And yes. That does make the article not news…

The 5,000 number is accurately quoted. That would mean that GUESS WHAT? 5,000 people (sleeper cells?) have been communicating with the enemy !!! I’m for the surveillance of enemy communications during a time of war and believe the NSA (with a general leading the effort) has the power to legally do it.

It’s a willful rejection of reality for you to claim that you know better than the constitutional experts that I agree with. Recognize TNG that there is a debate. Don’t act condescending towards us and act like Bush is evil and doing things illegal. Recognize that that is the accusation made by folks that you seem to eat up.

I’ll argue my way and you argue your way. I have no need to choose the options you give me in your control freakish attitude. Thanks for asking again though. Nothing I’ve asserted crumbles. Gonzales’ testimony (did you read it?) talks about all sorts of evidence that shows they are on good standing. Have you addressed his testimony? NO. I haven’t seen you do it except to dismiss him.

How on earth can you debate like you do and take yourself seriously..

Boy this is a nice dialog. huh. Not to worry. I’ve seen plenty of your types….

Back to Dancing with the Stars.

It’s arguable as to whether what you cited are opinions vs. logical conclusions and observations. For example, you claimed the phrase “circumvention of the courts” was an opinion. Who argues that Bush did not circumvent the courts? That’s just fact.

But let’s assume opinions were interjected. If you seriously think that discounts the substance of the article in its entirety, then I see the breakdown here. You may want to consider getting a refund for the portions of your critical thinking class that you missed.

To wit: Is the following an opinion?

“Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.”

Or is that an estimate based on observation?

How about this?

“But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, “wash out” most of the leads within days or weeks.”

I could go on, but there’s no sense re-posting the bulk of that article, which is inarguably not opinion.

What a willful rejection of reality. At least blogagog acknowledges facts and has a reasoned approach to supporting the program, even if I believe it flies in the face of the 4th and disagree. It’s coherent and acknowledges basic facts.

Now that I’ve backed you against choices a, b, and c, you’re clinging desparately to “a” (disputing the “evidence”) against all reason. You know that once you release that, everything else you assert crumbles. But in holding on, you’re just digging yourself deeper and looking less-and-less reasonable.

How on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

It’d be up to you to be reasonable and logical. I read the opinon piece and responded already giving it more time than it deserved.

You’ve yet to show me what’s untrue in the MSNBC link I provided. Except for some passing implication about the article’s impartiality, you’ve just changed the subject and continued to pretend that my assertions are without merit.

You either have to:

a.) Dispute the content of the story.
b.) Stop saying my charges are irresponsible.

Of course, this is only if you want to appear reasonable and logical.

That’s ironic. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

blogagog: “Unfortunately, the vast majority of cases never turn up a hit when surveiling.”

and:

“You have to either be ok with that, or come out and say that surveillance is always bad…”

False choice. I’d rather we do as much as possible to protect our rights, by applying a common sense definition for establishing probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

i.e if the means for establishing probable cause for performing surveillance in the cases you cite proved unreliable, then they wouldn’t pass the common sense test for the phrase “probable cause” (or in Bush’s case “reasonable suspicion” and would be rendered unconstitutional.

Extending your criminal analogy, let’s say a law enforcement agency continuously used an informant’s claims to establish cause for surveillance. Let’s say that 99 out of 100 times, that informant’s information was false and resulted in home searches that led to nothing. It could no longer be argued that the informant’s testimony established probable cause.

In that case, continuing to use it would be a violation of the 4th amendment.

Otherwise, if we let that pass, then why even have a 4th amendment? I mean, what this really seems to come down to is your willingness to give up your 4th amendment rights, and my unwillingness to do so.
Especially when it’s not necessary.

I also diasagree strongly with your assertion that I’m a nice guy…oh wait, got carried away. We agree on that one.

BTW, I’m getting the sense that you’re a fan of Thomas Sowell. Am I reading that right?

Oh. You saw the gonzales thing too!

Again. He was answering a question about the Patriot act and referring to “domestic” calls.

And why would he reference a secret program (give away troop movements – I wonder if Hugh Hewitt has his transcript up where the lawyer talked about that and the New York Times breaking the law) during a time of war that some Congress folks have been breifed on? And is being carried out on “international” calls.

Why would I have to choose B or C with someone who keeps making reckless irresponsible charges that are untrue during a time of war even (which makes it 10 times worse for ya – during a time of war).

First of all, I’m referencing a video. So, I guess it would be a viewing compreshension problem. But, didn’t the “reading compreshension” quip already backfire on you once on this thread? Care to go for a hat trick? LOL.

Anyway..I found this quote from the video:

Bush: “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

He mentioned roving wiretaps, then paused to add, “By the way, any time…”

So does your comprehension tell you that “any time” means “only roving wire taps”? Because to me, that says he was pausing to address any concerns raised by the prospect of “roving” wiretaps, by upping the ante to say that not-only do roving wiretaps require warrants, but any wiretap requires a warrant.

He went out of context, then went back in.

He even said they get court orders before chasing down terrorists, whereas they are now saying they only go warrantless for chasing down terrorists. Good grief. He blatantly lied no matter how you spin it. Reading comprehension indeed.

Oh, and nice try with the diversion, but I’m still waiting for you to choose “b” or “c”.

Unfortunately, I now have to invoke the /friendliness qualifier. You seem like a very nice person, but remaining free is paramouunt to me, and I about this I will brook no discussion.
You hit the nail on the head when you said, “I (and others) are saying there’s a problem when the vast majority of cases don’t turn up a hit.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of cases never turn up a hit when surveiling. Ask a random policeman if you doubt this. It’s the nature of the beast. You have to either be ok with that, or come out and say that surveillance is always bad. It’s very black and white.

If you are saying that surveillance with a low hit-rate is a failure or is illegal, then all surveillance must necessarily be ended. Even surveillance of drug dealers and gangs. To me, surveillance does not seem like an abrogation of my rights. It seems to even be a good thing in some places. Heck, England is canvassed with cameras. What freedoms have they lost, even in wartime?

I won’t speak for Baklava since he’s got a powerful voice, but for my part I will choose option c: “I acknowledge your reckless irresponsible charge” and follow that with an “I forgive you”.

When you say “Ironically, all this is incidental anyway, as it was illegal” I have to wonder, was it as illegal as you cheating on your wife? (see, I can make up stuff too! It’s important not to make rulings, at least until you are a judge. It’s a law. Actually, a bunch of them.)

But we digress. This page is dedicated to the greatness of Thomas Sowell. I think the New York Times summed it up best when they reported the results of their poll:

HOW GREAT IS THOMAS SOWELL?
a) pretty great
b) really great
c) the greatest man who ever lived
d) the second greatest man who ever lived
e) brilliant

The results were close, but the answer was “The second greatest man who ever lived”.

God bless the gipper.

Nope, just had to go wash the car before the sun was completely gone.

I choose to tell the accuser that their charge was baseless and without evidence during a time of war even (which makes it worse for ya)

And as for your last question. You have a reading comprehension problem. I’ll correct your premise of that question also. He was referring to “domestic” calls and referring to th Patriot Act in a question.

- Bang

But, what premises have you pointed out as incorrect? I backed up my assertions with that article and you attempted to cast aspersions on it. But are you disputing it? Are you saying it’s propaganda with no merit?

“I’m outa here for a bit.”

Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like you’re easing out the backdoor when faced with diminishing options to defend your outlandish, divisive memes like: “liberals want to protect peoples rights to talk to al qaida”.

If you ever return to this thread, I’d be interested in hearing whether you’d chosen “b” or “c” above as your second choice.

Actually…”Then quit cheating on her!” was a good comeback. Gotta’ give it up for that one.

Anywhoo…

blogagog: “are you expecting relatively random surveillance of international calls to result in a terrorist find every time?”

No. I (and others) are saying there’s a problem when the vast majority of cases don’t turn up a hit. There’s something wrong with the process when too many innocent folks are tapped. Calls in to question the words “reasonable” and “probable”, flying a afoul of the 4th.

blogagog: “Some surveillance will lead to exoneration, or removal from suspicion”

True and that might justify Bush’s assertions about the limited nature of the program. If it were true. Again, problem is it’s overwhelmingly most cases that turn up nothing.

Ironically, all this is incidental anyway, as it was illegal. And the reason it was illegal is being illustrated by what we’re finding out about the program. I’m just pointing out that the idea that this impacts terrorists more than citizens is untrue.

But, I give you a HUGE hats off for just calling it like you see it, even if I don’t agree with you. Sounds like you chose option “c” from my list above. Of course, that would mean you couldn’t run around saying ridiculous things (like Baklava), such as those who oppose the program want to protect the rights of terrorists and those who talk to Al Qaida”. Based on the math, we’re obviously interested in protecting the overwhelming number of innocent folks.

Finally, blogagog said:
“It’s also important to note that although phone monitoring or any other type of spying is egregious, it does not inhibit your freedoms.”

Well it does if you consider that we’re to have freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. But, even if you don’t, you have to agree that it does infringe upon our privacy, which is another right.

Again, hats off for at least acknowledging the egregious nature of it.

By the way, why do you think Bush blatantly lied by telling us that “when you hear us talking about wiretapping, we’re talking about getting a warrant…”?

- And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

- Bang