DescentBB

Maybe I just grew up with a more cynical outlook than most but I always assumed that when you got up to the level of national security it was a safe bet that orginazations like the CIA and NSA were not exactly obeying the law all the time.
I didn't mind that someone might be monitoring me if I crossed his path while he was listening for the-guy-who-wants-to-nuke-us. I expected them to be doing that and always knew that talking on the phone meant they might be listening. I suspect there have been countless times when some CIA or NSA agent heard of some one on one civilian crime and didn't tell anyone about it because they were listening on the otherside of the law. that's the way I want it to be, the way I hope it is.

I certainly don't want the local police to be able to abuse the law that way because the relative weight of any crime they might prevent starts to pale in comparison really quickly to the freedoms we would lose down at the level they operate at. It's a weigh the costs and benefits thing.

And certainly I'm against allowing a president to abuse this unwritten authority to listen for the-guy-who-wants-to-nuke-us and instead use that monitoring apparatus to find and defeat political enemies.
So by the same standard I'm not willing to let the opposition party to the current president destroy the unwritten authority to listen for the-guy-who-wants-to-nuke-us just so they can defeat their political enemy! again the cost benefit rule comes into play.

You see, it's not the particular party I want to protect, it's the process by which we can listen for the-guy-who-wants-to-nuke-us I want to protect.
Just like I want us to publically be supporters of the rules established at the Geneva conventions but I also expect the officers in the field of battle to ignore those rules from time to time, fire a pistol into the wall right beside an enemy prisoners head to get the location of the next roadside bomb location so a few more of our soldiers make it back to their bunks the next night...

And this is one reason why I think it's so important that we end the current status quo of our election process and flush the Washington toilet, because the quality of our representatives has slipped way below the threshhold that would filter out the non-statesman, and instead we are now represented by a bunch of greedy Ennron junior executive types who know nothing of honor and duty and will not be able to wield the unwritten authority in the way it has been in the past. We need stand-up guys at the wheel as we sail through our dirty world not cutthroat pirates.

Will, your nuke-us guy does not equal 200 million Americans. There are LEGAL ways to do everything this president is doing, yet he doesn't do it legally. The rubber stamp Congress is certainly not going to slap his wrists, and I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire script of the resolution allowing Bush to go after these guys, but this is NOT inherent authority. I'm sorry, bypassing legals means set up for this exact type of scenario was not passed, he could be doing many of these things legally, yet he chooses not to.

Funniest thing about your Geneva conventions statement, the US was the main contingent in setting up those rules after the way the Japanese treated American prisoners. We pressed for it saying we were above the kind of treatment, now obviously we are not. To the same scale as the Japanese, absolutely not, BUT, we preach this level of compassion and then turn the dogs loose.

Zuruck wrote:Will, your nuke-us guy does not equal 200 million Americans. There are LEGAL ways to do everything this president is doing, yet he doesn't do it legally...

Can you show me the law he broke?
I can show you where the authors of the FISA act specifically stated that, although the FISA law will prohibit the FBI and other law enforcement agencies from performing warrantless wiretaps, the proposed FISA court laws are 'not meant to usurp the presidents inherent authority when he's pursuing a foriegn threat'.

So before you can engage in the discussion honestly you must either quit misrepresnting the program as illegal or show me where the law is that he broke!

As far as the recently disclosed call records being given to the NSA to make a database, the supreme court has already ruled that those records are not protected by the fourth ammendment so that program also is absolutely legal by definition since it was specifically ruled on by the supreme authority on the law!

As to trying to say that one guy-who-wants-to-nuke-us isn't 200 million americans...that is irrelevant.
The only questions are:

First, can the administration datamine the calls from any of those 200 million americans if the calls are either from, or to, a known al Queda connection?

The answer to that one seems to be, yes, they legally can do that.
Although it isn't written into the law specifically (after all the Carter administration probably never heard of data mining or al Queda when Carters Attorney General wrote the law) but the documents resulting from the process of creating the law do contain language that share and support the presidents interpretation and shoots down the legally weak opinions offered by his critics.

Further, anecdotal evidence that Bush is within his rights is the fact that his critics haven't filed any kind of legal procedings against him. You don't really think they would hold back if they had him guilty as charged do you?!?
No, instead they abandoned pursuing the fruitless legal angle and switched course to pursue a political tact where their lack of facts and any legal substance do not interfere with launching their assault! Judging by how often you and others refer to the program as illegal in spite of all the evidence ot the contrary I'd say the political angle is working for them....

Second, are the phone call records protected by the fourth ammendment? No, according to the supreme court they are not. Slam dunk case closed on that one.

So 200 million americans, 1 american, 3 americans a russian riding a donkey all following Paul McCartney barefoot across abbey road....it makes no difference what group you invoke. There is no connection between how many peoples phone records might be logged and whether or not the program is legal.

Not a bad post, some things to think about. It's saddening that you no longer have to be implicated or accused of a crime to be persecuted in this country, no longer does anybody have to obtain a warrant in order to supress your privacy. You guys all passed over it blatantly, but what freedoms are the soldiers dying for in Iraq?

This topic is weird though, Barry and I differ on just about everything, yet he didn't like this one either. I suppose he likes his rights too, doesn't enjoy being a mindless sheep like the rest of you.

Zuruck wrote:... I suppose he likes his rights too, doesn't enjoy being a mindless sheep like the rest of you.

Ah yes, argumentum ad hominem - always a crowd pleaser.

Care to answer the question of the legality issue that Will brought up Zuruck, since you seem to have completely ignored Will's post?

technical trouble...

Posting issue resolved.

Zuruck wrote:Bold, you're missing the entire point. Informants are to be praised when there is no accountability for these politicians, on both sides.

I will mail a check for $10.00 to the first person who can explain what this means. I cannot make sense of it, but it smells of backtracking.

Still waiting for that impeachment.

Geez, you'd think if the President was routinely violating the Fourth Amendment SOMEBODY from the left would make those bumperstickers a reality and IMPEACH BUSH!!.

Here's some language from the latest opinion on the subject (FISA court of appeal), which re-iterates what other circuit courts have concluded on the subject.

"It will be recalled that the case that set forth the primary purpose test as constitutionally required was Truong. The Fourth Circuit thought that Keith’s balancing standard implied the adoption of the primary purpose test. We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914. Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. [fn.26] It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

(Emphasis added by BD.)In re Sealed Case (Foreign Int.Surv.Ct.Rev. Nov 18, 2002) 310 F.3d 717, 190 A.L.R. Fed. 725 (NO. 02-001, 02-002).

Whoops.

Look Zuruck, you're not the first leftie to fall for what he reads in the MSM. You're just part of a smaller class of guys bent on exposing themselves publicly as guys who swallow it.

$20.00 to Zuruck if he can find binding, contrary authority!!!

Zuruck's Premise No. 1 -- down in flames. Stay tuned as we unwind Premise No. 2.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Zuruck wrote:Bold, you're missing the entire point. Informants are to be praised when there is no accountability for these politicians, on both sides.

I will mail a check for $10.00 to the first person who can explain what this means. I cannot make sense of it, but it smells of backtracking.

Translation: When the administration is not accountable, regardless of party affiliation, those who leak information are worthy of praise.

Please make check payable to Angry J. Pally, Esq.

How was I not that clear Pally? I was lambasting all politicians, on both sides, and the sheep immediately circle the wagons to protect their guy.

i clearly understood the sentence and i want my 10 bucks.

Palzon wrote:Translation: When the administration is not accountable, regardless of party affiliation, those who leak information are worthy of praise.

Please make check payable to Angry J. Pally, Esq.

I would think that to qualify as an informant one would have to be exposing an illegal activity!

To expose something one doesn't like that is legal is merely complaining or whining.

Granted the left is fond of praising those that complain and whine about Bush, it's practically a self sufficiant industry made up of glad handing self agrandizing celebrity circle jerks. I expect a couple of new catagories to be added to the Academy Awards next year...Best Bush Bashing by an actor and best supporting Bush Basher....
But unless you're posting on the Democrat Underground Message Board or running in certain circles in Hollywood I just don't think you'll find many real people agree with the characterization of whistle blower being assigned to those that leaked the secret and legal activity of our intelligence service trying to connect the dots on the next al Queda attack!

For crying out loud, we were all pissed that they didn't try this hard before 9/11/01 once we found out just how many times Muhammed Atta and his fellow islami-kazis slipped in and out of the grasp of law enforcement!

I can't wait for Bush to be gone so people can once again apply a little perspective and common sense to their interpretation of events.
The cost of hating all things Bush has lowered the intelligence level of many americans...hopefully it's just a temporary phenomenon!

dude, i'm not here to defend or attack anybody's position. i just saw an easy way to make 10 bucks.

of course, bd strikes me as the sort to welsh on a bet if politics are involved so i'm not expecting ★■◆●.

Palzon wrote:dude, i'm not here to defend or attack anybody's position. i just saw an easy way to make 10 bucks.

of course, bd strikes me as the sort to welsh on a bet if politics are involved so i'm not expecting *****.

Oh, Ok...well then I'm just here because I saw an easy opportunity to piss on this whole Bush-wiretapped-america spin and Hollywood in general...sorry if I got some on your shoes

No Will you're wrong. People weren't mad before 9/11 that our phones weren't tapped. They were mad because the government blew away chances to uncover even the smallest portions of the plot. Tracing phone calls would not have helped the FBI memo about the Muslim pilots being inept, yet demanding to fly big commercial liners. Bush has done nothing since but add layer after layer of more govt and more red tape. The only thing he has done successfully is make Americans distrust other Americans even more than before.

I don't care who the president is after this idiot but hopefully they will actually instill some confidence in the American people. Bush will go down as one of the worst mistakes (twice) and leave whoever after him with a mess of problems.

Zuruck wrote:No Will you're wrong. People weren't mad before 9/11 that our phones weren't tapped.

That is not what I said nor what I implied.
You don't want a discussion you just want to bash Bush and you can do that without me. Enjoy.

Palzon wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Zuruck wrote:Bold, you're missing the entire point. Informants are to be praised when there is no accountability for these politicians, on both sides.

I will mail a check for $10.00 to the first person who can explain what this means. I cannot make sense of it, but it smells of backtracking.

Translation: When the administration is not accountable, regardless of party affiliation, those who leak information are worthy of praise.

Please make check payable to Angry J. Pally, Esq.

First, I'll gladly pay the $10.00. PM your address to me. Or if you'd rather, I'll make it payable to the DescentBB. Your choice.

Second, maybe you can make a further clarification without charge. Am I right that your translation of Zuruck's statement can be read like this:

When any [presidential administration] is not [held] accountable [by the two other co-equal branches of government], [then], regardless of [the] political affiliation [of that administration], those who leak [classified or nonclassified] information [to the public] are worthy of praise.

I think yours is a fair translation by the way. I just want the most accurate interpretation to be sure I'm getting Z's message here.

BD

Zuruck wrote:How was I not that clear Pally? I was lambasting all politicians, on both sides, and the sheep immediately circle the wagons to protect their guy.

OH no you weren't. You were equivocating. Say it with me -- "Equivocating."

You posited the following as Zuruck's National Security Policy:

Zuruck wrote:While I believe leaking classified information is indeed a threat to national security, I think the informant role has turned into one to be praised.

I found the Zuruck National Security Policy troubling:

BD wrote:And so if someone had leaked to, say, Germany how to build and deploy a nuclear weapon during WWII -- you'd be a huge fan.

You responded with the Leftie Shuffle. Confronted with your own ridiculous notion of national security, you said:

Zuruck wrote:Bold, you're missing the entire point. Informants are to be praised when there is no accountability for these politicians, on both sides.

In other words, if Angry J. Pally's translation is correct, the Zuruck National Security Policy is a bi-partisan one, and wouldn't be limited to just the current administration. You favor compromising national security under all circumstances, regardless of who is in office.

Brilliant.

The Democrats Will Get You Killed.

BD

Will Robinson wrote:To expose something one doesn't like that is legal is merely complaining or whining.

It's morally corrupt to do so when our men and women in uniform are out there putting their lives at risk for the media's right to be stupid, and for Zuruck's right to post unsubstantiated tripe.

Zuruck probably doesn't want to remember how many people died when Newsweek broke the big story on the "Koran flushing" by guards in Guantanamo. Riots ensued in Afghanistan and other countries and over a lot people lost their lives.

TimesOnline wrote:Although the original report in Newsweek was small, it was re-broadcast by television networks such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya and in Pakistan it was quoted by Imran Khan, the cricketer-turned-politician, at a press conference. He said it would strengthen the impression that America’s War on Terror was against Muslims.

The most violent protests were in Afghanistan, where the death toll in clashes between demonstrators and security forces reached fourteen after a third day of rioting. Three people were killed and twenty-two injured near Faizabad, in Badakhshan province, when a thousand rioters burnt down aid agencies’ offices.

Worshippers in Pakistan poured on to the streets after prayers, chanting “Death to America”, and burning American flags. In Jakarta, hundreds gathered noisily at a mosque. Thousands marched through the streets of a Palestinian refugee camp in Gaza.

Newsweek then published a retraction:

Newsweek wrote: [W]e regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

—Mark Whitaker

Editor's Note: On Monday afternoon, May 16, Whitaker issued the following statement: Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Qur'an abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

The Democrats Will Get You Killed.

BD

FISA Court of Appeal wrote:The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

(Emphasis added by BD.) In re Sealed Case (Foreign Int.Surv.Ct.Rev. Nov 18, 2002) 310 F.3d 717, 190 A.L.R. Fed. 725 (NO. 02-001, 02-002).

Zuruck wrote:***Crickets***