Bush allowed NSA to spy without warrants...

[Sarge]

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

Evidently the Justice Dept and a judge or two found it legal on a case by case basis. It would be interesting to see their arguement. And since it was evidently found to be legal yes, revealing it is a Federal offense

[Destino]

Evidently the Justice Dept and a judge or two found it legal on a case by case basis. It would be interesting to see their arguement. And since it was evidently found to be legal yes, revealing it is a Federal offense

Ok so that person needs to be found and charged.

Mind posting where you read a judge found it to be legal?

[Destino]

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 thought about the timing too. However I came to a very different conclusion then you did. It seemed to have nothing to do with the Iraqi election and everything to do with the Patriot Act. It has been cited as a reason by senators that voted it down.

[DCRunner]

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.

You don't really think that there are humans listening in on all these communications while they are happening do you? I can't believe that they are. There are probably tons of tapes which some poor guy has to listen to and one assumes that for many of them, if not most, you need the appropriate translator. I believe we are short on those.

The idea that these are situations that require instant action in the form of an emergency wiretap is pretty out there and incredibly rare if even existent. And if there were such an emergency, the govt is permitted to proceed without the benefit of a warrant if they apply for one within 72 hours after the wiretap. There's no excuse for the NSA breaking the law on this. I think it's a safer assumption that they had no grounds whatsoever for the wiretap - at least not legitimate grounds - than that the NSA is somehow too lazy to follow the law. This must be why some officials refused to participate in the warrantless taps.

In any event, I would bet any money that most preventative actions, if there really have been any, have been spurred by tipsters - and I bet tipsters in the Muslim community.

[Sarge]

Ok so that person needs to be found and charged.

Mind posting where you read a judge found it to be legal?

At this point I'm just assuming they took it to a Federal judge after they ran it through the Justice Dept. That's the normal route for things of this nature.

Again, just an assumption

[Sarge]

You don't really think that there are humans listening in on all these communications while they are happening do you? I can't believe that they are. There are probably tons of tapes which some poor guy has to listen to and one assumes that for many of them, if not most, you need the appropriate translator. I believe we are short on those.

The idea that these are situations that require instant action in the form of an emergency wiretap is pretty out there and incredibly rare if even existent. And if there were such an emergency, the govt is permitted to proceed without the benefit of a warrant if they apply for one within 72 hours after the wiretap. There's no excuse for the NSA breaking the law on this. I think it's a safer assumption that they had no grounds whatsoever for the wiretap - at least not legitimate grounds - than that the NSA is somehow too lazy to follow the law. This must be why some officials refused to participate in the warrantless taps.

In any event, I would bet any money that most preventative actions, if there really have been any, have been spurred by tipsters - and I bet tipsters in the Muslim community.

Thing is, just as this case shows, there are people in Washington, mostly congressmen, who can't keep their mouths shut about something like this. THat's why Bush refused to brief congress on a lot of stuff during the first part of his administration, because some congressmen left classified breifings so they could run to the phone and speak as an "anonymus source" to their buddies at the Washington Compost about what they just heard

There's a reason for secrecy sometimes, you know

[Prosperity]

what makes you think any judges reviewed them? From what i read all the oversight came from the White House council and the justice department, all of which are under the executive branch. I wouldn't call one branch reviewing itself as oversight.

[Sarge]

what makes you think any judges reviewed them? From what i read all the oversight came from the White House council and the justice department, all of which are under the executive branch. I wouldn't call one branch reviewing itself as oversight.

Repeat after me

AAAAAA SSSSS UUUU MMMMMM EEEEEE

We'll see how it pans out. This has gone from the administration listening to everyone in AMerican to it happening about once a month on people known to have ties to terrorists that live here in America.

Repeat that last part

people known to have ties to terrorists that live here in America.

[Prosperity]

would you have a problem if the assumption turned out to be wrong? I would have a big problem if the so called oversight is all in house.

edit to add: if they are consulting judges why not get the warrant while they are at it

[DCRunner]

Thing is, just as this case shows, there are people in Washington, mostly congressmen, who can't keep their mouths shut about something like this. THat's why Bush refused to brief congress on a lot of stuff during the first part of his administration, because some congressmen left classified breifings so they could run to the phone and speak as an "anonymus source" to their buddies at the Washington Compost about what they just heard

There's a reason for secrecy sometimes, you know

The applications go to the FISA Court comprised of federal judges. Judge Lamberth was part of the 3 judge panel here in the DC area. The local FISA judges met in this highly guarded and secure room at the Dept of Justice. Trust me these applications were not getting leaked. I cannot envision that any members of Congress were advised of the details of the warrant applications. Maybe a few for some reason I can't think of right now.

I will bet that the one or ones who reported it (leaked, if you prefer) to the Times were the NSA people who were probably appalled at what was going on and were the ones who reportedly refused to participate in the illegal actions. Or maybe the leakers were some idiot NSAer who was bragging about it. That happens sometimes police, FBI, etc. It isn't just congress that has a big mouth. Sometimes law enforcement people are the worst gossips - of course, with some of the juiciest stuff.

And I'm not so sure if just reporting the fact that warrants were not used or that the law was broken can be a breach of security. After all FISA is not some secret - everyone knows wiretaps exist. So how can the reporting that FISA is not being followed be a security issue. I don't think anyone has yet said that any details about the warrantless taps have been leaked, have they? I admit I haven't studied FISA that minutely.

I think you would be surprised at how many secrets are actually kept by congress. People, yes, even congressional types, take their responsibilities quite seriously. I think you will find that there are leaks from both Congress and the White House in comparatively equal amounts. And until the White House accepts responsibility for and/or properly explains the Plame leak - a vicious, despicable, venal act, causing real and lasting harm to her career and potential physical harm to her contacts, other agents, Plame herself and her children, maybe the White House should just shut up about leaks.

I still haven't heard any plausible explanation for ordering/allowing the wiretap law to be broken. There's more to this - what I don't know.

[CurseReversed]

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.

That is interesting if is completely accurate. I see in that article Bush being quoted as saying that the special authority he granted the nsa was very NECESSARY to maximize their ability to gather intelligence. I assumed that it was for quick response but maybe there are other reasons If I am wrong then I am sorry for assuming it was so. See, when i look at the situation common sense tells me that bush is not intrested in prying in on americans phone calls so it does not alarm me. And for that reason when he says that its necessary I have no reason NOT to believe him. I give him the benefit of the doubt because truthfully i can see no alterior motive, can you?

Winslowalrob you must be joking trying to assert that wiretaps gain no usefull information. All surveillance activities on terrorist activities are more then necessary and very needed

and their secrecy is equally important, see if you tip them off that you are listening they start to find other ways to communicate securely then you are back to square one. Maybe we should just shut down the nsa and just focus on tipster intelligence:laugh: jk

In regards to the timing of this article I dont think you give those at the ny times enough credit, they know exactly what they are doing. They dont just randomly throw out stories when they have room on the front page. They have been saving that story for months waiting for the most strategic time to release it. It is probably only partially to combat the patriot act I would guess this was probably perfect timing for them two birds with one stone. That voting story damages them, they had to fire back. If not just to keep fresh in their viewers mind "bush is still bad" dont forget. I think you will see in the future, assuming that iraq continues to improve, how much there efforts will look less like reporting and more like convincing.

Sometimes I doubt people realize how many times in history complete disaster was narrowly escaped by the utilization of even the smallest of edges and advantages.

Every bit counts when there are weapons out there that in the wrong hands can cause more damage then an army of conventional ones.

Lets not make it harder on ourselves by tying an arm behind our back because we are scared of what the big bad republicans might do to us with "unconstitutional powers" If their not held in check

[Prosperity]

Liberty you must be joking trying to assert that wiretaps gain no usefull information. All surveillance activities on terrorist activities are more then necessary and very needed

and their secrecy is equally important, see if you tip them off that you are listening they start to find other ways to communicate securely then you are back to square one. Maybe we should just shut down the nsa and just focus on tipster intelligence jk

huh?

[CurseReversed]

The idea that these are situations that require instant action in the form of an emergency wiretap is pretty out there and incredibly rare if even existent. And if there were such an emergency, the govt is permitted to proceed without the benefit of a warrant if they apply for one within 72 hours after the wiretap. There's no excuse for the NSA breaking the law on this. I think it's a safer assumption that they had no grounds whatsoever for the wiretap - at least not legitimate grounds - than that the NSA is somehow too lazy to follow the law. This must be why some officials refused to participate in the warrantless taps.

If the only reason is truly laziness as you suggest, I would be a little dissapointed but far from alarmed or worried. Only time will tell what the real reason is, but honestly It probably would have been a lot smarter to not have to find out. Unless the nsa is GROSSLY violating civil liberties to gain information that isnt imperative in the war on terror I dont think its an issue that warrants public scrutiny in light of the damage albeit maybe small done to our intelligence gathering ability from this article. I found it funny that nytimes decided to add this time that they "seriously considered the possible intelligence ramifications" before publishing the story and found it to be non damaging. I think its probably more along the lines of seriously considered the anti bush ramifications and realized it to be worthwhile.:laugh:

I think regardless of what the NY times says its common sense to assume that if any terrorist supporters or agents were by chance or luck carelessy talking openly on their phone about anything of use to our intelligence before this article that they certainly arent now.

[CurseReversed]

sorry liberty my mistake, my memory playing tricks on me.

[DCRunner]

If the only reason is truly laziness as you suggest, I would be a little dissapointed but far from alarmed or worried. Only time will tell what the real reason is, but honestly It probably would have been a lot smarter to not have to find out. Unless the nsa is GROSSLY violating civil liberties to gain information that isnt imperative in the war on terror I dont think its an issue that warrants public scrutiny in light of the damage albeit maybe small done to our intelligence gathering ability from this article. I found it funny that nytimes decided to add this time that they "seriously considered the possible intelligence ramifications" before publishing the story and found it to be non damaging. I think its probably more along the lines of seriously considered the anti bush ramifications and realized it to be worthwhile.:laugh:

I think regardless of what the NY times says its common sense to assume that if any terrorist supporters or agents were by chance or luck carelessy talking openly on their phone about anything of use to our intelligence before this article that they certainly arent now.

I think you misread my post, Curses. The reason I truly believe they did not follow the law and properly make application for warrants either before or after the individual taps began was because they did not even have the little amount necessary to get these incredibly easy warrants. I can't think of any other reason. Although I remain open to suggestions.

Since the FISA Court was willing to approve their applications for taps at the drop of a hat what does that tell you about the applications they were afraid to make? We already know that they started to surveille protest groups for political reasons and not for security reasons. If there were legitimate security reasons for surveillance of protest groups then the court would have said OK to that. So I suspect we have a "secret program" for illegally surveilling political enemies. Was no one on this board alive and aware during the Nixon years? We've been here before.

All the wiretaps are secret. No one knows they are being tapped. Whether a warrant is issued or not - they are secret. Just knowing that such taps exist does not tip off the target of the wiretaps. It is not a secret that secret wiretaps exist. FISA is public knowledge. I am sure any properly informed terrorist assumes they can be wiretapped. It certainly isn't news to them. What's secret is where and when the taps are being done. That information has not been leaked that I know of.

Sooooo. What was "secret" about the warrantless taps "program" as Pres. Bush referred to it? The only secret is that he was breaking the law.

[CurseReversed]

your right I didnt realize that you were a conspiracy theorist

So I suspect we have a "secret program" for illegally surveilling political enemies. Was no one on this board alive and aware during the Nixon years? We've been here before.

So you think that bush ok's the nsa surveillance to survey political enemies:laugh:

I hate to tell you but this isnt the nixon years and not everything the president does has secret sinister motives. And you come to this conclusion how

I think you misread my post, Curses. The reason I truly believe they did not follow the law and properly make application for warrants either before or after the individual taps began was because they did not even have the little amount necessary to get these incredibly easy warrants. I can't think of any other reason. Although I remain open to suggestions.

because you cant think of any other reason? maybe your just not looking in the right places.

heres a far out suggestion maybe bush authorized the nsa because he thought it would help them catch terrorists and protect the u.s. regardless if this is actually the case. :laugh:

All the wiretaps are secret. No one knows they are being tapped. Whether a warrant is issued or not - they are secret. Just knowing that such taps exist does not tip off the target of the wiretaps. It is not a secret that secret wiretaps exist. FISA is public knowledge. I am sure any properly informed terrorist assumes they can be wiretapped. It certainly isn't news to them. What's secret is where and when the taps are being done. That information has not been leaked that I know of.

Sooooo. What was "secret" about the warrantless taps "program" as Pres. Bush referred to it? The only secret is that he was breaking the law.December-17th-2005 10:24 PM

this assertion implies that all terrorists and terrorist supporters are "properly informed"

well if they werent before they sure are now:laugh:

I dont think any of us are in the position to question the value of intelligence gained from surveillance of any sort.

Even one slip up by one careless terrorist might be all we need to stop a catastrophic attack. To ignore the subtleties and even the smallest of details or info can be a recipe for disaster.

[Winslowalrob]

No one has responded to this post...

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...

[DCRunner]

your right I didnt realize that you were a conspiracy theorist

So you think that bush ok's the nsa surveillance to survey political enemies:laugh:

I hate to tell you but this isnt the nixon years and not everything the president does has secret sinister motives. And you come to this conclusion how

because you cant think of any other reason? maybe your just not looking in the right places.

heres a far out suggestion maybe bush authorized the nsa because he thought it would help them catch terrorists and protect the u.s. regardless if this is actually the case. :laugh:

this assertion implies that all terrorists and terrorist supporters are "properly informed"

well if they werent before they sure are now:laugh:

I dont think any of us are in the position to question the value of intelligence gained from surveillance of any sort.

Even one slip up by one careless terrorist might be all we need to stop a catastrophic attack. To ignore the subtleties and even the smallest of details or info can be a recipe for disaster.

Gee, curses, I think we're just talking past each other. The fact that the govt can and does wiretap conversations is as well known as the fact that Joe Gibbs prefers a safe, boring ground game. I think that Skin Fact is in each and every terrorist manual distributed at the annual terrorist ball.

Wiretaps have been in existence for a very long time. Everyone knows about wiretaps. You don't really think that terrorists or their supporters don't know about wiretaps, do you? I mean they wiretap everywhere - not just in the US. And if these are organized terrorists - you know part of these "cells" receiving orders and money from wherever - they certainly are organized. Wasn't that whole 9/11 thing pretty organized and high tech. So I think we can lay to rest any notion that terrorists were unaware of the notion that they could be subject to wiretaps. The NY Times wasn't the Paul Revere to the terrorist world that wiretaps exist.

Yes, curses, I absolutely believe that this administration would improperly surveille protest groups and what they consider to be their political enemies. They've already started. What's with the Quaker group? And you bet this isn't the Nixon years. I think Nixon, for all his faults and illegal behavior, had more respect for the Constitution and the law than this president or this administration has. He certainly understood it better than this President. I think that may have been part of why Nixon was so tortured - he knew he was doing wrong and he was incredibly conflicted no matter what his excuses.

The simple fact remains that the NSA could have easily complied with the law. It was written to allow for emergencies and still be in compliance, it was written to provide for the utmost secrecy of the details of any wiretap so that peopel would, of course, not know they were being wiretapped. It even allows for the Chief Justice - a pro-government guy if there ever is going to be one - to appoint the federal judges (usually pretty pro-gvt) who decide whether to approve the wiretaps or not. And the recent study done indicated that out of an estimated 7,000 requests for wiretaps NOT ONE has been appealed by the government - which is a pretty big indication that not even one request has been denied. So if the approval of wiretap requests seems to be almost automatic, what reason is there not to ask for one - either before or within 72 hours of beginning one. Nothing could be easier to do by the government - with an almost guaranteed result in the government's favor. It's almost too silly to suggest as I did that the NSA was too lazy to do the paperwork - I was really just being facetious. One of the few reasons that anyone who deals with warrants - as I do in my day job - would suggest for failure to even make the request for the wiretap is that the NSA had zero - zilch - nada - no proper, i.e., security related, grounds for asking for the wiretaps.

It is not about secrecy. The requests themselves ARE secret. It doesn't help them to catch terrorists if they fail to request the wiretap and just do it without following the law any better than if they followed the law. Why aren't people understanding this. It's all kept secret. The judges who OK the wiretaps don't run and tell Congress or the press or, god forbid, big mouths Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. If Rove or Cheney know who is being wiretapped it's because either the NSA tells them or NSA is wiretapping people or organizations at the request of Cheney or Rove. Now there's an interesting concept. I like it!

So, curses, please don't think the Nixon years can't repeat themselves. History repeats itself all the time. We never learn. We always end up blindly trusting people, politicians, governments, who prove themselves undeserving of our trust time and again. Maybe I'm just getting old but we have been here before - with the "intelligence gathering," with the abuses of power, with the lies about going to war and the war itself. It's all just too familiar and, quite frankly, just too sad.

[CurseReversed]

Gee, curses, I think we're just talking past each other. The fact that the govt can and does wiretap conversations is as well known as the fact that Joe Gibbs prefers a safe, boring ground game. I think that Skin Fact is in each and every terrorist manual distributed at the annual terrorist ball.

Wiretaps have been in existence for a very long time. Everyone knows about wiretaps. You don't really think that terrorists or their supporters don't know about wiretaps, do you? I mean they wiretap everywhere - not just in the US. And if these are organized terrorists - you know part of these "cells" receiving orders and money from wherever - they certainly are organized. Wasn't that whole 9/11 thing pretty organized and high tech. So I think we can lay to rest any notion that terrorists were unaware of the notion that they could be subject to wiretaps. The NY Times wasn't the Paul Revere to the terrorist world that wiretaps exist.

Impressive, you managed to stretch the statement "most terrorists probably already know about wire taps" into 12 lines of thorough but meaningless logic. Your argument seems to suggest that because people know about wire taps that no intelligence can be gained from them, or that people who know about wiretaps are always conscious of what they say and do not ever slip up. But you have to know that is not always true. For some reason the national security agency thinks they are vital intelligence gathering tool. Hmmm I wonder who knows what they are talking about. I wonder how many of the probably very few people who the nsa WERE getting valuable intelligence from regardless of "common knowledge" of wire taps or the sophistication of the 9/11 attacks:laugh: (sorry i cant help but laugh at that as a support for your argument) are now maybe thinking twice about what they say. Now of course that is all just speculation I dont know if efforts were hampered in anyway but it is EASY to see how they could be regardless of how common wiretap knowledge already is. People make mistakes we have to maximize our chances of hearing them when they do. The text WE ARE LISTENING TO YOUR PHONE CONVERSATIONS scrolling across every news bar in the country doesnt increase those chances it DECREASES them

Yes, curses, I absolutely believe that this administration would improperly surveille protest groups and what they consider to be their political enemies. They've already started. What's with the Quaker group? And you bet this isn't the Nixon years. I think Nixon, for all his faults and illegal behavior, had more respect for the Constitution and the law than this president or this administration has. He certainly understood it better than this President. I think that may have been part of why Nixon was so tortured - he knew he was doing wrong and he was incredibly conflicted no matter what his excuses.

you said before that you thought bush had a "secret program" for surveilling his political enemies and that his permission given to nsa was a part of this.

I cant argue what tabs the govt has on the many domestic groups with gripes against them because I dont know anything about these issues. I can argue your relating of THIS nsa story to this "secret program" :chuckles: If it is proven that these wiretaps were of domestic political enemies with no ties to terror then Ill eat my words, but for now I think your are way off base.

Not to be rude but your affinity towards the far left explanation for this story and probably many others only reduces your credibility in my eyes. Your distaste for bush and his administration and his policies are only going to lead you to conclusions that support these beliefs regardless if they hold merit. Your last paragraph pretty much shows me where your stand on things so we are no longer talking past each other, just at each other.

No one has responded to this post...

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...

No problem, the idea that failure to act on previous intelligence is a reason not to gather as much current intelligence as possible is faulty logic. Yes we must learn from our mistakes but any intelligence we get is going to help us more then intelligence we dont get, regardless of how it is acted upon.

[DCRunner]

Impressive, you managed to stretch the statement "most terrorists probably already know about wire taps" into 12 lines of thorough but meaningless logic. Your argument seems to suggest that because people know about wire taps that no intelligence can be gained from them, or that people who know about wiretaps are always conscious of what they say and do not ever slip up. But you have to know that is not always true. For some reason the national security agency thinks they are vital intelligence gathering tool.

Curses, you are really misreading what I said. I can't even imagine how you got this out of what I wrote. I must be too tired to write clearly or you are too tired to read. Whatever. I never even made an argument for or against wiretaps in general. I have listened to the tapes of many wiretaps in my life and I certainly know what can be gained by law enforcement from them.

What we were discussing, or so I thought, was the argument some people were making that the NSA couldn't get intelligence if it had to obey the law and that the NY Times story somehow compromised the NSA's ability to get intelligence from wiretaps. The answer is no on both of these.

How could a story about the existence of wiretaps - even secret wiretaps - keep the government from gaining intelligence. It's pretty common knowledge that wiretaps are used - the only thing about wiretaps that is always unknown is where and when they are used. This isn't just ragarding security issues - of course, the line being tapped is a secret. In the FISA wiretaps, the secret is more about the scope of those with access to the applications for wiretaps and the reasons the wiretaps are sought.

Terrorists will still not know what lines are being tapped and will still be subject to surveillance. I would think that they have always been careful about what they say over telephone lines. Sometimes the intelligence gained is not exactly a confession or even plans but the identities of their contacts and their movements.

Hmmm I wonder who knows what they are talking about. I wonder how many of the probably very few people who the nsa WERE getting valuable intelligence from regardless of "common knowledge" of wire taps or the sophistication of the 9/11 attacks:laugh: (sorry i cant help but laugh at that as a support for your argument) are now maybe thinking twice about what they say. Now of course that is all just speculation I dont know if efforts were hampered in anyway but it is EASY to see how they could be regardless of how common wiretap knowledge already is. People make mistakes we have to maximize our chances of hearing them when they do. The text WE ARE LISTENING TO YOUR PHONE CONVERSATIONS scrolling across every news bar in the country doesnt increase those chances it DECREASES them

See my thoughts above. They have always known they were subject to wiretaps. These people are not growing up or living in caves.

you said before that you thought bush had a "secret program" for surveilling his political enemies and that his permission given to nsa was a part of this.

I cant argue what tabs the govt has on the many domestic groups with gripes against them because I dont know anything about these issues. I can argue your relating of THIS nsa story to this "secret program" :chuckles: If it is proven that these wiretaps were of domestic political enemies with no ties to terror then Ill eat my words, but for now I think your are way off base.

Bush himself used the term "Secret Program." When I was typing my post Bush was on TV in the background talking about his secret program. I didn't make up that phrase. So chuckle at the president. It's his phrase.

Not to be rude but your affinity towards the far left explanation for this story and probably many others only reduces your credibility in my eyes. Your distaste for bush and his administration and his policies are only going to lead you to conclusions that support these beliefs regardless if they hold merit. Your last paragraph pretty much shows me where your stand on things so we are no longer talking past each other, just at each other.

My conclusions usually come from my experience. I understand what is required for NSA to comply with the law. It is a very easy requirement balanced against a vital and fundamental value in this country and any other democracy. There is nothing far left about the Fourth Amendment. It is as American as apple pie. And it is what people have fought and died for. Bush has no excuse for going outside the law and I believe that he either has no respect for the laws or the Constitution or he just doesn't get it.

Which, of course, brings me back to why this is being done outside the minimal oversight exercised by the FISA Court. There has to be some reason why the administration was not willing to submit applications for warrants to the FISA Court for these "Secret Program" (Bush's phrase, not mine) wiretaps. And my experience tells me that when any law enforcement or investigative agency is unwilling to subject themselves to scrutiny - especially as minimal and pro-government as it is with the NSA wiretaps - then they are doing something they shouldn't be doing. And that, my friend, is just repeating history.

[chomerics]

Thing is, just as this case shows, there are people in Washington, mostly congressmen, who can't keep their mouths shut about something like this. THat's why Bush refused to brief congress on a lot of stuff during the first part of his administration, because some congressmen left classified breifings so they could run to the phone and speak as an "anonymus source" to their buddies at the Washington Compost about what they just heard

There's a reason for secrecy sometimes, you know

You have got to be kidding me Sarge. THe president freely admits to taking a crap on out bill of rights, and our rights as citizens of this country, and you say it was kept secret because it shouldn't get out? American citizens have been detained for YEARS without even access to a lawyer, and you say this secrecy is because a congressman has lose lips? Do you guys even listen to what you are defending now?

[TheREALJBird]

You have got to be kidding me Sarge. THe president freely admits to taking a crap on out bill of rights, and our rights as citizens of this country, and you say it was kept secret because it shouldn't get out? American citizens have been detained for YEARS without even access to a lawyer, and you say this secrecy is because a congressman has lose lips? Do you guys even listen to what you are defending now?

Do people even listen to you anymore?? you blabble on and on and on because you're hardcore anti-bush and jump at the chance to say something about it. I'm sure you'll respond and say something like "great post yada yada" but i'm not worried about you or any other conservative hippies

[chomerics]

Lets not make it harder on ourselves by tying an arm behind our back because we are scared of what the big bad republicans might do to us with "unconstitutional powers" If their not held in check

They have ALREADY proven they should not be allowed to have unchecked power. They have subverted our laws when ever possible, and it has destroyed our standing not only in the entire world, but in over half our population as well. If they ever wanted power like this, they have long since showed they are no more deserving of it then I am.

As for the using it in only a few instances, do you honestly believe that they would only use this when it was called for? I mean we are talking about an administration who led us into war based on false intel, they purposely outed a CIA agent, and they have crapped on our rights whenever possible. The last thing they need is more power. :doh:

[chomerics]

Do people even listen to you anymore?? you blabble on and on and on because you're hardcore anti-bush and jump at the chance to say something about it. I'm sure you'll respond and say something like "great post yada yada" but i'm not worried about you or any other conservative hippies

Yes, if you can't attack the truth, or my argument, you attack me. That's the republican way isn't it, you can't argue on the merit of the facts, so you try to use charactor assisination. I mean at some point you do have to realize that you have nothing to stand on. . . but then again, if you can't own up to the facts, then you will have a hard time admitting the truth.

So, if you don't like to face reality, and want to live in your little bubble sphere, go right ahead. It doesn't mean the the rest of this site wants to be kept in an illusory world of spin and lies. But just be proud that you support the side who has given us this slogan of truth. . . Bush lied, soldiers died. Kind of hard to spin the facts of that one huh. . . but he THOUGHT they had WMDs :doh: Yea, and he was wrong, kind of hard to shove that one under the carpet isn't it.

[TheREALJBird]

Yes, if you can't attack the truth, or my argument, you attack me. That's the republican way isn't it, you can't argue on the merit of the facts, so you try to use charactor assisination. I mean at some point you do have to realize that you have nothing to stand on. . . but then again, if you can't own up to the facts, then you will have a hard time admitting the truth.

So, if you don't like to face reality, and want to live in your little bubble sphere, go right ahead. It doesn't mean the the rest of this site wants to be kept in an illusory world of spin and lies. But just be proud that you support the side who has given us this slogan of truth. . . Bush lied, soldiers died. Kind of hard to spin the facts of that one huh. . . but he THOUGHT they had WMDs :doh: Yea, and he was wrong, kind of hard to shove that one under the carpet isn't it.

Quite a response there slick, I never saw it coming....Yea I see reality just fine, unlike yourself. If we had a democrat in office our country would be screwed