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
New poll finds support for warrantless wiretaps
The usual suspects will spin this into a negative for Bush but a new NYT/CBS News poll shows 53% of Americans support warrantless wiretaps when used to fight terrorism:
Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism, but are concerned that the aggressive antiterrorism programs championed by the Bush administration are encroaching on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
In a sign that public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved, responses to questions about the administration’s eavesdropping program varied significantly depending on how the questions were worded, underlining the importance of the effort by the White House this week to define the issue on its terms.
The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants “in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.”
The results suggest that Americans’ view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.
In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at “Americans that the government is suspicious of;” they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at “ordinary Americans.”
I’m sure the results of this poll alarmed the editorial staff at the NYT, who recently pushed forth the belief that the NSA wiretapping “scandal” was worse than the WWII Japanese internment camps. I’m sure the rest of the war underminers won’t be pleased to hear this, either, because if the President and his administration continue to stay on the offensive with respect to this issue, it’ll be a ‘dog that won’t hunt’ in the coming elections. Which is what all this is about to them, anyway – not ‘national security’, as they want you to believe.
Related Toldjah So posts on the NSA wiretapping “scandal”:
- Turning their backs on the truth
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- 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”
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
“In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at “Americans that the government is suspicious of;” they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at “ordinary Americans.”"
The argument we’re having is over who decides this suspicion. A neutral magistrate, or the president.
andrew, the President. This is a war, not a Police matter.
Why does a poll of American’s opinions have ANY BEARING on whether the President violated the law?
Should we take an opinion poll on whether stabbing someone in the neck should be allowed? Uh no.
If there is a liklihood that the President violated the law by approving NSA eavesdropping, then Congress and perhaps a Court of Law should investigate the issue, try the facts, and make a determination about whether the violation occured or not.
This is not a popularity contest and the consequences of allowing the President’s power to go unchecked will be felt long after he leaves office.
Let’s say we allow the President to do whatever he thinks is necessary to fight the “war on terror” (which it remains unclear how we will ever win). Is this a power that we are willing to grant to President’s forever more?
Do you feel comfortable with a Democratic President in 2016 claiming that he has unfettered privilege to do whatever he wants because there are still terrorists that hate us and we are still in the “war on terror”?
Allowing the President’s power to go unchecked as long as Islamic militants hate us is tantamount to saying that we are now allowing the President’s power to go unchecked for eternity.
That is not a Presidency. That is a dictatorship.
Does anyone remember when congress declared war during the last 5 years?
Exactly.
What is the exit strategy for the war on terror?
How do we declare victory?
GBA, make some sense. You declare war on Countries, not on stateless Terrorists.
Hull, Victory is when the Terrorists are vanquished or killed. When there is no more threat to the country.
Who says the terrorist are stateless?
Do you have proof of there statelessness?
How does the Taliban fit in?
How does Saddam fit in to the “stateless terrorist” box?
Perhaps Iran is not really a country but instead a mere mirage?
What are your thoughts PCD?
- Hull. You’re dreaming. It may be generations before the Liberalcrats remember how to form a wide-based coalition, and get away from the purist, cult-like party its become. No coalition, no majority. No majority, no election wins. A classic case of getting what you al Qaeda-bats wished for. Now you have it. The left has a strangle hols on the Democratic party, and it probably won’t end soon. Maybe 2024/2028. *snort*
GBA: It’s been longer than five years since war has been ‘officially’ declared by the US on anyone, hasn’t it?
Hull: I understand your point, but there’s an element of chicken little/sky is falling to it – especially the “do whatever you want” part of it. That’s not going to happen, in my opinion – not with the checks and balances system we enjoy here.
As far as whether or not this is a ‘popularity’ issue, it’s not. The ‘powers that be’ often have to do what’s right over what’s popular and even if the NSA ‘scandal’ wasn’t popular with the American people, I’d still support it because I think it’s the right thing to do. The poll was posted to show those who’ve tried to use this issue in order to damage the President that their campaign doesn’t seem to be working.
As to when the war on terror ends, as I’ve said before that’s one of the few questions that have been asked with respect to this issue that I respect for what it is. I don’t know the answer to that.
ST,
1941
“Victory is when the Terrorists are vanquished or killed. When there is no more threat to the country”
There are always going to be threats to this country and there always have been.
Which terrorists are we talking about? The terrorists from Saudi Arabia that were most of the 9/11 teams? Osama Bin Ladin? Al Quaeda?
The IRA, Irish Terrorists?
Timothy McVeigh or the Waco Texas types? The Klu Klux Klan?
I don’t say this to be smug or pretend that Islamic militants don’t present a real threat to this country. But, if we’re going to sacrifice our rights because “we’re at war” shouldn’t we define who we’re fighting against a bit better?
Aren’t these the kinds of problems that lead us into Iraq? Was Iraq terrorist?
Shouldn’t we talk about how to achieve victory and who we are really fighting? What is to stop the President from calling me, or you, or anyone that disagrees with him and his party a terrorist?
What is to stop the President from doing anything he wants in the name of the “war on terror”?
Anyway, the issue at hand is: did the President violate the law by approving eavesdropping. The broader issue is: how far is too far in fighting the “War on terror”
“- Hull. You’re dreaming. It may be generations before the Liberalcrats remember how to form a wide-based coalition, and get away from the purist, cult-like party its become. No coalition, no majority. No majority, no election wins. A classic case of getting what you al Qaeda-bats wished for. Now you have it. The left has a strangle hols on the Democratic party, and it probably won’t end soon. Maybe 2024/2028. *snort*”
I have no idea what you’re talking about and I suspect you don’t either.
Are you saying that Democrats will never win the Presidency or power in Congress again? If so, I think you missed my point.
The point is that no matter what party is in charge, there need to be checks and balances on the branches of government. Claiming that “we’re at war” when the enemy is unclear and the length of engagement is unclear and the method of victory is unclear is deeply troubling to me as an American.
ST,
That’s kind of the point.
I think most people would agree with the statement that there is a right way to do things and a wrong way.
But lately there is a right way to do thing and a left way to do things.
It’s fair to say that most Americans have lost focus on the prize. Liberty and Justice for All. Live free or die.
Hull, Edited. –ST.
As to checks and balances, that is only brought up by people who are afraid of decisiveness. The President has powers that are reserved by the Constitution to the Executive Branch. The courts were never meant to be involved in the warmaking powers of the President.
“Let’s say we allow the President to do whatever he thinks is necessary to fight the “war on terror” (which it remains unclear how we will ever win). Is this a power that we are willing to grant to President’s forever more?”
- I’m sorry. but that has to be one of the dumbest postings so far, of 2006.
- “We” don’t allow the President to do anything but follow the Constitution, as we elected him to do. Get it. Thats why hes called the President. Because the majority of Americans elected him to do precisely that. Just as we will everytime we elect Presidents in the future, regardless of the world situation. We don’t elect Presidents and then tell them we’re too paranoid to let them do their job. Well not anyone without a feckless agenda. What the Liberalcrats are really saying is “We still don’t believe we lost the election”.
- Now if I were the party out of power, looking for any contrivence possible too have a voice in things, I suppose I might think this sort of trumped up nonsense, suddenly calling the Presidents voracity into question, and trying to spread needless fear in the electorate, might seem like a sneaky idea. (Well actually I don’t think anyone with a working brain cell would buy into all these ill-conceived scams, without a self serving agenda, which is why I think the left wouldn’t hesitate to destroy the Democratic party from sheer ideological obsession, and mean spiritedness. But I digress.)
- Unfortunately the American people aren’t buying it, and the party of tinhats, and Jihad supporters, is getting even more hopelessly out of touch with mainstream America, and garnering a large pile of smelly press. Good luck with that.
- Bang
I’m not trying to be a smartass. I’m trying to figure out what people on the Right are thinking.
You think checks and balances are for the fearful?
Are you serious? If so, then I think we should both go take a look at the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Independence, among other documents.
What country do you think this is?
Fear and or Hate of the President have nothing to do with protecting the values of this country.
I can’t believe that a person on the Right would position himself to a stance that is so antithetical to the core principles of this country.
Aren’t you all supposed to be the traditionalists?
“I have no idea what you’re talking about and I suspect you don’t either.”
- You don’t know what anyone in the majority of America is talking about. Just maybe thats why you’re in the political wilderness, forced to play the nattering antagonists.
- You think?
- Bang
O.k. got a live one here.
Being “in touch with America” has nothing to do with whether the President broke the law or not.
You can’t read my mind, so I don’t think you can say what my motives are for questioning some of the acts of this administration.
Since that is the case, why not address the actual issues: Did the President break the law; is a war on terror different than a war on a nation-state; should we torture and hold “prisoners” without any kind of due process.
instead of trying to paint people who disagree with you as Communists, America Haters, or whatever slander you can think of, why not debate the issue?
This Fox News style attack on my motives is evidence that you are unable to address the issues at hand.
Hull, drop your arrogance and stop listening with your mouth.
People like you are scared that the President is actually going to exercise the powers of his office without supervision by unelected judges who legislate the Liberal agenda from the bench.
Hull – This whole “hey maybe we can get Bush on some sort of “breaking the law” charge. I mean why not. Nothing else has worked so far. Oh and the leftwing NYTrash (Pravda Amerika) can be counted on to carry our water as usual” screed has been thourougly debunked.
- Your own confused, and desperate leadership has begun backing away from this #16 everythingGate gambit. Yesterday they were down too “Well if there isn’t a law there should be”. No doubt their hearing the polls sayimg they’re really taking a beating on this ill advised scam.
- And no one needs to “paint” you anything. You’ve done it to yourselves. I can’t think of a time in our history when the left has made it so clear that they hate almost everything America is based on.
- Hull – “What country do you think this is?”
- I know what country this is, unlike the Socialist left, who seem to think its a copy of France. *snort*
- At any rate you’re just rehashing the same territory thats been dumped back in the “elitist paranoid ideolog box”. If thats all you’ve got its time to start planning attack #17. You’re Zero and 16 against Rove/Bush. Time to add another layer to the hats.
- Bang
People like me are afraid that the President will continue to push the boundaries of law and morality for his party’s sake, his familiy’s sake, and his close financial friends’ sakes; as opposed to doing what is right for this country.
The supervision of judges only comes into play for the President when he violates the law.
I don’t know whether the President violated FISA by eavesdropping, but you don’t know either. That’s why we have a legal system. If someone thinks you violated the law then they can have that issue addressed in a court.
Nixon violated the law by spying on his political enemies. Clinton violated the law by lying before a grand jury. Whether these cases were brought before judges because of various people’s agendas is beside the point. If these Presidents hadn’t violated the law then those agendas would not be at issue.
Look, I am not part of some Liberal conspiracy to defame and overthrow the President and I don’t think that every person who disagrees with the actions of this administration wants the downfall of America or whatever it is you were talking about.
I am concerned that we are going down a path that is detrimental to this country.
Hull wrote, “I am concerned that we are going down a path that is detrimental to this country.
The path is being led by people making inaccurate accusations. Making serious charges without knowing what they are talking about. I’m not concerned that if I’m on an international call with a terrorist that I’d be listened to. I’m concerned that liberals/judgemental people want to continue attacking and attackin rather than coming up with ideas and solutions for the problems we face.
Many of us do not believe that what the president did is a violation of law. The powers outlined in section II of the Constitution give the president broad powers to act to protect the country from foreign powers and aggression. The FISA law is at best ambiguous on this issue, and there are numerous people well versed in both constitutional law and FISA that do not believe that this wiretapping is a violation of either. Even Ben Franklin believed that the government should be able to act in ways that might not be legal within the country when issues of foreign intel were concerned.
We might be more willing to take the wailings and stone throwing from the anti-eavesdropping crowd seriously if they weren’t by and large the exact same liberal and Democrat moonbats that have been throwing dung at the president non-stop for the past 6 years, hyping each and every minor issue into the end of the world as we know it. Contrary to what has been proven to be legal, contrary to what has been proven to be fact, contrary to what has been proven to be prudent, they keep wailing the same sky is falling mantra over and over, because they are all suffering from Bush Derrangement Syndrome.
Face it, the anti-Bush naysayers have been doing this for so long, and have been proven to be wrong so often, that even if you manage to come up with a real instance of this administration doing something really sinister, it’ll probably be ignored. Does the story about the boy who cried wolf mean anything to you? Instead of acting like adults, and contributing to the rational discussion of this nations problems and issues, this “hang Bush” mentality leads you to continue to flog a dead horse until you’re just making horse tartar, and then you wonder why many won’t listen or take anything you say seriously.
No, I don’t believe the president did break the law. And war against a terrorist organization IS different from war against a nation state. I’ve been involved in the DoD for over 25 years, and I’ve read tons of papers and studies out of DoD and civilian think tanks and organizations that have been thinking and analyzing the differences, philosophical and practical, for decades. It’s been apparent for some time that the world is a changed place, and contrary to what many think people in the government have been thinking of how to handle these issues. They are not always right, this is a difficult thing, asymmetrical warfare, but no war is cut and dried. You can expect the unexpected, your enemy will always surprise you. The disturbing thing is that many on the Left refuse to acknowledge how successful the war has been.
Hull wrote, “are afraid that the President will continue to push the boundaries of law and morality for his party’s sake
Continue? Nice spouting. You are only concerned if you don’t know the facts and are reading talking points from the left.
Hull said “People like me are afraid that the President will continue to push the boundaries of law and morality for his party’s sake, his familiy’s sake, and his close financial friends’ sakes; as opposed to doing what is right for this country. I have just one question; Hull did you vote for Bill Clinton? Because if you did I believe he pushed those boundaries farther than any President.
O.k. inaccurate accusations. I’ll try to stick to the NSA eavesdropping since that was the original point of this thread (although I think other issues that I mentioned above need to be addressed as well).
Many citizens, legal scholars, and Congress people, think that the President violated the law by approving NSA eavesdropping. The Congressional Research Service issued a report that stated that the eavesdropping violated FISA and that neither implied powers in the Consitution or granted by Congress to fight the “war on terror” justified violating FISA.
I don’t think that is inaccurate and I may not know what I’m talking about, but I am joined by most U.S. citizens and everyone on this board.
None of us are legal scholars (I assume) so we can’t say whether the President violated the law or not.
Also, I’ve heard similar arguments to Baklava’s “I’m not concerned that if I’m on an international call with a terrorist that I’d be listened to.” My problem with this is not so much being listened to, although I feel that that is a violation of privacy.
My problem is what happens to people that are swept up in NSA investigations because they were called by an international terrorist.
I don’t know about you, but IRS audits scare me and I pay all my taxes. So the idea of having to pay an attorney, have my name dragged through local and national media, and possibly being swept up and sent to god-knows-where, all for a search/eavesdropping that may or may not be legal does not help me sleep at night.
- Ok Hull. You say you’re not an ideolog, simply a “concerned” citizen. Heres the skinny one more time. Apparently you didn’t get the memo.
- The “whistle blowers” like all government workers, have to read and sign a specific set of policies provided for the purpose. Nowhere in the document does it mention that sterling member of Congress the NYT. There is a straight forward way for people who believe theres some sort of skuldugery going on, to go to Conress with the information. Any one of the Democratic Senators or Congressmen can be made aware of the situation. See thats how you avoid breaking the law, leaking our National security secrets, and alerting the enemy of your operational details. Of course the problem with that “lawfull” approach is without the press you don’t get to alarm the electorate or mount a scare campaign against your opponent.
- Thats just for a start.
- The other part is this. All the activities of the CIA, DoJ, NSA, Secret Service, FBI, Miltary Security forces et. al., are continueously monitored by Select Congressmen and oversight committees. Dozens of them. Always have been, always will be. So no one is running a rogue operation.
The Democrats know this. they also know that they’re not allowed access because they dn’t have the neccessary clearences. Thats why the select committees. But. The Dems started this hoping they could dupe the general public and alarm people such as yourself, who are typically “un-informed” as to the nature and complexities of the said oversight instruments. We don’t tend to go around broadcasting things having to do with security, and the Dems know its an easy area to critisize and use in a scam like this. Problem is most people also don’t go around with paranoid feelings about the Presidents they elect, so its not playing very well.
- The bottom line is, the left has managed to make a PR nightmare for themselves, caused most americans to rally around the President, and very likely have put some of their own members in a position of sedition actions against the secracy laws of the country.
- All I can say is smooth move Liberals. Keep up the good work.
- Bang
Hull wrote, “Many citizens, legal scholars, and Congress people, think that the President violated the law by approving NSA eavesdropping
Many citizens, legal scholars, and Congress people [including Democrats], think that the President DID NOT violate the law by approving NSA eavesdropping.
Hull wrote, “My problem is what happens to people that are swept up in NSA investigations because they were called by an international terrorist.
Thwarting terrorist attacks is the goal. Nobody is being swept up as a result of talking to terrorists. I’d be HAPPY to be the tool of the government in thwarting a huge terrorist attack. Give me the phone and let me talk to a terrorist all day long. I’ll probably convert them from terrorism with common sense and facts.
Jim M,
I’m not sure what Bill Clinton has to do with what is going on right now in 2006.
Clinton is not currently being accused of violating the law, holding prisoners without due process, torture, or eavesdropping: Bush is.
No need to fret Hull. The picture that was painted to you [on many issues it seems] was inaccurate.
The focus is on fighting a WOT and it is surveillance against “foreign” enemies. Foriegn enemies sometimes make calls with people inside the Unites States and the president is authorized to do that surviellance in a time of war.
And so, Baklava, you prove my point.
There is a question as to whether the President violated the law and whether Presidents of the US should have this kind of unfettered power.
Let’s allow Congress and the Courts to address the question.
What’s wrong with that?
Hull wrote, “Clinton is not currently being accused of violating the law, holding prisoners without due process, torture, or eavesdropping: Bush is
That’s the point. Bush is being accused of serious charges [falsely] by the left DURING A TIME OF WAR. You repeat these charges [that are false].
For all the rhetoric from the left you’d think Bush was the enemy and not the terrorists!!
And why do you think that the picture painted for you on these issues is more clear than mine, Baklava?
You say that the President is authorized to surveil foreign enemies. I think the issue is surveillance of US citizens.
FISA and the Congressional Research Arm seem to say that the President does not have this authority.
So, why do you think this issue is settled? Why do you think that this is much ado?
I’m willing to say that this issue needs to be investigated. Why does that scare you?
Hull wrote, “There is a question…”
Not in my mind.
Hull wrote, “unfettered… ”
Hull wrote, “Let’s allow Congress and the Courts to address the question. What’s wrong with that? ”
Nothing’s wrong with that. I’m addressing you and your accusations. If you want me to be quiet and let the courts address the question as they already have in a similar case in 2002 then lets let that happen..
That would require the accusers to stop accusing and then I won’t try to set the record straight. Simply reacting to your initiation of an action.
Try it this way: What if a President was accused of murder or rape during a time of war?
Should these charges not be investigated? Should we just table the investigation until the war is over?
If so, it’s very convenient that we appear to be in a war that will never end.
Hull, you are a hypocrite if you hold Bush to a higher standard than Carter or Clinton. Clinton used Eshalon (SP?) against US Citizens. That was worse because Clinton was breaking the law and knew it. Clinton was on a personal/political vendetta, but Bush isn’t.
Hull, the big picture you don’t see is that you and the Democrats are purposefully trying to tie up and hamstring the President. Personally, if the resulting harm only visited you, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Nanci Pelosi, George Soros, Michael Moore, Stuart Smalley, etc., I would not have a problem with you getting the reprocussions of your actions, but my problem is that innocent Americans will be injured and die along with you. Possibley you will not be harmed by Al Qaeda and the like, but innocent Americans will. That is my problem with you, Hull, and the know-it-alls like you.
Hull wrote, “And why do you think that the picture painted for you on these issues is more clear than mine, Baklava?
Because you are speaking falsehoods… on many issues… Your sources of info needs to be changed and you need to gain perspective. [my opinion]
Hull wrote, “You say that the President is authorized to surveil foreign enemies. I think the issue is surveillance of US citizens.”
The issue is people on “international” calls with terrorists.
Hull asked, “So, why do you think this issue is settled?
It isn’t. And it won’t be even when the court decides. Just like the 2000 and 2004 election. Nothing is ever resolved for a liberal even when faced with the facts. We’ll be here debating these charges for the next decade. Same thing with tax cuts improving the economy and then having the affet of adding revenues to the government. Liberals (like I was pre-1991) cannot come to point of listening. They’ll continue on with their discontent until someone breaks through their cloud of reasoning. It happened to me and I know it can happen to you.
Hull asked, “Why does that scare you?
It doesn’t scare me. I can only wish that liberals during a time of war would stop making INACCURATE serious charges that would leave us more vulnerable if they got their way based on lies.
Gotta go put up a frame around a mirror, fix a sink drain, and put up a header for curtains. Have fun with your pattern….
Hull, try to understand it this way, Hull falsely accuses Bush of rape during a time of war. Bush is prevented from doing his job and another 9/11 happens.
Cool it, PCD. –ST
- Since you haven’t responded to a single point I’ve posted, explaining it all to you so anyone, even a neophyte, can understand ,I’ll just stop wasting my time. When people with the proper experience explain things patiently, and you evade, it moves from honest debate to the arena of willful ignorance, and I’m off the bus.
- Bang
Hull funnily asked, “Try it this way: What if a President was accused of murder or rape during a time of war?
If the charges are true then he should be held accountable. What really makes it contemtable for liberals is that the charges aren’t true.
Bye
- S’ok Sistah… We promise we won’t eat him….Just enjoying a little “pin the tail on the feckless donkey”…. *chuckle*
Hull for your information Bill Clinton argued successfully for the power to conduct warrantless physical searches in 1994. Just a little reminder of history and the only reason this is an issue is because it is George W. Bush (R) and not John K. sKerry (D) in the Presidency. The Dimwitocrats and the liberal press will do and say anything to try to bring down this President just for revenge; For the Impeachment of Clinton, The 2000 election and last but not least the 2004 elections. Remember the means justifies the end in the liberal mind.
Well this is a lot to deal with:
1) Clinton or Carter is pretty irrelevant to what is happening right now. Were Clinton or Carter accused of violating FISA? No? O.k., let’s stick to the issue at hand.
2) The idea that there is a vast liberal conspiracy to defame and overthrow the President sounds like any other ravings about conspiracy. I’ll put that into the grassy knoll folder, second shooter folder.
Granted, Democrats have had a tough time getting past the elections, but that doesn’t mean Democrats are out to get the President. I don’t care who is in office: when I feel that my liberties are in danger I’m going to speak up.
3) Communicating the intention to circumvent FISA to a few Congressmen does not make the violation legal.
4) To Severian and others who argue taht many people feel that eavesdropping is not a violation of the law, I say: Let’s find out. The issue needs to be addressed.
5) To the people that argue that bringing this violation to light is a disservice to the country or illegal in itself: That is a separate issue that will undoubtedly be dealt with. Maybe the “whistleblowers” went through the wrong channels. I’m sure they’ll have to pay for it . . . just like Bush should if he is found guilty of violating the law.
Severian at least acknowledges that asymetrical warfare IS different than war against a nation-state. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed as well.
Who is the enemy and when do we know that we’ve won? These questions are important if the justification for diminished liberties is “we’re at war”
I see lots of name calling, but not much in terms of honest debate.
“Bang” I haven’t responded to much of what you said because it was either: off point or unintelligable.
We could be in a “war on terror” forever. As long as there are people that hate the U.S. and are willing to act on it then there will be a need for a “war on terror”.
If that is the case, then I do not feel comfortable giving up my liberties because there is no guarantee that they will ever be returned.
Part of giving up our liberties during a time of war is the idea that someday they will be returned.
So, you can talk about “moonbats” or Islam lovers or America haters or whatever floats your boat, but at the end of the day all your ad hominem attacks just prove me right.
“Checks and balances”, only work when the President is not a lawbreaker like bush. The President only has “war making powers” if the Congress votes for a formal Declaration of War and they have not done that since 1941. bush broke the law, he admitted he broke the law and he must be impeached for the good of the republic. Peace
Hull, you just don’t get it.
1. Clinton and Carter ARE relevant because YOU didn’t raise objections when they intercepted communications without warrant of consultation in a FISA court.
2. There is. You can see it on Daily Krap, on Democrat Underground, or just Democrat Caucus closed door meetings where they incessantly talk about impeaching Bush for this, that or the other thing.
3. The President was following the LAW in consulting with Congress.
4. You, the maker of the allegation have to prove yourselves, not the other way around. Who do you think you are, Mary Mapes?
5. You are perpetuating the disservice. You want to hamstring the President from performing his duties and exercising his powers. You want to put a Judge and Congress over him to give him permission to take a crap! You don’t see that he not only has a duty but has earned the right to exercise the powers of his office. This is where you are not only wrong, but you are working against the United States.
Jim M,
You are either misinformed or you are a liar.
Congress did not approve warrentless physical searches in 1994 . . . because of FISA.
Your National Review makes it clear in this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
“In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.”
Hmm?
- 2) The idea that there is a vast liberal conspiracy to defame and overthrow the President sounds like any other ravings about conspiracy. I’ll put that into the grassy knoll folder, second shooter folder.
Uh huh…. Well while your at it you can also put all the following BS paranoia/lies/scams in the same folder:
- RatherMapesGate
- SwiftBoatGate
- Form180Gate
- FloridaVoteGate
- PewExitpollGate
- WMDgate
- MissingNonexistantWeaponsGate
- AbugraibeGate
- GIJoeGate
- GitMoQoranToiletGate
- OilForFoodGate
- USsoldiersKillingReportersGate
- YellowCakeGate
- PlameGate
- EavesDroppingGate
-
…ect ect ect…. and you think everyone a fool not to see the pattern…. again good luck
- Maybe you should run this stuff past Usama. Hes pretty good at gaming the press, and now thats hes declared for the Dem party, maybe he could help you out before you have anymore “good ideas”.
- Bang
Hull, you just got through saying Clinton was irrelevant to this discussion. You just proved yourself wrong.
Hull, the War on Terror may well last decades, if not the better part of a century. For an example, look at Israel. They have been, basically, in a constant state of war since their beginning. They manage to seperate what needs to be done against terrorists and other enemies and what needs to be preserved in the name of their liberties and democracy, and we will wind up doing the same.
WRT the NSA issue, this is really overreaction. It’s not like when Lincoln revoked habeus corpus, nor is it even remotely as serious a breach of civil liberties as when Clinton used the FBI and Echelon to spy on political rivals. It is, by all that’s been said, a very very narrowly focused program. One of the things this, and that the Patriot Act, address are the rapid changes in technology that have made these types of changes necessary. The law is perpetually playing catchup with technology, data mining will cross all sorts of boundaries wrt privacy and legality, but the law must either be changed, or narrowly focused programs like the NSA will be required, to enable the huge advantages these new approaches bring.
Tapping phones is a prime example. Prior to the Patriot Act, you had to get a warrant for every phone number you wanted to tap. The laws were written in the days before mobile phones, or computer switching networks. You actually had to get a warrant for each and every phone number you wanted to tap. Along come mobile phones, etc. and one person can change phones easier than they can change their underwear. The Patriot Act changed it so that you get a warrant to tap a particular person or organization, regardless of what phone they use. They switch phones to a new cell, you can tap that as soon as you figure out the number.
Obviously, this is not a huge errosion of people’s rights, nor is this the beginning of the end for civil liberties. This is exactly what the people who wrote the laws (and Constitution) in the first place would have done if they had any idea of how technology would change the world. It’s an updating of the law, that doesn’t change the general philosophy of civil protections. But you wouldn’t know that from some of the whining, and bleating I’ve heard over this provision, amonst others in the act. I see the exact same thing happening with the NSA issue.
I’ve had enough experience with both digital forensics and information warfare to know that the things the NSA are worried about are very very ephemeral and time critical. Also, the nature of ELINT and data mining result in a lot of info being obtained and filtered, info that perhaps by the exact letter of the law should have been warranted, but it’s impossible to allow the system to work properly if you refuse to allow it to gather and filter data. Eventually the laws will have to be rewritten again, but in the interim, I firmly believe that the type of program the NSA is running, limited in scope, and narrowly applied to particular foreign communications, is both critical and also not illegal.