC will vote? You obviously are no SCOTUS junkie are you? Last years court was one of the most well balanced courts we have ever had in the history of the SCOTUS, and this years court will be no different. Regardless of the persons political allegiance, the opinions are not drawn by party lines.
As a side note, why all the fuss about where you think people are assigning you? Why are you spending so much time worrying about how you think people are viewing you and what political affiliation you think they have assigned you? Why not just discuss the issues at hand?
“But not executive power, nor military decisions, nor the authority to gather intelligence on the enemy during wartime.”
Of course not. Intelligence gathering is done by the executive, pursuant to adjucation by the judicial.
“So, not a single right has been removed from anyone, has it?”
I said the opposite. That all our rights to have the laws be followed have been violated.
- Ok…. its troll time. We’re all doomed and we’ve lost all our rights and the evil ChimpyMcBush is going to enslave us.
- No mass trollies
- Bang
3rd wrote, “But that’s no reason to dismantle our democracy
Who wants to dismantle our democracy? Why that characterization after finding out that the NSA is listening to people’s international conversation with terrorists? Sounds like reasonable prudent steps to me.
3rd wondered, “What are we doing in Iraq?
We removed a government and are helping them reinstall a government. Just like Japan and Germany which took 7 and 10 years. It’s the responsible thing to do after removing a government.
3rd cynically wrote, “It’s just part of the ongoing campaign designed to make any dissenter look like he/she’s on Bin Laden’s side.
My. THis is an ABC News story. Is this part of their ongoing campaign designed to….. you know what you wrote.
3rd wrote, “We’re providing the fertile recruitment ground and the justification OBL needs to raise his armies against us.
Um. That would be the left doing that. Over 50 front page stories on the NY Times about Abu Graihb and the real story that should’ve been printed daily is that the investigation and court martial proceedings had already started against the perpetrators. The press also ran story after story based on a detainees claim that soldiers were flushing Koran’s down the toilet. Physics aside (being impossible) it was only a detainees word written by an FBI agent as a detainees complain (so were the other complaints). Also the press has IGNORED AND NOT PRINTED (in cahoots with the left) good stories from Iraq. You seem to not read those stories either 5th.
3rd wrote, “Just because it was done, doesn’t make it right.
It’s just more evidence that many administrations after some research thought it was fully lawful. You disagree with people who did SOME due diligence.
3rd wrote, “The check and balance here was the FISA court. He didn’t use it. Pretty simple.
He didn’t need to use it. Pretty simple.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE is just a 5th column (er I mean 3rd party) who just disagrees that the President has the right to listen into international communications. That’s all. In the midst of all of his/her arguments he/she spouts many other inaccurate accusations that come from other leftists sites. One accusation after another. Why all the inaccurate accusations? Because he/she has a visceral hate for conservatives just like other liberals who come here with their “laundry list”. He/She may not be liberal but I question why so much disdain for the president doing something that is legal according to many experts when he/she isn’t an expert.
At the most he/she is reacting with faith and trust in liberal talking points concerning the NSA and the presidents actions and reacting with extreme (based on the faith and trust)
Another thing:
According to reports from the New York Times, which shamefully publicized leaks of the program’s existence in mid-December 2005, as many as 7,000 suspected terrorists overseas are monitored at any one time, as are up to 500 suspects inside the U.S.
- Don’t waste your time Bak…. My lefty troll BS meter finally went off when he/she hit #15 reasons why Bush is the devil and the sky is falling….
- Bang
“According to reports from the New York Times, which shamefully publicized leaks of the program’s existence in mid-December 2005, as many as 7,000 suspected terrorists overseas are monitored at any one time, as are up to 500 suspects inside the U.S.”
You should shamefully refrain from repeating them.
But how nice that somtehing that the NYT prints is useful to you.
Look. the left is the out party. They’re basically in tatters. By whipping up hysteria about mystical boogyman problems, sinister agenda’s, and men in black, they keep the dialog alive and maintain inclusion. At the same time by raising the shop worn argument of Constitutional challange, they think they have at least one way to jingle the reins of government. They do not if we simply pat them on the head and say now now.
- This question has been raised many times over the decades, and what always happens is cooler heads prevail, and in the end the Congress of either party supports the President. The left always counts on the electorate being dumb asses and falling for this crap. Don’t feed their pethetic political tree limb chipper campaigns.
- WiretapGate is just another Liberal screed-fest. Just smile as we keep electing more and more Conservative everything to the sounds of the nattering nabobs screeching “the sky is falling”.
… Appréciez la danse – son tout bon, mon ami….
- Bang
>pursuant to adjucation by the judicial.
Why do you persist in shredding the Constitution by placing the Judicial branch in a position to control the Executive?
>That all our rights to have the laws be
>followed have been violated.
Can you be a tad more specific, or is this just another general “ooh, the sky is falling” thing? Can you please name a section of the Constitution that has been removed or abrogated (other than the right to free speech by McCain-Feingold, or the right to own property bu Kelo v. New London, that is)? No?
- Actually its not even a dispute between the branches, but between the President/SCOTUS on one side ,and the frantic Dem leadership/leftwing press on the other. The Dems play this pethetic game of “Who me, I was lied too”, while the NYT publishes National secrets under the guise of “whistle blowing”.
- I’m still waiting for an explaination of why the leakers were forced to go to their leftwing MSM lap dogs instead of any Dem Senator or Congressman on the hill. Everyone over the age of 10 knows the answer. Max face time and exposure. Never mind that it was an act of treason in a time of war. As usual with the left, the ends justifies the means.
- Not much of a Constitutional crisis, unless you’re willing to believe heresay, rumor, and wild speculation, coming from a group desperate to regain power.
- This phoney “Constitutional crisis” angle isn’t going to help the left anymore than the other 15 EverythingGates they’ve tried. What they need badly is a Liberal version of Newt to lead them out of the political wilderness… *snort*
- Bang
“Why do you persist in shredding the Constitution by placing the Judicial branch in a position to control the Executive?”
They don’t control. They just have the judicial power.
“Can you please name a section of the Constitution that has been removed or abrogated (other than the right to free speech by McCain-Feingold, or the right to own property bu Kelo v. New London, that is)? No?”
Haven’t we sorted out that FISA was violated, and that we’re basically at a separation of powers argument over whether the presiden can or can’t do that?
- No Andrew… “we” haven’t…. thats some sort of wishful thinking by desperate deluded minds…. but carry on
- Guess some hope, no matter how mis-guided, is better than none…
- Bang
Bang,
You said:
“…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.”
That’s incredible. You’re saying that the president is above the law by virtue of his ability to decide which ones are “real laws” to be followed. He can just make up things (like new laws) as he goes along. You’re also saying that his deference to the SC in determining constitutionality is optional during a war and possibly so, even in peacetime. Amazing!
That whole paragraph is so riddled with flaws that you should be trying to have it deleted.
There’s really no need to respond to the rest of your post. If that’s your foundation, then of course you can (and seemingly have) justified any and everything. Unfortunately your foundation is deeply flawed. You are grossly misinterpretating the Constitution, and your post reveals a very fundamental misunderstanding of our system of government.
The kicker is that you introduced your post as “facts”, then started with that. Then again, maybe that’s why you quoted the word facts.
Now, I at least understand why you think the president hasn’t done anything wrong. Really, you should research your “facts”. Once you’ve realized how wrong it is, your foundation will crumble and the house will begin to cave. Or at the very least, you’ll have to find new justification for your administration.
Cav,
You said:
“WHAT RIGHTS? You have been asked repeatedly to name a single citizen who has lost a single right, and you just can’t do so, can you?”
And I have repeatedly told you that the fact that a single citizen was wiretapped by this administration in a manner NOT PRESCRIBED BY LAW is a violation of that citizen’s rights under the 4th amendment.
It’s pretty clear. You just refuse to accept it.
3rd wrote, “You’re saying that the president is above the law
Inaccurate accusation again. Quite the pattern you have. Try deleting what you accuse before you write it. You have some people out here that are sharp.
Your post “reveals” reading comprehension flaws as you accused others of having a “fundamental misunderstanding of our system of government.”. Another inaccurate accusation.
3rd accused again, “Now, I at least understand why you think the president hasn’t done anything wrong.” I’ve personally seen Bang write about things he has disagreed with the President on. Do you like making accusations or something?
- No 3rd party…. Quite to the contrary… It is those of you that insist on trying to twist and distort the seperate, but equal, powers aspects of the three legs of our government, who are in the sad position of having to “prove” things. In our form of Jurisprudence the accuser bears the burden of proof. Apparently you slept through that section of your American Government class.
- Think of it this way. In time of war the President IS the law. In peacetime he is not. Thems the facts sport. Take it or leave it. That you can’t see the absolute need for this speaks to your total lack of what it means to bear the responsibility of protecting our country and citizenry from all enemies.
- So before you go off suggesting others “check” their facts, you should get your own house of understanding in order.
- But lets say you’ve done even a tenth of the study that I have in this area. Tell Me. What is the order of your allegiance and citizenry in our country, and what Constitutional articles would you point to as a basis for your claim.
- The left is doing exactly what I’ve set down in several of my posts, and worse, so narcissistic they think no one sees through all this palavering nonsense.
- Bang
Cav,
You said:
“If you’re too dense to understand how despotic regimes spawn terrorism, no one here can help you.”
You, like this administration, oversimplify to the point of silliness. No one argues that Sadaam was good. Unfortunately, because your favorite president has sold you everything as black and white (i.e. “you’re with us, or you’re against us, etc.), you only see two options.
“Never happened in real life, only in the media”
Damn that media! Doing clever voice-overs for Powell before the U.N., Bush in numerous speeches (including a state of the union address), Cheney, etc., etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that this administration did not justify this war to the American people primarily on the basis of WMD?
Talk about revisionist. Actually, that’s borderline delusional. Even your administration had to backtrack and re-spin the war. Did you miss that?
But, you actually answered the question and I now understand how you could support the war throughout the morphing rationale. You simply don’t remember the original one! Man, them Bush boys are good. Did a number on you. But don’t worry, you’ve unfortunately got a lot of company.
- Oh and 3rd….Its not lost on us you’re using the old Marconian trick of stipulating a false pretense, and then arguing it as a given. i.e. Assume that every time the President acts he just simply must be suspected of having in some way broken the law or trampled the constitution. In fact he could act endlessly in his own capacity, with no input from either Congress or the SCOTUS, and have done neither.
- Kind of limp dodges when you’re trying to act and speak like you have your finger on the nexus of truth. But its ok. I understand. Tough uphill battle you’re facing. I don’t envy you, even with my greater age and invested study of Constitutional facts and law I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes.
- Bang
3rd wrote straight from Democrats.com “Are you seriously suggesting that this administration did not justify this war to the American people primarily on the basis of WMD?
One of the points was WMD’s based on intelligence from U.S. Intelligence, British intelligence, French and German and Russian (repeated by Democrats prior to Bush coming into office in 2001 and by Democrats after Bush came in office.) Got another talking point inaccurate accusation lefty?
You could’ve stayed on topic and evaded detection on the lefty-ometer. But you ignored the first rule of holes. 
“And I have repeatedly told you that the fact that a single citizen was wiretapped by this administration in a manner NOT PRESCRIBED BY LAW is a violation of that citizen’s rights under the 4th amendment.”
There’s a separation of powers issue besides the fourth amendment issue. If congress can tell the president how to wiretap pursuant to FISA, then we all have the right ot have congress’s word followed.