Twarted Hijacking attempts...

[AlexRS]

Haven't heard evidence of this myself. However, if he does, it may be because he is attacked for everything he says, doesn't say, does, doesn't do. He may be trying to speak slowly and clearly so there is no misinterpretation.

I have a problem with what he is saying, not how he says it. Maybe he does it because the poor man gets attacked all the time, who knows. I personally think he completely lost respect for the American People, (his words and actions show that imho) - but that's just my opinion.

My "Bush has no respect for americans" theory also explaims the extremely polarizing effects of Bush on the American Nation. He employes cheap scare tactics to get misguided and weaker minded onboard. These tactics are extremely disrespectful, but they work.

In GW's defense, I have to say that being in his position probably led to this. It is indeed hard to respect a Nation that can be so easily manipulated (especially if you are doing the manipulating)

[frommd]

I have a problem with what he is saying, not how he says it. Maybe he does it because the poor man gets attacked all the time, who knows. I personally think he completely lost respect for the American People, (his words and actions show that imho) - but that's just my opinion.

My "Bush has no respect for americans" theory also explaims the extremely polarizing effects of Bush on the American Nation. He employes cheap scare tactics to get misguided and weaker minded onboard. These tactics are extremely disrespectful, but they work.

In GW's defense, I have to say that being in his position probably led to this. It is indeed hard to respect a Nation that can be so easily manipulated (especially if you are doing the manipulating)

As you said, it's your opinion.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

My "Bush has no respect for americans" theory also explaims the extremely polarizing effects of Bush on the American Nation. He employes cheap scare tactics to get misguided and weaker minded onboard. These tactics are extremely disrespectful, but they work.

I think it's extremely ignorant and arrogant of you to assume that the only people that are behind GW are misguided or weak-minded.

I think it's funny how the questioning of this country's leadership somehow becomes validation that you're an educated person. Not everyone who agrees is just a sheep following the flock. A lot of people in this country are quite intelligent and capable of critical thinking and still side with many of GW's policies.

[Popeman38]

There is a lot of bickering on this board about tapping a "known terrorist". If it is a known terrorist, FISA would grant the tap immediately. There is a judge on duty 24/7 for cases like that. But we are talking about tapping suspected terrorists getting support in the US. FISA can not grant a tap based on "suspected terrorist" without probable cause. Tyhe administration, believe it or not, can not get taps on anyone they want. As a matter of fact, FISA has refused more tap requests from Bush than it has since its inception.

And if you want to get technical, these are not "wire" taps anymore. Most of them are on fiber optic lines, which weren't around when the current laws were written. So technically there is a loop hole in the law that as long as you aren't tapping a copper wire line you aren't breaking the law.....

[Guest Gichin13]

As a matter of fact, FISA has refused more tap requests from Bush than it has since its inception.

I thought FISA had basically never denied a warrant request until Bush. The fact that it was a rubber stamp and now some warrants are being denied, despite the pro-protection of the USA post- 9/11 environment, raises some serious concerns in my mind about how this admin is going about things.

Ultimately, I lean towards more protection couple with greater potential infringement of rights, but there has to be some level of oversight. Without it, it is an invitation to use governmental tools for personal and political benefit. Just picture Hoover collecting information on MLK if you believe this does not happen.

On a final note, the "War on Terror" ... I understand we have an enemy, but I think folks buy the rhetoric of us "being at war on terror" way too readily. We have terrorists. They can inflict damage ... but that is pretty much a constant reality. Are we really willing to give anyone in office carte blanche to tap whoever the hell they want with no justification and no oversight? That to me is highly suspect.

[Larry]

1) I haven't seen any hard number about FISA denials pre- and post- Bush. I have seen claims that they've granted around 95% of requests.

2) OTOH, I've read, for example, that the FBI has never been turned down for a wiretap. This does not mean that the courts are rubber stamps. It's because the FBI has rules that an agent has to go through before he's allowed to ask for a wiretap. And the FBI's rules are tougher than the court's.

(I assume that this is intentional. The FBI knows that if they get turned down for a wiretap, then it creates a precident that can then be used to deny others, or to get wiretap evidence thrown out later. By creating an institutional policy of pre-screening requests, they reduce the possibilities of creating unfavorable precidents.)

So, a low number of FISA rejections does not prove that the court is a rubber stamp. It could just mean that the FSA/CIA/White House may have a pre-screening proceedure in place that has a pretty good idea of which requests will fly and which one's won't.

It also means that not all of the bureaucratic hurdles to wiretapping are mandated by the law.

(Unfortunately for Bush, this also means that the odds, IMO, are pretty good that for every one of these unwarranted wiretaps, there's a memo from the Internal Wiretap Review Committee that says "the judge won't go for this one".)

[Popeman38]

I thought FISA had basically never denied a warrant request until Bush. The fact that it was a rubber stamp and now some warrants are being denied, despite the pro-protection of the USA post- 9/11 environment, raises some serious concerns in my mind about how this admin is going about things.

Ultimately, I lean towards more protection couple with greater potential infringement of rights, but there has to be some level of oversight. Without it, it is an invitation to use governmental tools for personal and political benefit. Just picture Hoover collecting information on MLK if you believe this does not happen.

On a final note, the "War on Terror" ... I understand we have an enemy, but I think folks buy the rhetoric of us "being at war on terror" way too readily. We have terrorists. They can inflict damage ... but that is pretty much a constant reality. Are we really willing to give anyone in office carte blanche to tap whoever the hell they want with no justification and no oversight? That to me is highly suspect.

I do not believe that any leader should have carte blanche. I am not a huge Bush fan. I support him as President and think that he is a better President in the current time than Kerry/Gore. I would prefer McCain, but I gigress...

But I also believe the President should not have to tell the American people everything. There are some things best kept to certain people (don't read too much into that). But if you think Bush is the only one in the govt who knew about this you have your head in the sand. I work for a telecom company, and we are to afraid of going to court to just hand over records or allow tapping of lines without protection.

[Popeman38]

1)So, a low number of FISA rejections does not prove that the court is a rubber stamp. It could just mean that the FSA/CIA/White House may have a pre-screening proceedure in place that has a pretty good idea of which requests will fly and which one's won't.

It also means that not all of the bureaucratic hurdles to wiretapping are mandated by the law.

(Unfortunately for Bush, this also means that the odds, IMO, are pretty good that for every one of these unwarranted wiretaps, there's a memo from the Internal Wiretap Review Committee that says "the judge won't go for this one".)

In response to your last statement in ():

FISA will grant a tap on any known terrorist with proof. It is very easy to get a FISA request approved. But it has to be a "known" terrorist. If it is just a suspected terrorist, you end up having to prove why you want the taps. And sometimes you need the taps to prove why you need the taps.

In regards to the FBI: The FBI has it easy with FISA because they are a Federal Police force. They are totally reactionairy, so they only act with proof. They are supposed to be transforming to a preventative force as well, but it is going to take a generation to rmove the police way of thinking and infuse forward analysis of issues.

In response to your last statement in (): It is in this forward analysis that you run into very serious problems proving anything. Unless you find the equation 1+2=3, you generally start out with 3 and have to work backwards. (This is a very basic equation) So to go to FISA with the end but no means to get there, your request will be turned down due to lack of evidence to authorize these taps....

[Winslowalrob]

In response to your last statement in ():

FISA will grant a tap on any known terrorist with proof. It is very easy to get a FISA request approved. But it has to be a "known" terrorist. If it is just a suspected terrorist, you end up having to prove why you want the taps. And sometimes you need the taps to prove why you need the taps.

In regards to the FBI: The FBI has it easy with FISA because they are a Federal Police force. They are totally reactionairy, so they only act with proof. They are supposed to be transforming to a preventative force as well, but it is going to take a generation to rmove the police way of thinking and infuse forward analysis of issues.

In response to your last statement in (): It is in this forward analysis that you run into very serious problems proving anything. Unless you find the equation 1+2=3, you generally start out with 3 and have to work backwards. (This is a very basic equation) So to go to FISA with the end but no means to get there, your request will be turned down due to lack of evidence to authorize these taps....

But if the warrants are retroactive, why is finding the 1+2 such a big deal? If you cannot prove that the person is a known terrorist after listening to his conversations and getting the warrant later, then I am sorry, he is not a terrorist.

[AlexRS]

I think it's extremely ignorant and arrogant of you to assume that the only people that are behind GW are misguided or weak-minded.

I think it's funny how the questioning of this country's leadership somehow becomes validation that you're an educated person. Not everyone who agrees is just a sheep following the flock. A lot of people in this country are quite intelligent and capable of critical thinking and still side with many of GW's policies.

I judged GW's tactics. Nowhere did I put forth any kind of judgement of "all people who are behind GW."

He employs cheap scare tactics to get misguided and weaker minded onboard.

Similar to a quote by John Stuart Mill (is Sarge around? he has another quote by him in the sig):

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

Yes people can take offense at that quote - but only if they feel that they belong to the later category.

I totally agree that not everyone who agrees are just sheep following the flock. That is why I would never assume anything about a person based on their support or political affiliation.

Supporting Bush does not mean you're stupid (just look at Killmer ). Being against Bush does not mean you're smart/educated/whatever.

Yet I completely agree with Mill's quote on this. I think you would too, as long as that quote is not used to judge people.

edit: i was thinking about it and i realized that these scare tactics are the main reason why I dislike and do not trust GW. I find it disrespectful for a President to speak to the nation like that. He never addresses anything and all of his responses to issues can be summarized as "there is an enemy out there." It is disrespectful. There are plenty of Republicans that I respect. And they all agree with this. Bush is not a Republican. Bush is not a good leader or a good politician.

Bush supporters say that Bush is good because they trust him. That is a little backwards, wouldn't you think? I trust when I conclude that the person is worthy of my trust and capable of doing his job. Many Bush supporters seem to conclude that GW is capable and worthy BECAUSE they trust him. It is sad indeed.

[AlexRS]

And if you want to get technical, these are not "wire" taps anymore. Most of them are on fiber optic lines, which weren't around when the current laws were written. So technically there is a loop hole in the law that as long as you aren't tapping a copper wire line you aren't breaking the law.....

(l) “Wire communication” means any communication while it is being carried by a wire, cable, or other like connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html