[Face Ache]

Relax. Your government has been spying on the rest of us for a long time now and it hasn't affected...

Hang on. Someone at the door...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mania

okay, funny funny funny - this is not funny! this is a crime by all accounts - along with many other crimes commited by this administration. I for one am sick of it and wonder who will prosecute these criminals. no lets go after clinton for sleeping around. what a fckd up nation.

Actually, they went after Clinton because he was engaged in a long-term trend of using government resources for his own personal gain (interns, employees - they didn't even get very far with their investigation of him using foreign assets to illegally fund his campaign), then lied about it in under oath which is a felony.

You see...Clinton broke the law for his own personal gain.

You accuse Bush of breaking the law (debatable), in order to secure our nation against terrorist threats.

Most people didn't take the stuff with Clinton too seriously. They saw it sort of a national soap opera not effecting them. Most people aren't going to take all the cries of "crime" too seriously either for the opposite reason: they know that what has been done has been done to positively effect their lives and will have no effect on their personal privacy.

Good luck with the impeachment calls. You'll need it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Only 3 more years left to do it, tho.

[mania]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Most people aren't going to take all the cries of "crime" too seriously either for the opposite reason: they know that what has been done has been done to positively effect their lives and will have no effect on their personal privacy.

Good luck with the impeachment calls. You'll need it.

You can trade away your freedoms for a false sense of security but I won't. I hear its very safe in North Korea as long as you tow the party line.

[Cody Dawg]

mania
okay, funny funny funny - this is not funny! this is a crime by all accounts - along with many other crimes commited by this administration. I for one am sick of it and wonder who will prosecute these criminals. no lets go after clinton for sleeping around. what a fckd up nation.

Oh, just go back to skiing at Purgatory, will you?

I used to be a manager at Tamarron during long lost college years, BTW.

I can't stand Durango - except the hot springs ARE nice.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mania

You can trade away your freedoms for a false sense of security but I won't. I hear its very safe in North Korea as long as you tow the party line.

I'm not trading anything.

I'm not:

a. Linked in any way to any foreign terror networks
b. Making any overseas calls.

Like I said...we're talking about a teeny tiny fraction of people who fit a specific target of likely threats. This is the equivalent to the AIDS scare where the media and activists have scared people into thinking that they don't have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning then contracting AIDS if they live a moderate lifestyle. In neither case does the average American have anything to fear, and that's likely why both examples are pretty much non-worries to most.

[NYCFarmboy]

The Dems are walking into a trap on this one, to moan for the rights of terrorists to make phonecalls overseas is well.. laughable.... just like the calls for surrender in Iraq this one will come back and bite them in the arse...but they seem to enjoy it.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

The Dems are walking into a trap on this one, to moan for the rights of terrorists to make phonecalls overseas is well.. laughable...

Oh shoot..I must have misunderstood...i didn't realize the NSA was only spying on terroristphonecalls! How stupid of me..duh.

[cmeisenzahl]

Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 10:10 p.m. EST
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/221452.shtml

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 10:10 p.m. EST
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/221452.shtml

if it's true, then that's two shitty presidents.

bush's explanation is that he needs to be quick in getting information quickly. FISA does not tie his hands in that regard. FISA allows for the warrant to be got after surveillance starts.

it is the court warrant that is the check in our system of checks and balances. while it is basically impossible for an individual to know that, or why, they were under surveillance, this completely removes any checks. our gov't was created so that no one branch would have absolute power.

i am not against bush listening in on terrorists but i am against him doing so willy-nilly w/o any oversight. seeking warrants does not lessen his ability to act when he wants.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

bush's explanation is that he needs to be quick in getting information quickly. FISA does not tie his hands in that regard. FISA allows for the warrant to be got after surveillance starts.

it is the court warrant that is the check in our system of checks and balances. while it is basically impossible for an individual to know that, or why, they were under surveillance, this completely removes any checks. our gov't was created so that no one branch would have absolute power.

i am not against bush listening in on terrorists but i am against him doing so willy-nilly w/o any oversight. seeking warrants does not lessen his ability to act when he wants.

Let's be a little careful here. Constitutionally, when people talk about checks and balances, they are talking about things built into the Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Survaillance Act isn't constitutionally mandated. It's just a statute that was written by Ted Kennedy and passed in 1978.

I think the jury is out on the legality of these wiretaps even under that statute. Legal scholars much more experienced than me have looked at the issue, and declared themselves to be uncertain because the issue isn't just whether that statute was violated, but also whether that statute is even constitutional. That is because to the extent that Congress (Article 1 of the Constitution) puports to invade and limit the constitutional powers of the President (Article 2 of the Constitution), that statute can be arguably said to be exceeding the powers of Congress. Checks and balances, after all, work both ways. We do not have legislative supremacy in this country (unlike, say, the UK). We have competing branches. Just because one branch (in this case, Congress) says something, doesn't mean the other branches (in this case, the Executive) is necessarily bound by it.

That's just one argument floating out there. There are others too. For example, arguably, this is a case where the president's inherent powers as commander in chief are supplemented by (rather than subtracted from) Congress' powers, both because of the war authorization after 9/11, but also because the President consulted with the Intelligence Committees and the leadership of both parties of both houses when he carried out this policy.

Now, of course, I recognize that there are counter arguments to all of this. Some claim (because of FISA) this is Jackson category 3, not Jackson Category 1. I don't know what the actual answer is. But I do know it isn't totally clear. And just to reemphasise, we have three branches in this country. They all act at checks on the other. That includes the executive checking the legislature just as much as the other way around. The statute isn't the end of the issue. This statute in particular has been criticized as an unconstitutional power grab since it was passed. It is part of the same package of post-Watergate, post COINTEL "reforms" by a very liberal congress in the 1970s that include the infamous "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement, the War Powers Act (declared to be unconstitutional by every president of both parties), the gutting of the intelligence agencies, and so on. It doesn't have the greatest pedigree, and I am not surprised to see a president faced with a real national security emergency push back against it.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

The NSA is now officially spying on Americans..and Bush approved it...no pesky court order needed.

Before people go and blame the NYT. They sat on this story for a year becuse the administration asked them too (National Security issue....what else?) This is not a surprise to many of us....but I'm glad its now out in the open. Another feather in the cap of our great President.

I wrote this in a different thread, but it applies here as well...

Nobody seemed to care about this before Bush became President...

60 MINUTES Television Broadcast February 27, 2000

STEVE KROFT, co-host:

If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.

How does it work, and what happens to all the information that's gathered? A lot of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the information is being used for more than just catching bad guys.

(Footage of satellite; person talking on cell phone; fax machine; ATM being used; telephone pole and wires; radio towers)

KROFT: (Voiceover) We can't see them, but the air around us is filled with invisible electronic signals, everything from cell phone conversations to fax transmissions to ATM transfers. What most people don't realize is that virtually every signal radiated across the electromagnetic spectrum is being collected and analyzed.

How much of the world is covered by them?

Mr. MIKE FROST (Former Spy): The entire world, the whole planet--covers everything. Echelon covers everything that's radiated worldwide at any given instant.

KROFT: Every square inch is covered.

Mr. FROST: Every square inch is covered.

[medicineman]

[QUOTE=Moderator]The NSA is now officially spying on Americans..and Bush approved it...no pesky court order needed.

Before people go and blame the NYT. They sat on this story for a year becuse the administration asked them too (National Security issue....what else?) This is not a surprise to many of us....but I'm glad its now out in the open. Another feather in the cap of our great President.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General. It is important to understand, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." - Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

[spacefreak]

Re: Carnivore

[Millennium]

Well, now it seems that Bush is defending this, and has every intention of continuing the spying.

I'm not sure if this is an impeachable offense or not, unfortunately. If it is, though, I hope they nail him hard. For a long time, Bush (modulo the rest of the administration) was in the Mostly Harmless category in my book, but this crosses the line. It may not be treason, but this is a betrayal, and I hope he gets everything coming to him. The ends do not justify the means, not when the Constitution is on the line.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm not sure if this is an impeachable offense or not, unfortunately. If it is, though, I hope they nail him hard. For a long time, Bush (modulo the rest of the administration) was in the Mostly Harmless category in my book, but this crosses the line. It may not be treason, but this is a betrayal, and I hope he gets everything coming to him. The ends do not justify the means, not when the Constitution is on the line.

Why would Congress attempt to impeach a president for something that Congressional leaders of both parties were aware of for several years? Congress approved the president's actions. Even those like Dascle, who now claims to have disapproved, did nothing to stop the policy. That makes them at a minimum complicit. Do you suppose they would impeach themselves as well? Do you think that is likely?

This fantasizing about impeachment is a bit laughable. You ought to be aware enough of American history to know that impeachment is a political punishment for the offense of being disliked by the majority party in the Congress of the day. No president will ever be impeached by his own party, and even less likely by his own party for the crime of being a strong president determined to defend this country against its enemies.

As I posted above, the legalities under this statute and the Constitution are highly debateable. It's not a slam dunk for either side. But I think the politics is pretty clear. This isn't a loser for the president -- which is why the majority in Congress will stand by him. On the other hand, it puts Democrats in a difficult position. They approved something that now their base demands they disapprove of. If they disapprove of it now, then they stand as hypocrites and further paint themselves as weak on defense. But if they support the president, they lose their base. Karl Rove couldn't have sprung a better trap.

I just wish the prosecutions of the leakers would start. That part does annoy me.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I wrote this in a different thread, but it applies here as well...

Nobody seemed to care about this before Bush became President...

I think its whose vice president that has us worried.

Lets agree on this....Enron, Iraq, Geneva Conventions, Halliburton, WMD, Torture, Yellowcake, Plame, Secret Prisons, Domestic Spying....all Dick Cheney...Bush went along for sure...but this is Dick Cheney. The man who was hired to find men to surround the president...and chose himself.

The reason stories like this are scary...the reason this isn't foil hat material..is Dick Cheney. Thats a baaaad dude....its scary...and I guarantee we don't know the half of it.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Relax. Your government has been spying on the rest of us for a long time now and it hasn't affected...

Hang on. Someone at the door...

Someone's been in my panty collection drawer. Snif, snif.

[spacefreak]

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Moderator

...and I guarantee we don't know the half of it.

I should hope not. It's not our jobs. We needn't be privy to sensitive war operations.

[Moderator]

Here's a little background on Mr. Cheney.....read...and be afraid.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...as-player=true

[Sock Puppet Theater]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

Each case is different.
Just because you link to democrats doing something similar, doesn't mean any of them had the right to do so. We're talking about this particularly uproar. Linking to past events and screaming "Hey, where was your indignity then?" isn't addressing the issue.


This goes to the president's attitude that only he is qualified to authorize and execute certain aspects of the war on terror. He seems to hold Congress and the balance of powers in contempt.
It seems he could have easily obtained the same wiretaps by using provisions that already existed in FISA. Perhaps he wanted to keep Congress entirely out of the loop (a few select senators might have been notified of the president's actions, but they don't seem to have had any kind of oversight. Hell, their handwritten concerns were not even addressed.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet Theater

Each case is different.
Just because you link to democrats doing something similar, doesn't mean any of them had the right to do so. We're talking about this particularly uproar. Linking to past events and screaming "Hey, where was your indignity then?" isn't addressing the issue.


This goes to the president's attitude that only he is qualified to authorize and execute certain aspects of the war on terror. He seems to hold Congress and the balance of powers in contempt.
It seems he could have easily obtained the same wiretaps by using provisions that already existed in FISA. Perhaps he wanted to keep Congress entirely out of the loop (a few select senators might have been notified of the president's actions, but they don't seem to have had any kind of oversight. Hell, their handwritten concerns were not even addressed.)

Those "select senators" are the ones designated by Congress as the points of contact for these issues. In the 1970s, as a result of the Church and Pike Committees, Congress established specific permanent intelligence committes in both the House and the Senate. Congress told the executive that those were the committees to go to for oversight. It also told the executive that the entire senate was not to be privy to such information. The Congressional leadership of both parties were both informed -- again, as per Congress' own instructions. The White House apparently did exactly what Congress demanded, and Congress did not object. It is disingenous now to complain. Only, of course, to do so would further reinforce the message that Democrats are unserious/opportunistic on defense. I.e. they were happy with this policy in the immediate wake of 9/11, but now suddenly have remembered that really, they think the US government is a bigger threat than terrorism. Or maybe not, as polls will dictate.

If you have a complaint about Democrats in Congress who you think did an inadequate job in their oversight duties, I suggest you take it up at the next election.

[hyteckit]

I heard China bans certain religions, internet sites, and media from the general population of China because of security reasons. They also spy on their people. I guess Pres. Bush is just following China.

US - the New China.

[Face Ache]

Gay lawyers are a terrorist threat.
Do you know any gay lawyers?
Report any suspicious activity immediately to this number: 1800 123 456.
Do not approach them as they may be armed and dangerous.

[Sock Puppet Theater]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Those "select senators" are the ones designated by Congress as the points of contact for these issues. ....
The White House apparently did exactly what Congress demanded, and Congress did not object. It is disingenous now to complain.....
If you have a complaint about Democrats in Congress who you think did an inadequate job in their oversight duties, I suggest you take it up at the next election.

Only it seems that many of them did complain. Their concerns just went unanswered. When you're not allowed to discuss the matter with anyone, not even your staff, and your objections fall on deaf ears, what recourse is left? Where are the checks and balances?

Congress did complain, and now the American people are getting their chance. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

Your comparison is completely wrong on both counts. Neither one of these executive orders by Clinton and Carter authorized physical searches or spying on US citizens, or within US territory. In fact, both Clinton and Carter's executive orders expressly disallow this kind of activity. The "US citizen/on U.S. soil" part is what makes Bush's actions unprecendented, not the fact that spying occurs, which we all know has gone on for years under many different presidents.

First, Clinton's order - it specifies that the Attorney General must certify in writing under oath that the physical searches are "solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." It also requires the A.G. to certify that "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." In other words, no searches were allowed within the U.S., and no searches were allowed of U.S. citizens. Read it for yourself.

Now, for Carter's order - it also specifies that the Attorney General must certify in writing under oath that the electronic surveillance is solely directed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Similar to the Clinton order, it also further requires the A.G. to certify that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." Again, no spying was allowed within the U.S., and no spying on U.S. citizens, either. Read this one for yourself, too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I think its whose vice president that has us worried.

Lets agree on this....Enron, Iraq, Geneva Conventions, Halliburton, WMD, Torture, Yellowcake, Plame, Secret Prisons, Domestic Spying....all Dick Cheney...Bush went along for sure...but this is Dick Cheney. The man who was hired to find men to surround the president...and chose himself.

The reason stories like this are scary...the reason this isn't foil hat material..is Dick Cheney. Thats a baaaad dude....its scary...and I guarantee we don't know the half of it.

You forgot about the grassy knowl and the disapearance of Amelia Earhart.

I disagree. It's definitely foil hat material.

Also, it's clear that both the courts and former administrations backed doing the sort of thing Bush did.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

Not only is it not impeachable, it's not even a thing that most Americans are going to make a stink about even if it were technically illegal (even though it isn't). I suggest the Democrats and the left keep focused on this sort of thing for the next couple of years. The only thing you'll have to lose is a lot more elections. :lol

[moodymonster]

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Benjamin Franklin

If what is happening is necessary then surely it is in keeping with the laws and principals of the United States to use the existing institutions to allow these things to take place. There is no need to be underhand about it.

What happens if they are allowed to use these powers for other ends?

The people who created the US knew what they were talking about and put checks and balances in there for a reason, it would be wise to look at those reasons. Or maybe the Constitution is not relevant here.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man

Your comparison is completely wrong on both counts. Neither one of these executive orders by Clinton and Carter authorized physical searches or spying on US citizens, or within US territory. In fact, both Clinton and Carter's executive orders expressly disallow this kind of activity.

Aldrich Ames. Federal authorities searched his home without a warrant.... here

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

Shall we delve into Ruby Ridge and Waco with regards to warrantless surveillance/spying/attacking?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Aldrich Ames. Federal authorities searched his home without a warrant.... here

And? This doesn't disprove anything I cited - according to the laws I linked to and a number of legal analysts who have read the law, Bush doesn't have the authority to authorize warrantless searches, and neither did Clinton or any other recent president for that matter. Your own link mentions that the Clinton administration eventually agreed to use the FISA court for obtaining warrants, something the Bush administration apparently thought wasn't worth their time doing. Never mind that Bush could, under FISA, authorize a search immediately and obtain a warrant (in a secret court, no less!) 72 hours after the fact, which is more than enough to handle any emergency that may come up - but who needs inconvenient "laws" anyway?

What exactly is your point by bringing up these examples, anyway? Are you trying to say that illegal behavior by a past president establishes precedent for other presidents to engage in further illegal behavior? Careful - that's an extremely slippery slope to travel down...

Shall we delve into Ruby Ridge and Waco with regards to warrantless surveillance/spying/attacking?

We could, but it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Just because something has happened in the past doesn't make it ok. I could find hundreds of examples where police have, due to negligence, killed innocent bystanders while pursuing criminals - does that mean that we should pass a law making it standard policy for them to do so?

Besides, I thought the standard conservative position was that Ruby Ridge and Waco were touchstone examples of unchecked executive power bulldozing (literally) over individual civil liberties. Now, you've flip-flopped and are using it as an example of why it's perfectly okay to spy on US citizens. You can't have it both ways.

[tie]

I think as long as the war on terror continues (indefinitely), Bush has every right to suspend the Constitution.

News today is that the surveillance was on domestic as well as international calls (accidentally?). Bush denies it:

Mr. Bush had said in a news conference Monday that internal communications were not part of the secret program. "I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country," he said. "If you're calling from Houston to L.A., that - that call is not monitored."

And a FISA judge resigned, reportedly in protest.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by tie

I think as long as the war on terror continues (indefinitely), Bush has every right to suspend the Constitution.

and this is just how Cheney wants it....an unending "war" gives them all the justification they'll ever need...for anything. And if the war on terrorism ends (yeah right)...well there's always the WAR ON CHRISTMAS! DUH DUH DUUUHHHH.

[moodymonster]

obviously the people who wrote the Constitution didn't know about wars and stuff like that.

The safeguards and values enshrined in that document don't define the US or anything and it is only right they should be put aside in times of crisis.

[porieux]

...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet Theater

Only it seems that many of them did complain. Their concerns just went unanswered. When you're not allowed to discuss the matter with anyone, not even your staff, and your objections fall on deaf ears, what recourse is left? Where are the checks and balances?

Congress did complain, and now the American people are getting their chance. I don't see anything wrong with that.

The intelligence committee members can talk to their staff on the intelligence committee. Rockefeller is full of it. He couldn't have talked to his senate office staff, because that staff is separate from the intelligence committee. The intelligence committees are cleared and each have their own general counsel. Besides, most senators are lawyers in their own right. That is, except for some of the dimmer bulbs in the Christmas tree like Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller. The information would have been contained within the intelligence committees and the senate leadership. But that is the way the Senate and House set the system up in the late 1970s when they created permanent intelligence committees to replace the ad hoc Church and Pike committees. The Pike Committee in particular had the reputation for leaking like a seive, which is why both houses were careful to create secure committees with fully cleared staffs.

In any case, I take it that you realize that senators are immune from prosecution under a specific provision in the Constitution. There was never anything to stop and senator with serious objections from walking into the well of the senate and saying "Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I have just received information about this horrendous thing . . . " It would have brought the whole thing to a halt in an instant and not a damned thing could be done to that senator -- except at most that senator would perhaps receive the wrath of the voters. Just ask Orrin Hatch. He is the one who stupidly blew the information about how we were tapping into Osama Bin Laden's satellite phone. It was a dumb decision on his part to blab, but as a senator, that is his constitutional privilege.

The oversight was there, and it was used. The problem is that Democrats have this problem of being more responsible in private than they sometimes can let on to their left wing base. That's why they were happy about this in private, but now are shocked, shocked, to learn what they already knew about and approved of (or at least, were happy enough to allow to happen).

[gadster]

The real question here is: why now?

If the NYT sat on this story for so long, why did they choose to release it now - right in the middle of the debate on the Patriot Act? That's the ONLY story of interest or surprise here. US citizens spied on? Well, duh.

Terror attack coming before the mid-term elections I'd wager.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by gadster

The real question here is: why now?

If the NYT sat on this story for so long, why did they choose to release it now - right in the middle of the debate on the Patriot Act? That's the ONLY story of interest or surprise here. US citizens spied on? Well, duh.

Terror attack coming before the mid-term elections I'd wager.

Impossible.

Not in Uber-Democratic America.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by gadster

The real question here is: why now?

If the NYT sat on this story for so long, why did they choose to release it now - right in the middle of the debate on the Patriot Act? That's the ONLY story of interest or surprise here. US citizens spied on? Well, duh.

Terror attack coming before the mid-term elections I'd wager.

According to the Washington Post, it was timed to coincide with, and promote a book release.

The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.

The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.

In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book. He wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

Washington Post

Remember, newspapers like the New York Times are businesses. They publish to make a profit.

[stupendousman]

The loony left's arguments are going down in flames....

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

More time wasted politicizing, when they could be engaging in meaningful change that could actually get them elected! One of these days...maybe, they'll realize that always siding with anti-american, defeatist, low self esteem radical left-wingers drives voters away from them.

Around the time they dumped Newt, the Republicans figured out that you could only go so far in appeasing your base without losing the middle. They did this before it was too late. Someday...maybe the Democrats will figure this out and stop being a perennial second place party.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'm not:

a. Linked in any way to any foreign terror networks

Are you saying you might be linked to local terror networks?

In any case, the way I understand it, you don't have to be linked to terror networks, just suspected of being linked to terror networks.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

...you don't have to be linked to terror networks, just suspected of being linked to terror networks.

meaning everyone is fair game

[tie]

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The loony left's arguments are going down in flames....

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2610-7772r.htm

More time wasted politicizing, when they could be engaging in meaningful change that could actually get them elected! One of these days...maybe, they'll realize that always siding with anti-american, defeatist, low self esteem radical left-wingers drives voters away from them.

Around the time they dumped Newt, the Republicans figured out that you could only go so far in appeasing your base without losing the middle. They did this before it was too late. Someday...maybe the Democrats will figure this out and stop being a perennial second place party.

So either Pres. Bush and VP Cheney lied or they committed an illegal act. Pres. Bush and VP Cheney said in 2004 that "a warrant is required". So which one is it? I say Pres. Bush committed an impeachable act.

[hyteckit]

Pres. Bush, a crook, a liar, or both. You decide:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Spy-Shu.mov

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

According to the Washington Post, it was timed to coincide with, and promote a book release.



Washington Post

Remember, newspapers like the New York Times are businesses. They publish to make a profit.

ROFL!!!

They ALL do!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

So either Pres. Bush and VP Cheney lied or they committed an illegal act. Pres. Bush and VP Cheney said in 2004 that "a warrant is required". So which one is it? I say Pres. Bush committed an impeachable act.

Assuming they said that (and that's a HUGE assumption), you've still presented a false set of choices. Given the fact that the courts and past administrations have said that you don't need a warrant for investigations into foriegn espionage, it's possible that they simply misspoke.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

ROFL!!!

They ALL do!

You mean you didn't find Simey's post incredibly enlightening? I for one hadn't even considered that the NY Times is a business.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Assuming they said that (and that's a HUGE assumption), you've still presented a false set of choices. Given the fact that the courts and past administrations have said that you don't need a warrant for investigations into foriegn espionage, it's possible that they simply misspoke.

Um... "HUGE assumption"? Did you even watch the video I link too. Pres. Bush said it multiple times slowly and purposely. Misspoke? Pleeeassssse.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Assuming they said that (and that's a HUGE assumption), you've still presented a false set of choices. Given the fact that the courts and past administrations have said that you don't need a warrant for investigations into foriegn espionage, it's possible that they simply misspoke.

It's more likely that he simply wasn't discussing a classified program. Whatever he said about public programs wouldn't reflect on what he knows about classified ones. His job is to keep his mouth zipped about those. That, of course, includes the classified legal memoranda he receives about classified programs. If he talked about the latter, he'd reveal the former. So a good president (or congressman, or senator, or civil servant, or journalist who learns about any of the above) doesn't talk about any of it.

Only the liberal media would be upset at a president for keeping sensitive classified information secret. The rest of us realize that our national security depends in part on secrets and that leaking them hurts national security. Unfortunately, many in the media are too irresponsible to figure that out, which is partly why they are held in such contempt.