Comments on: NSA ’scandal’ fallout: convicted terrorist conspirators wanting cases thrown out

By: US Vet

US Vet — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:59:29 +0000

Baklava,
My friend, I know you and most everyone (with the major exception of Andrew) knows it was legal and a military matter. You guys are too smart to be fooled by the left.
What I was saying is Andrew probably knows it’s legal as well, but he just wants to take the conversation off point and try to make the discussion irrelevant.
Please keep up the great work, I visit when I can and you guys are doing a great job in setting the record straight for people like Andrew who want to blame the US for everything.

By: blogagog

blogagog — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:15:45 +0000

indeed

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:51:39 +0000

Havin’ too much fun today…

By: blogagog

blogagog — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:36:14 +0000

I don’t know, Baklava. Bush is a Republican and everyone on the left knows that conservatives are just a bunch of right-stealing evil money-grubbers. For me to believe you, please provide documents proving that Republicans aren’t evil, that Bush is not Satan, and that it is a lie to say Republicans just want to make oil companies rich, and make poor people poorer. Also, provide proof that Bush doesn’t want to listen to your phone calls.

Your lack of documents is proof that Republicans are evil!!!

Heh. I’m totally blowing off work today. don’t tell my boss, or I will call you a conservative!

By: Baklava

Baklava — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:18:48 +0000

thatniceguy – Bush didn’t break the law is what we are saying. Your irresponsible charge is only a reflection on your viewpoint not Bush’s actions.

By: thatniceguy

thatniceguy — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:38:30 +0000

Wow. I just wish Bush hadn’t broken the law. Now, those darned terrorists will be able to get off on a technicality.

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:11:00 +0000

“That’s the difference between logic and legal, and that’s why the court system must not be given a veto over foreign
intelligence gathering. ”

What’s teh difference between ‘logic and legal’ here. I gave no difference. I said one thing.

By: CavalierX

CavalierX — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:04:05 +0000

>To me if we find someone’s phone number
>in the same place we find other parts of
>a terrorist’s plans, then we have
>probable cause

That’s the difference between logic and legal, and that’s why the court system must not be given a veto over foreign intelligence gathering.

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:38:18 +0000

“The US gets blamed for everything, how about we just turn over all terrorists to the Iraqi military to have them question them, and we just sit back and observe and take notes on what is found out.”

Its called rendition to turture. We do that with syria and egypt, among other countries.

By: sanity

sanity — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:14:34 +0000

It is just another way for Democrats to minimize terrorism to a police action and subject US Government war-time actions to what police must go through to catch criminals.

Waitng for police brutality when they bring in terrorists for capture….

The US gets blamed for everything, how about we just turn over all terrorists to the Iraqi military to have them question them, and we just sit back and observe and take notes on what is found out.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:57:30 +0000

BTW, Gonzales makes it clear that the NSA is a National Defense organization with a General in charge.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:54:57 +0000

Most respected US Vet wrote, “You all have allowed this wacky liberal to get you off point? You have allowed Andrew to take the argument of the WAR on Terror to a law enforcement argument.”

Not me my friend. Not me. I’m consistent with my argument because the legality is clear to me.

Sorry. Hate to raise my hand and correct you of all people.

And after reading the 1st of 3 transcript pages that ST linked, I’m even more clear that the surveillance was LEGAL.

By: andrew

andrew — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:44:03 +0000

“So now an individual’s suspicion is
“probable cause” for wiretapping?”

What do you think probable cause means? To me if we find someone’s phone number in the same place we find other parts of a terrorist’s plans, then we have probable cause to listen to some of those phone conversations. At least to the ones that call the terrorist.

By: sanity

sanity — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:18:39 +0000

Israel has dealt with this for a long time and must be just shaking thier head in disgust on how the US is handling terrorists adn threats against the US.

The terrorist can find no better allies than the liberals, and must be laughing while planning to kill Americans on how completely stupid the Americans are acting when a gun is pointed at thier heads.

By: US Vet

US Vet — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:10:05 +0000

Gentlemen,
Why do you even entertain anything Andrew has to say???? You all have allowed this wacky liberal to get you off point? You have allowed Andrew to take the argument of the WAR on Terror to a law enforcement argument. The WAR on Terror is NOT a law enforcement issue.. it is a war and therefore a military issue which includes intelligence gathering. In the military realm, to gather intelligence you do NOT need probable cause. If it were necessary, the military would not be able to gather intelligence. You see, DIRNSA (Director NSA) is a military position and therefore falls under the Command in Chief.
Making it a probable cause issue plays into the hate/blame America first looney left to which Andrew is obviously a card carrying member