Bush allowed NSA to spy without warrants...

[nelms]

Whoever leaked this has committed treason and should be put in front a firing squad.

[Sarge]

I want names announced in the hearings that Spector wants hold. I want to know who comprimised national security

[Destino]

I dont blame the left for raising ire over this, it is crucial for them to have the US to suffer a terrorist attack here on US soil. Right now Republicans gloat all the time how there hasnt been an attack state side since 9/11, the left dug to find out why they got it and now they gotta stop it.

WTF? Dude you have problems. :doh:

[CurseReversed]

I sometimes wonder how some of you can miss the transparency of the agenda that spawned this story one day after Iraqi elections:laugh: Its seemed so obvious to me that they got so scared that a positive story about iraq might start to change some of the minds that they have worked so tirelessy and effectively to manipulate, that they were willing to overlook the obviousness of their timing just to make sure they reinforced their "bush is bad" message before an opposing idea could take hold.

I hear many of you scoff at the idea that many of these of these liberal media outlets and democratic party congressmen want us to fail in iraq and are invested in defeat

I dont think this exactly the case but you cant argue with the obvious conflict of interest.

How many lib news outlets and major party members have been calling iraq a complete failure and an utter debacle for years now?

Too many to count, so what does any percieved success in iraq mean? It means that half of the democratic parties credibility is out the window. Why do you think Hillary got off the "get out of iraq its a failure" bandwagon so quickly:laugh:

The increasing bombardment of anti bush and anti war news stories only very blantantly shows the stakes for which the lib media is playing. For many of them it really is a war for their survival and the survival of the party, a war which shamefully for many of them, vastly outweighs the war against iraq. As shown by the obvious disregard they have for discompromising security and the war effort in their stories. You may disagree but I would say your not looking hard enough, its pretty obvious.

[-$-money]

Given the circumstances I'm glad he did do it rather then not. Who knows what was prevented by authorizing "eavesdropping." :2cents:

[dreamingwolf]

Given the circumstances I'm glad he did do it rather then not. Who knows what was prevented by authorizing "eavesdropping." :2cents:

your missing the point of the left, defeating an attack that will kill thousands of people is not as important as discrediting Bush.

to add to this

I dont get why the left focus on undermining Bush on security and the war, when they have a mountain of domestic stuff to attack him on.

[Winslowalrob]

The belief that these taps has kept us safe is spacious reasoning at its finest. I have a rock here that keeps tigers away too .

[dreamingwolf]

The belief that these taps has kept us safe is spacious reasoning at its finest. I have a rock here that keeps tigers away too .

believe what you want. If you dont believe signal intercept is key in action I dont know what to tell you. Keep spookin the public into believing the NSA is listening in on their confession to their confidants about their marriage infidalities and lets see where that gets us.

[Winslowalrob]

believe what you want. If you dont believe signal intercept is key in action I dont know what to tell you. Keep spookin the public into believing the NSA is listening in on their confession to their confidants about their marriage infidalities and lets see where that gets us.

So what if we get attacked again despite the NSA tappings? What then?

[Destino]

The partisan BS in this thread is gross. Let's just look at the issue objectively for a minute. The main questions are simple to see.

1 - Does the President have the authority to authorize domestic wire taps without warrents? Simple "find the law" question.

2 - Did the person that revealed that this was going on to the media break the law? This may have to do with question 1, but again it is a simple "find the law" question.

There are other questions to be sure, but these two are the main ones. Once they are answered factually the rest of the discussion becomes easier.

[dreamingwolf]

windlow no method is 100%

destino espionage follows no law. Your personal ethics might dictate to you that to fight terrorists you must follow laws, but I for one would hope that those trying to thwart terrorist will do everything again EVERYTHING to stop them.

I personally dont want to be a victim of a dirty bomb cause legally we couldnt stop it.

[Sarge]

The partisan BS in this thread is gross. Let's just look at the issue objectively for a minute. The main questions are simple to see.

1 - Does the President have the authority to authorize domestic wire taps without warrents? Simple "find the law" question.

2 - Did the person that revealed that this was going on to the media break the law? This may have to do with question 1, but again it is a simple "find the law" question.

There are other questions to be sure, but these two are the main ones. Once they are answered factually the rest of the discussion becomes easier.

I'm pretty sure an operation like this would be catagorized as "Classified". That makes revealing it to the public a felony, punishable by jail time .

[Winslowalrob]

windlow no method is 100%

destino espionage follows no law. Your personal ethics might dictate to you that to fight terrorists you must follow laws, but I for one would hope that those trying to thwart terrorist will do everything again EVERYTHING to stop them.

I personally dont want to be a victim of a dirty bomb cause legally we couldnt stop it.

You are right, no method is 100%. Now, let me get this straight. You would rather sacrifice civil liberties for non-garaunteed protection from a dirty bomb, instead of keeping civil liberties for non-garaunteed protection from a dirty bomb? Keep in mind, WE HAD SUFFICIENT INTELLIGENCE prior to the September 11th attacks. For a variety of reasons, the FBI and CIA did not follow up on any of it. And this was before our illegal tapping. Who is to say we will not gather the same intelligence and once again fail to act on it? The FBI and CIA still compete over turf and credit, and our recommendations for reform have not exactly been taken to heart. Maybe focusing on those agencies is where the administration and Congress should devote their attention, instead of the president playing fast and loose with the law.

[dreamingwolf]

You are right, no method is 100%. Now, let me get this straight. You would rather sacrifice civil liberties for non-garaunteed protection from a dirty bomb, instead of keeping civil liberties for non-garaunteed protection from a dirty bomb?

Im not a criminal now so I am losing no civil liberties by this, none what so ever. Im not a leftist so I dont view our government as this evil machine bent on the enslavement of human kind, I know you desperately want me to believe this but I am a rational man and I cant buy your irrational foamings from your rabid hate.

So I guess in a nut shell yes I will sacrifice the civil liberties of terrorists so that they can get busted before they do their thing. Even if it doesnt work Im willing to gamble their liberties on it.

[Winslowalrob]

Im not a criminal now so I am losing no civil liberties by this, none what so ever. Im not a leftist so I dont view our government as this evil machine bent on the enslavement of human kind, I know you desperately want me to believe this but I am a rational man and I cant buy your irrational foamings from your rabid hate.

So I guess in a nut shell yes I will sacrifice the civil liberties of terrorists so that they can get busted before they do their thing. Even if it doesnt work Im willing to gamble their liberties on it.

I am pro-government, by the way. I thought right wingers HATED big government. And I rationally foam with rabid hate . These people are not terrorists, innocent until proven guilty. I could, for example, call you a bigot and militia member, waiting for your chance to bomb an abortion clinic or a left wing newspaper outlet. Hence, you too would be a terrorist, but I have no proof and cannot operate under this assumption. And answer this part please:

Keep in mind, WE HAD SUFFICIENT INTELLIGENCE prior to the September 11th attacks. For a variety of reasons, the FBI and CIA did not follow up on any of it. And this was before our illegal tapping. Who is to say we will not gather the same intelligence and once again fail to act on it? The FBI and CIA still compete over turf and credit, and our recommendations for reform have not exactly been taken to heart. Maybe focusing on those agencies is where the administration and Congress should devote their attention, instead of the president playing fast and loose with the law.

[dreamingwolf]

Law. plain and simple, legal hurdles.

[Destino]

destino espionage follows no law. Your personal ethics might dictate to you that to fight terrorists you must follow laws, but I for one would hope that those trying to thwart terrorist will do everything again EVERYTHING to stop them.

I personally dont want to be a victim of a dirty bomb cause legally we couldnt stop it.

So find me the law that says "espionage follows no law" because I've seen a lot in the paper that say different.

[Chopper Dave]

Law. plain and simple, legal hurdles.

Yes, because as we all know, laws were designed to stop us from achieving true justice, right?

[Destino]

I'm pretty sure an operation like this would be catagorized as "Classified". That makes revealing it to the public a felony, punishable by jail time .

If the operation is illegal, is it still illegal to reveal it?

[dreamingwolf]

what can I say except I hope you guys are marginalized and we are allowed to protect ourselves instead of you guys getting political capital. You will win this "debate" cause your right I dont know "law" enough and Im pretty sure your right about it. I just hope your way of making our defense against terror 100% legal is better than my way of preventing it at all costs.

How is this for a deal? I will say you win the debate, if you let our people protect us? Its really win win. You get to feel super smart, and our counter intelligence can break the law to thwart terrorists. Is that cool?

[CurseReversed]

idealist= were violating civil liberties

realist= were monitoring the communications of possible terrorists communicating with other possible terrorists

why not just get a judge to approve the tap when its easy as pie you ask? Thats the question that highlights the answer. In the days of pre paid phones and throwaways sometimes even a few hours can make the difference between getting valuable intelligence and getting squat. The only reason the president authorized quick action without judicial approval was to EXPEDITE the process not to spy on YOU.

Lets come on now and get a grip let the man do what hes got to do to protect us instead of picking at everything he does like vultures trying to find something wrong.

I think its painfully obvious that bush and the nsa motives are terrorist related and have virtually no negative impact on american citizens.

[dreamingwolf]

hell a couple of hours, try a couple of minutes

[Destino]

what can I say except I hope you guys are marginalized and we are allowed to protect ourselves instead of you guys getting political capital. You will win this "debate" cause your right I dont know "law" enough and Im pretty sure your right about it. I just hope your way of making our defense against terror 100% legal is better than my way of preventing it at all costs.

How is this for a deal? I will say you win the debate, if you let our people protect us? Its really win win. You get to feel super smart, and our counter intelligence can break the law to thwart terrorists. Is that cool?

If you don't know when the government is breaking it's own laws, then how can you be so sure that's it's always done with the noble goal of protecting ourselves? I'm not saying Bush had other reasons, heck I don't believe that for a second, but why have rules if no one needs to follow them?

[Winslowalrob]

idealist= were violating civil liberties

realist= were monitoring the communications of possible terrorists communicating with other possible terrorists

why not just get a judge to approve the tap when its easy as pie you ask? Thats the question that highlights the answer. In the days of pre paid phones and throwaways sometimes even a few hours can make the difference between getting valuable intelligence and getting squat. The only reason the president authorized quick action without judicial approval was to EXPEDITE the process not to spy on YOU.

Lets come on now and get a grip let the man do what hes got to do to protect us instead of picking at everything he does like vultures trying to find something wrong.

I think its painfully obvious that bush and the nsa motives are terrorist related and have virtually no negative impact on american citizens.

Keep in mind, WE HAD SUFFICIENT INTELLIGENCE prior to the September 11th attacks. For a variety of reasons, the FBI and CIA did not follow up on any of it. And this was before our illegal tapping. Who is to say we will not gather the same intelligence and once again fail to act on it? The FBI and CIA still compete over turf and credit, and our recommendations for reform have not exactly been taken to heart. Maybe focusing on those agencies is where the administration and Congress should devote their attention, instead of the president playing fast and loose with the law.

Once again, we didn't need this NSA crap to stop September 11th...

[Destino]

idealist= were violating civil liberties

realist= were monitoring the communications of possible terrorists communicating with other possible terrorists

why not just get a judge to approve the tap when its easy as pie you ask? Thats the question that highlights the answer. In the days of pre paid phones and throwaways sometimes even a few hours can make the difference between getting valuable intelligence and getting squat. The only reason the president authorized quick action without judicial approval was to EXPEDITE the process not to spy on YOU.

Lets come on now and get a grip let the man do what hes got to do to protect us instead of picking at everything he does like vultures trying to find something wrong.

I think its painfully obvious that bush and the nsa motives are terrorist related and have virtually no negative impact on american citizens.

You know I thought that to until I read this article.

He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps.

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

link

If that is true then what you are saying, Sick of the Curse, is not. The way it reads is that they can tap BEFORE getting a warrent, they just have to file the paperwork within 72 hours. Thus there is nothing stopping "quick action" at all.

If you know different feel free to respond.