Bush defends domestic eavesdropping.

[huskie]

The problem is Huskie that this sets a very dangerous precedent, that would allow any president the power to do this for any reason. You may not be wiretapped, but there are people who might be for no other reason than they are against the policies of this administration. That is wrong no matter how you slice it. The whole purpose of getting permission is to make sure that the taps are being used to hunt terrorists, not harass citiziens using their 1st amendment right to free speech.

again... Dorkfish I see your point and I sorta agree... but sense 9/11... I believe it is not only necessary but past due.....

so, under these circumstances I'll have to agree to Disagree on this issue....... plus I think ALL women should have to shave their pussy... tied up and forced if need be

 

[The Mutt]

You don't defend freedom by giving up freedom. You don't enforce the law by breaking the law.

 

[catfish]

You don't defend freedom by giving up freedom. You don't enforce the law by breaking the law.

You must hate america, off to the gulag with you.

 

[The Mutt]

Im saying that survelience has been conducted for many things

not just terror

and who BITCHED?

The ACLU.

 

[busybody..]

The ACLU.

told you they were terrorists!

 

[The Mutt]

told you they were terrorists!

Even when they're going after Clinton and Carter?

 

[huskie]

You don't defend freedom by giving up freedom. You don't enforce the law by breaking the law.

what freedom am I giving up buy being informed that the Gov. has the right to listen in on my phone calls....

If I aint doing anything wrong I should have nothing to worry about....

 

[busybody..]

From a BLOG, assholes

Read it

BAD NEWS FOR DA DEMS


Big Brother W.?


The Moose doesn't think it's 1984.

The latest imbroglio over the revelation that the government eavesdropped into the international phone calls of U.S. citizens does not set the Moose's antlers on fire. The Administration is going to have to offer a better explanation for why they failed to go to court to get authorization. And we should also have an inquiry into a leak that might have endangered national security.

In the aftermath of 9/11, America learned that it was ill-prepared for this new threat. Old laws dealing with new technologies were an anachronism. The "FISA" process, if not the authorization, was often burdensome and slow with a relatively high standard of proof. The Administration perhaps should have moved to alter those laws if they were obstacles to national security.

However, as of yet, there is no clear evidence that they broke the law. Lawyers will endlessly debate the legitimacy of the Administration's citing of the Al Quaeda force resolution for authorization. Moreover, there was a legitimate concern that an open debate about modifications in the FISA law could have alerted our enemies that their calls were detected. And does anyone seriously believe that the targets of these calls were anyone else than potential security threats? There is absolutely no evidence that this was a "Nixonian" enemies list witch hunt.

Now that the controversy is out in the open, Democrats and Republicans should work together to improve and clarify the law rather than seeking retribution for past misunderstandings. The bottom line should be strengthening our national security while maintaining our liberties to the fullest extent possible.

What we do know is that we have not suffered another attack on the Homeland since 9/11. That is a miraculous fact. And President Bush should be applauded for protecting the country rather than excoriated, to say nothing of impeachment which is on the lips of some Democrats.

We also know that, while there have been excesses here and there, our fundamental freedoms have not been infringed since the first massive assault on the homeland by foreign enemies since the War of 1812. Certainly, we have not suffered an abrogation of our liberties anything near the scale of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus or FDR's relocation camps.

We are at war with a Jihadist enemy who wants us and our families dead. It is not clear that some of our elites recognize that fact or care any more. And some on the left fear that President Bush is a greater threat to our nation's security and liberties than the Jihadists.

If the ACLU is upset about the Patriot Act, fine, It is their job to push the outside of the envelope. But it is another thing when a Party almost unanimously obstructs its reauthorization over minor objections after significant compromises have been achieved. And it does not provide any solace that Larry Craig and John Sununu were on the Democrats' side.

When it comes to the War Against Terror, there is no room for right wing or left wing libertarianism. Of course, we should guard our freedoms and be vigilant for excesses. But, our robust democracy is not endanger. If international phone calls by terrorist suspects were monitored, good and fine. What is in question is whether some of our elites continue to believe that we are actually at war with a devious foe. Memories of 9/11 are fading and many act as if the threat has gone away.

On the political front, in the past month, there has been a systematic effort at self-branding by the Democratic Party, and it is not good. From the defeatist Iraq talk to the obstruction on the Patriot Act, the donkey is effectively "rebranding' and "framing" itself as weak on national security. George Lakoff should be proud! Rather than the 2006 election being about the GOP' s weak ethics, it may be about the Democrat's anemic defense credentials.

We live in a period that is similar to the Cold War in that there is an over-riding national security threat. The fundamental political and policy question is which party will the American people trust to defend the country and their families?

 

[catfish]

what freedom am I giving up buy being informed that the Gov. has the right to listen in on my phone calls....

If I aint doing anything wrong I should have nothing to worry about....

Listen, I am all for wiretapping in the name of National Security, but there has to be some sort of review so that there is less likelyhood of it being abused. The President sidestepped that and went forward with it without any oversight.

 

[cjh]

what freedom am I giving up buy being informed that the Gov. has the right to listen in on my phone calls....

If I aint doing anything wrong I should have nothing to worry about....

google "sovereignty commission" and mississippi.

people lost livelihoods for doing nothing more than urging desegregation. which, of course, was not only not wrong, but was right.

their government spied on them.

and deliberately hurt them.

it's happened before. it can happen again.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Funny, but all those people who are so afraid of an "activist court" don't seem bothered by an "activist president."

I was reading this thread looking for a nugget of something original. Bless you for not disappointing me, well said.

 

[The Mutt]

Heh heh.

http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar17.html

 

[busybody..]

I was reading this thread looking for a nugget of something original. Bless you for not disappointing me, well said.

Actually, Funky-stinky, its a DUMB comment


A court is NOT elected, has no accountabilty.

So if they are ACTIVIST, then THEY make law, rather then do what they should be doing


A President can and should be activist, so that new and creative thinking can help the country, and he is ACCOUNTABLE

Called ERECTIONS!

So all in all, another DUMB comment by HITLERBOY!

 

[garbage can]

Not true. I am now getting much more spam in my e-mail.

.

Ok Phrodeau <I'm chucklin'>, NSA eavesdrops, phrodeau gets more spam.

 

[busybody..]

hey Lay-Dee Flunky-Stink

I set you straight

didnt I?

 

[Hester]

I would prefer an indictment.

can't we have it both ways?

 

[The Mutt]

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

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html


He's a liar!!!

Nothing to say about this busybody? Your President is a lying hypocrite. That doesn't bother you?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Actually, Funky-stinky, its a DUMB comment


A court is NOT elected, has no accountabilty.

So if they are ACTIVIST, then THEY make law, rather then do what they should be doing


A President can and should be activist, so that new and creative thinking can help the country, and he is ACCOUNTABLE

Called ERECTIONS!

So all in all, another DUMB comment by HITLERBOY!

Wrong.

Makes no diff. The point is STEPPING BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES bestowed upon one within ones position.

That is being an ACTIVIST.

"Accountability" has nothing to do with the definition of "activist."

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

hey Lay-Dee Flunky-Stink

I set you straight

didnt I?

Nope.

 

[zipman]

i want an "activist" government, a government that will do what ever is nescessary to make it quite clear to those who want to kill innocents that we will be proactive to defend ourselves and if nescessary kill them first.

i truly hope that some of these indivduals that wish all of us harm have just "dissappeared", you know, went to work driving a cab or something and never came home. my fucking heart bleeds.

all you liberal experts, what is your plan? how would you deal with the situaton?do you even acknowledge, that the possibliity exists, that the surveillence of these individuals MAY have saved lives? or does your hatred for bush / republicans / conservatives run to deep?

I, and most of the other people posting about this issue have no problem whatsoever with the government conducting surveillance on suspected terrorists.

I have a huge problem with doing it without any oversight, which is the case here. I trusted Bush on his word when he said he was "a uniter, not a divider." I trusted Bush on his word when he said Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's and was a threat to the US. Only a moron with his head up his ass would continue to trust him blindly. He has ruined his credibility with me and many americans.

Can you understand that or does your hatred of liberals/democrats run too deep?

 

[zipman]

I was reading this thread looking for a nugget of something original. Bless you for not disappointing me, well said.

You're quite welcome. Thank you for the compliment.

 

[garbage can]

He knowingly and willfully violated the law. Impeach his imperial ass.

Jeez, I just love you whacko lefties, a chuckle a minute.

 

[zipman]

Actually, Funky-stinky, its a DUMB comment


A court is NOT elected, has no accountabilty.

So if they are ACTIVIST, then THEY make law, rather then do what they should be doing


A President can and should be activist, so that new and creative thinking can help the country, and he is ACCOUNTABLE

Called ERECTIONS!

So all in all, another DUMB comment by HITLERBOY!

LMAO! Only hitlerbody would think erections bestow accountability.

 

[Pookie]

google "sovereignty commission" and mississippi.

people lost livelihoods for doing nothing more than urging desegregation. which, of course, was not only not wrong, but was right.

their government spied on them.

and deliberately hurt them.

it's happened before. it can happen again.

Freedom hater.

As for me, I'm sending my phone bill to the White House. I ought to send them a bill too just for the entertainment value of some of my phone calls. *nods*

 

[busybody..]

Nothing to say about this busybody? Your President is a lying hypocrite. That doesn't bother you?

where is he lying?