Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Groups Sue to Stop Domestic Spying Program


Sarge

Recommended Posts

THe ACLU teams up with a terrorist front organization to prevent intel gathering :doh:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying_lawsuit

NEW YORK - Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday in federal court that seek to end President Bush's electronic eavesdropping program, saying it is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers.

The lawsuits — one filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the other in Detroit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups — say the program bypasses safeguards in a 1978 law requiring court approval of electronic monitoring.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is suing Bush, the head of the National Security Agency and the heads of the other major security agencies.

The organization, which represents hundreds of men held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must now audit old communications to determine whether "anything was disclosed that might undermine our representation of our clients," said Bill Goodman, the center's director.

The Detroit lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs' ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.

It was filed by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and individuals on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations that communicate with people in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

A spokesman for the Justice Department disputed the lawsuits' assertions.

"We believe these cases are without merit and plan to vigorously defend against the charges," Brian Roehrkasse said.

A message left with the National Security Agency was not immediately returned.

Bush maintains the program is legal under a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It authorizes eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails of people deemed terror risks.

The New York lawsuit noted that federal law already lets the president order warrantless surveillance during the first 15 days of a war and allows courts to authorize surveillance of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups.

The 1978 law requiring court approval was established after public fury erupted over surveillance of individuals, including Martin Luther King Jr.

"I'm personally outraged that my confidential communication with my clients may have been listened to by the U.S. government," said Rachel Meeropol, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Attorneys have long relied on privacy to gather facts to ensure fair trials, lawyer Josh Dratel said in a statement supporting the ACLU case. He has represented people accused of terrorism-related crimes.

"That comfort level no longer exists, and it has sent a chill through the legal community," he said.

The program will further isolate U.S. social scientists, journalists and researchers from those who report on political developments or human rights abuses, said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University professor and plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit.

"One reason why the United States is held in such low esteem ... today is because we are seen as hypocritical," he said. "We vow to promote individual freedom as the central purpose of foreign policy, and then we violate individual freedom with this secret warrantless surveillance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop. Now. The CCR is NOT a terrorist front organization. It is among those attorneys who have been called upon to represent those detainees at Guantanamo, for instance, who have been held for many years with no charges and barely any access to lawyers so they can challenge their incarceration and incredible physical and mental abuse. These lawyers include many former prosecutors - none of whom support terrorism. What they do support is due process and the rule of law. What they don't support is holding people in jail - especially in intolerable and inhumane conditions - without proof or even knowing if they are really in any way involved in terrorism. Most - if not all - of these lawyers are working without pay or expenses reimbursed.

You can disagree all you want with their arguments and their briefs but you do not get to call into question their patriotism or their dedication to this country's ideals. You do not know them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop. Now. The CCR is NOT a terrorist front organization. It is among those attorneys who have been called upon to represent those detainees at Guantanamo, for instance, who have been held for many years with no charges and barely any access to lawyers so they can challenge their incarceration and incredible physical and mental abuse. These lawyers include many former prosecutors - none of whom support terrorism. What they do support is due process and the rule of law. What they don't support is holding people in jail - especially in intolerable and inhumane conditions - without proof or even knowing if they are really in any way involved in terrorism. Most - if not all - of these lawyers are working without pay or expenses reimbursed.

You can disagree all you want with their arguments and their briefs but you do not get to call into question their patriotism or their dedication to this country's ideals. You do not know them.

Sorry. I know CAIR VERY well. CAIR is the pretty mouthpiece for islamofacsim in America. Or perhaps you forgot some of their more notable achievements, like:

RIght after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR's website solicited donations for what it called the "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund." However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a "charity" whose assets were later frozen and confiscated by the United States Department of the Treasury because, according to United States Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, HLF "masquerade[d] as a charity, while its primary purpose [was] to fund Hamas."

You know, a terrorist organization. One of the one's that vowed to push Israel into the sea" if I remember correctly.

CAIR characterized the first WTC bombing as the following;

Awad wrote in the Muslim World Monitor that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial was "a travesty of justice," and suggested that "there is ample evidence indicating that both the Mossad and the Egyptian Intelligence played a role in the explosion.'" However, during a 2002 interview with an Australian news radio reporter, Awad denied those reports, calling them a "total fabrication" and saying he had been misquoted.

ANd let's not forget the "Who's Who" list of reputable CAIR members

On February 2, 1995, CAIR advisory board member Imam Siraj Wahaj was accused by the United States Department of Justice as one of several "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments," including the World Trade Center in 1993. He was a character witness during convicted Islamic terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman's World Trade Center bombing trial.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas and a co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties with front groups that fund Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were convicted on 21 counts of federal terrorism charges related to funding Hamas and the illegal export of electronics equipment to U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism.

In January 2003, CAIR's director of community relations and founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties to front groups that fund Islamist terrorism. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.

In August 2003, CAIR's former civil-rights coordinator, Randall "Ismail" Royer, was arrested on charges of possessing "in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition" in September 2001, and conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda and to the Taliban. He pleaded guilty and is now serving 20 years in federal prison.

Shall I go on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shall I go on?

Why do you hate our constitution and the Bill of Rights Sarge? This is your position, make no bones about it, you have no problem eliminating the Bill of Rights and have absolutely no problem with a president who illegally spies on Americans.

Can you say that you would feel the same way if this was Clinton instead of Bush? How can you take this position if you DON'T think the same way for one guy but not another, especially when dealing with the document our country was founded on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you hate our constitution and the Bill of Rights Sarge? This is your position, make no bones about it, you have no problem eliminating the Bill of Rights and have absolutely no problem with a president who illegally spies on Americans.

Can you say that you would feel the same way if this was Clinton instead of Bush? How can you take this position if you DON'T think the same way for one guy but not another, especially when dealing with the document our country was founded on?

Because one president is a lying hack akin to Hitler, according to you. THe other is bill clinton..

BTW, I'm sure you cracked a beer over the fact that bubba got reinstated to practice law today, after a few years of disbarment. Maybe he could try the case :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you hate our constitution and the Bill of Rights Sarge? This is your position, make no bones about it, you have no problem eliminating the Bill of Rights and have absolutely no problem with a president who illegally spies on Americans.

Can you say that you would feel the same way if this was Clinton instead of Bush? How can you take this position if you DON'T think the same way for one guy but not another, especially when dealing with the document our country was founded on?

I know you guys love battling, but may I interject for one sec, and ask you, Chom, this question (because I know you are an intelligent person, and I respect your opinion). Do you believe, post "Massacre of innocent people on September 11th, 2001" (sorry, the conciseness and apathetic tone of "9-11" doesn't do it for me), think that some changes must be made to thwart domestic terrorism? I'm not saying I agree with Bush, and I'm not saying that things should remain as they are. I'm just curious if you have any suggestions. I am asking this question with curiousity. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you guys love battling, but may I interject for one sec, and ask you, Chom, this question (because I know you are an intelligent person, and I respect your opinion). Do you believe, post "Massacre of innocent people on September 11th, 2001" (sorry, the conciseness and apathetic tone of "9-11" doesn't do it for me), think that some changes must be made to thwart domestic terrorism? I'm not saying I agree with Bush, and I'm not saying that things should remain as they are. I'm just curious if you have any suggestions. I am asking this question with curiousity. :)

Sorry to interject in your question the Chom, but you see, that's the problem with libs. They have no answers, they can only critisize what others are doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to interject in your question the Chom, but you see, that's the problem with libs. They have no answers, they can only critisize what others are doing

:laugh: I'm not laughing at Chom, or libs in general, but I should've known you'd jump in for a quick jab. And I don't disagree, but the Repub's are in power right now. If the roles were reversed, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same from the Republican party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:laugh: I'm not laughing at Chom, or libs in general, but I should've known you'd jump in for a quick jab. And I don't disagree, but the Repub's are in power right now. If the roles were reversed, I'm not so sure you wouldn't see the same from the Republican party.

Unfortunately, when Reps are in the minority, they are pretty docile. Like I said, if it was clinton doing all this, I'd be scared ****less

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you say that you would feel the same way if this was Clinton instead of Bush? How can you take this position if you DON'T think the same way for one guy but not another, especially when dealing with the document our country was founded on?

I actually would like your position on this too chome.

just want to know who you want to have the advantage in this war? I guess in a sad way if you would stay loyal to your party its understandable. I personally wouldnt think twice about clinton doing this. Its kind of the same note as durring kosovo I didnt rail people with body counts and cries of lets run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarge, I didn't know who the hell you were talking about when you talked about CAIR. The suit is being brought by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. There are numerous parties joining on to it. CAIR appears to be one of them. And so what? The organizations filing the suit are still the ones I discuss in my earlier post. They are NOT terrorist organizations. Actually my organization is one of those that joined on - one of the big issues is the detainees' right to effective representation by their lawyers which is being seriously compromised by their inablilty to communicate and meet with their attorneys. That would be the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

You know, when the ACLU represented the Nazis' First Amendment right to march in Skokie, it didn't make them Nazis. When I represent people accused of despicable crimes, it doesn't make me a criminal. Do we really need to have this discussion? Surely you understand what lawyers do. Surely you understand how important a right it is to challenge actions taken by the President that many people - both liberal and conservative - consider not only illegal but more threatening to this country's survival than a terrorist attack.

And I am not familiar with CAIR, and maybe they are supportive of terrorists or those associated with terrorists, but I would never take the word of this Administration in labeling an organization a terrorist organization. It's too easy to mischaracterize a group. For instance, years ago a friend of mine worked for an organization that raised money for scholarships for Palestinians to go to school abroad because their schools and universities had been shut down. I had no idea that the Palestinian students had been left hanging like that and I thought it was a good thing to help them get over to England or wherever to finish med school, etc. Now I can see how it could be easy to twist support/contributions for this group into a TERRRORIST supporting group. What if one of those students had a sibling who ended up being a suicide bomber? There you go. Scholarships for terrorists - sort of.

I don't think Bill was disbarred. I thought he voluntarily suspended his bar membership to avoid a fight.

Sarge, what ever is it you find in Bush's past that makes you trust this man? I understand your allegience to your commander-in-chief in principle , but what is there about George W. that inspires in you confidence in his intellectual ability or competence or even moral character? I'm truly at a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarge, I didn't know who the hell you were talking about when you talked about CAIR. The suit is being brought by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. There are numerous parties joining on to it. CAIR appears to be one of them. And so what? The organizations filing the suit are still the ones I discuss in my earlier post. They are NOT terrorist organizations. Actually my organization is one of those that joined on - one of the big issues is the detainees' right to effective representation by their lawyers which is being seriously compromised by their inablilty to communicate and meet with their attorneys. That would be the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

You know, when the ACLU represented the Nazis' First Amendment right to march in Skokie, it didn't make them Nazis. When I represent people accused of despicable crimes, it doesn't make me a criminal. Do we really need to have this discussion? Surely you understand what lawyers do. Surely you understand how important a right it is to challenge actions taken by the President that many people - both liberal and conservative - consider not only illegal but more threatening to this country's survival than a terrorist attack.

And I am not familiar with CAIR, and maybe they are supportive of terrorists or those associated with terrorists, but I would never take the word of this Administration in labeling an organization a terrorist organization. It's too easy to mischaracterize a group. For instance, years ago a friend of mine worked for an organization that raised money for scholarships for Palestinians to go to school abroad because their schools and universities had been shut down. I had no idea that the Palestinian students had been left hanging like that and I thought it was a good thing to help them get over to England or wherever to finish med school, etc. Now I can see how it could be easy to twist support/contributions for this group into a TERRRORIST supporting group. What if one of those students had a sibling who ended up being a suicide bomber? There you go. Scholarships for terrorists - sort of.

I don't think Bill was disbarred. I thought he voluntarily suspended his bar membership to avoid a fight.

Sarge, what ever is it you find in Bush's past that makes you trust this man? I understand your allegience to your commander-in-chief in principle , but what is there about George W. that inspires in you confidence in his intellectual ability or competence or even moral character? I'm truly at a loss.

Can you answer the question I posed earlier to Chom? I'm just curious. I like to hear lots of ideas. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarge, I didn't know who the hell you were talking about when you talked about CAIR. The suit is being brought by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. There are numerous parties joining on to it. CAIR appears to be one of them. And so what? The organizations filing the suit are still the ones I discuss in my earlier post. They are NOT terrorist organizations. Actually my organization is one of those that joined on - one of the big issues is the detainees' right to effective representation by their lawyers which is being seriously compromised by their inablilty to communicate and meet with their attorneys. That would be the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

You know, when the ACLU represented the Nazis' First Amendment right to march in Skokie, it didn't make them Nazis. When I represent people accused of despicable crimes, it doesn't make me a criminal. Do we really need to have this discussion? Surely you understand what lawyers do. Surely you understand how important a right it is to challenge actions taken by the President that many people - both liberal and conservative - consider not only illegal but more threatening to this country's survival than a terrorist attack.

And I am not familiar with CAIR, and maybe they are supportive of terrorists or those associated with terrorists, but I would never take the word of this Administration in labeling an organization a terrorist organization. It's too easy to mischaracterize a group. For instance, years ago a friend of mine worked for an organization that raised money for scholarships for Palestinians to go to school abroad because their schools and universities had been shut down. I had no idea that the Palestinian students had been left hanging like that and I thought it was a good thing to help them get over to England or wherever to finish med school, etc. Now I can see how it could be easy to twist support/contributions for this group into a TERRRORIST supporting group. What if one of those students had a sibling who ended up being a suicide bomber? There you go. Scholarships for terrorists - sort of.

I don't think Bill was disbarred. I thought he voluntarily suspended his bar membership to avoid a fight.

Sarge, what ever is it you find in Bush's past that makes you trust this man? I understand your allegience to your commander-in-chief in principle , but what is there about George W. that inspires in you confidence in his intellectual ability or competence or even moral character? I'm truly at a loss.

Sorry dude, had CAIR on the mind in my post and read it so in yours, thinking you had maybe mis-spelled or something.

WHile not an ardent supporter of Bush (I didn't vote for him last election) I think he is,deep down, doing what he thinks is right for the country. Remember he came ot Washington talking about bringing a "new tone". That didn't last long with the Dems.

As for the ACLU, if they are on the side of terrorists, which they are inthis case and have been on many other occasions, the sooner they are disbanded, the better.

They better hope I never make it to the Oval Office, It'll be my first order of business, assuming there aren't other pressing issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you guys love battling, but may I interject for one sec, and ask you, Chom, this question (because I know you are an intelligent person, and I respect your opinion). Do you believe, post "Massacre of innocent people on September 11th, 2001" (sorry, the conciseness and apathetic tone of "9-11" doesn't do it for me), think that some changes must be made to thwart domestic terrorism? I'm not saying I agree with Bush, and I'm not saying that things should remain as they are. I'm just curious if you have any suggestions. I am asking this question with curiousity. :)

Absolutely, and I agree to changes, SOMETHING needed to be done, absolutely. The problem I have is how this completely disagrees with our constitution. I have always thought time like after September 11th are when we nedd to TURN to the constitution for guidance. It has guided our country for over 200+ years, and if we would just follow the damn thing, we would be all set as a country. The problem is our politicians are the crokedest people in this damn country and they take lead from the group of guys who gave us Enron and Worldcom. Jack Abrahmhof, Ken Lay and people who think absolutely nothing about ruining millions of lives simple because they can, then joking about it. I can't imagine the private conversations between Cheney and others.

Here picture this, Cheney in the back room discussing the entire Iraq scenario. He's speaking someone like Abramhof. . . No, we've got this Iraq thing all figured out. We've got this guy from Chalibi who will say what we want him to (grins out of one side of his mouth, and looks at the camera with the evil half smile). . .Guess what we call him (snickers . . . snickers) Curveball!!! (sound of a man on the other line laughing his ass off). Then Cheney, barely able to talk because he's laughing so hard, manages to spit out. "And that's not the best of it" (snickers like the Mumbly from the laff-a-lympics]and sais "We're going to call it OIL, Operation Iraqi Liberation" (sound of man on the other line dropping the phone and rolling on the floor laughing and yes, that was the original name of the invasion).

As for what I think is reasonable? Nothing against our constitution, it is what we based the past 200 years of governmet on, that's for sure. I mean it was an intelligence failure right? No question, the intellegence branches weren't talking to each other, and they haven't been for the past 30 years, they are competing with each other. In takes a leader to shake the trees, and find out what everyone knows, that was in place when Bush started. That was how we stopped the millenium bombings in 2000, we new it was a threat and they were ready to act. That was removed, and that should be the first place you start.

You set up a branch specifically as a single central point of focus for terrorism, that still has not been done. You put in a hawk not a politician. By that poing in your career, you should be damn well able to spot the difference between the "politician" or the real person who takes his job seriously. You can see it specifically in military men (think Scowcraft and Shinseki vs Clark), and heads of agencies. You get someone who is a young senior level employee under 50 years old who can handle putting together a lean section which basicaly has carte blanche (within the law) to do what is necessary.

You do realize that the president can spy on who ever he wants provided he get a warrent within 72 hours, and they ALWAYS get the warrent, but even if they don't, they STILL get the information right? You work WITHIN the law and do what you have to. You set up a central terrorism station with someone who is a career man working because he loves out country. There are PLENTY of them in Washington, and usually their not at running the agencies but they are "running the agencies". Every politician who is a fraud has people under him he trusts, you get these people for the center. You hire within, and make the other agencies promote within, instead of taking from each other.

I mean if we had the people and task force in place before September 11th, that were there in 2000, this probably would not have happened. I mean look at the facts, Moussoui was hired to be a hijacker, and he was already in custody by the feds for FLYING FLIGHT SIMULATORS!!! The Feds had him, and they KNEW he was flying planes and didn't want to learn to land. Is it that hard to figure out what he is planning to do? Is it that hard to maybe look at all the other flight simulator classrooms, and cross reference their names with terrorists in the database? All it takes is one main person who talks to EVERYONE and that would be red flags everywhere. The CIA says they're getting a lot of chatter, and they just sent out a PDB saying Bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. Now you have TWO different agencies both showing red flags everywhere. The Feds also learned about a arab man who wanted to rent a crop duster. You scan everything, and you find out who is in the country, then you follow them. You bug their cellphones (yet they can do it with a warrent) and you see what is going on. You see who they are contacting, and you trail them. You find out what is going on, and you act. I mean they had the names AND PICTURES of the Sept. 11th hijackers within 6 hours of the attack, are you telling me they had dossiers and photographs on everyone, and nobody saw a single thing? To make a long diatribe short, you do exactly what you were doing before, because it worked before. We removed those plans and lessons, we failed. It would make sense to me to put the plans back in place would't you? That would be a start, plus a lot of financial dealings along with going after Saudi Arabia very hard. You nail their balls to a wall, and you get them to stop teaching radical islam in their mosques.

How's that for a start?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, and I agree to changes, SOMETHING needed to be done, absolutely. The problem I have is how this completely disagrees with our constitution. I have always thought time like after September 11th are when we nedd to TURN to the constitution for guidance. It has guided our country for over 200+ years, and if we would just follow the damn thing, we would be all set as a country. The problem is our politicians are the crokedest people in this damn country and they take lead from the group of guys who gave us Enron and Worldcom. Jack Abrahmhof, Ken Lay and people who think absolutely nothing about ruining millions of lives simple because they can, then joking about it. I can't imagine the private conversations between Cheney and others.

Here picture this, Cheney in the back room discussing the entire Iraq scenario. He's speaking someone like Abramhof. . . No, we've got this Iraq thing all figured out. We've got this guy from Chalibi who will say what we want him to (grins out of one side of his mouth, and looks at the camera with the evil half smile). . .Guess what we call him (snickers . . . snickers) Curveball!!! (sound of a man on the other line laughing his ass off). Then Cheney, barely able to talk because he's laughing so hard, manages to spit out. "And that's not the best of it" (snickers like the Mumbly from the laff-a-lympics]and sais "We're going to call it OIL, Operation Iraqi Liberation" (sound of man on the other line dropping the phone and rolling on the floor laughing and yes, that was the original name of the invasion).

As for what I think is reasonable? Nothing against our constitution, it is what we based the past 200 years of governmet on, that's for sure. I mean it was an intelligence failure right? No question, the intellegence branches weren't talking to each other, and they haven't been for the past 30 years, they are competing with each other. In takes a leader to shake the trees, and find out what everyone knows, that was in place when Bush started. That was how we stopped the millenium bombings in 2000, we new it was a threat and they were ready to act. That was removed, and that should be the first place you start.

You set up a branch specifically as a single central point of focus for terrorism, that still has not been done. You put in a hawk not a politician. By that poing in your career, you should be damn well able to spot the difference between the "politician" or the real person who takes his job seriously. You can see it specifically in military men (think Scowcraft and Shinseki vs Clark), and heads of agencies. You get someone who is a young senior level employee under 50 years old who can handle putting together a lean section which basicaly has carte blanche (within the law) to do what is necessary.

You do realize that the president can spy on who ever he wants provided he get a warrent within 72 hours, and they ALWAYS get the warrent, but even if they don't, they STILL get the information right? You work WITHIN the law and do what you have to. You set up a central terrorism station with someone who is a career man working because he loves out country. There are PLENTY of them in Washington, and usually their not at running the agencies but they are "running the agencies". Every politician who is a fraud has people under him he trusts, you get these people for the center. You hire within, and make the other agencies promote within, instead of taking from each other.

I mean if we had the people and task force in place before September 11th, that were there in 2000, this probably would not have happened. I mean look at the facts, Moussoui was hired to be a hijacker, and he was already in custody by the feds for FLYING FLIGHT SIMULATORS!!! The Feds had him, and they KNEW he was flying planes and didn't want to learn to land. Is it that hard to figure out what he is planning to do? Is it that hard to maybe look at all the other flight simulator classrooms, and cross reference their names with terrorists in the database? All it takes is one main person who talks to EVERYONE and that would be red flags everywhere. The CIA says they're getting a lot of chatter, and they just sent out a PDB saying Bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. Now you have TWO different agencies both showing red flags everywhere. The Feds also learned about a arab man who wanted to rent a crop duster. You scan everything, and you find out who is in the country, then you follow them. You bug their cellphones (yet they can do it with a warrent) and you see what is going on. You see who they are contacting, and you trail them. You find out what is going on, and you act. I mean they had the names AND PICTURES of the Sept. 11th hijackers within 6 hours of the attack, are you telling me they had dossiers and photographs on everyone, and nobody saw a single thing? To make a long diatribe short, you do exactly what you were doing before, because it worked before. We removed those plans and lessons, we failed. It would make sense to me to put the plans back in place would't you? That would be a start, plus a lot of financial dealings along with going after Saudi Arabia very hard. You nail their balls to a wall, and you get them to stop teaching radical islam in their mosques.

How's that for a start?

Chom, some of your arguments hold water, but most of it sounds like hindsight (which is always 20/20). A man was taking flight simulators, but not learning how to land. What should they have done to him? Now we know, but back then? Ban him from flying around the country? Warrants aren't as easy to get, as you know. Plus, should you get a warrant, guess who knows that you're on to them? Half the point of Bush and Co's plan is to find info. without anyone knowing, not only to prevent the attack, but go on the offensive without the enemy knowing.

As for pre-Bush days, we had terrorist attacks occur before. How many sailors were killed? What about the embassies and the Cole? What about Khobar? What about the '93 WT bombing? What was the resolution? Nothing. I'm just saying that our enemy is increasing in technology and sophistication. If we don't meet it, expect more damage on not only our soil, but to our countrymen on foreign soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

herrmagg chomo wants our NSA to have the same hurdles our law enforcement has, not cause its the best thing to do but cause currently its a good way to attack Bush. thats all there is too it.

Hes a real good debater so he will destroy that, but thats the truth. His only goal is to unseat republicans where ever they are. Maybe Republicans arent the best defenders, but since they are in power Im willing to give them the go ahead to wreck shop on the terrorists even if it wouldnt pass the miranda test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarge, they can ALREADY tapp the lines, they just need a WARRANT!!! You know we have that pesky Bill of Rights o there

It's called "secrecy". You know, so the bad guys don't find out and quit giving us intel, or start planting false intel knowing we are listening. Never know when a judge, who could be of a liberal strip and might not like us actually catching "insurgents", might blurt something to their favorite NY Times reporter over high tea and crumpets, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...