NYT better get Lawered up...

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Dago
To go to the courts, you have to already have evidence.  Like it or not, this allows them to figure out who to keep an eye on, and who to gather evidence on.  It's not pretty, but it is casting a wide net to capture the right fish.  Extreme actions to stop extremists.

Your version basically would require them to wait until after a tragedy to figure out who did and and then gather the evidence.  Bushs idea is to catch them before they commit the act.  It may not sound as pretty, listening in to the overseas calls without court permission, but I feel in this situation the ends justify the means.

Do you really feel anyone is suffering a great harm that exceeds that of innocent people killed?

Again, BS, you think the fisa court would deny any reasonable request from the president, no way. Extreme actions to stop extremists, like throwing our constitution out the window? Huh?

Again, there is only one reason you would not want a paper trail, so no one would know what you are doing, and if it is bad people, then why hide it? He is breaking the law, big time, and there is no justification for it

[Stringer]

Originally posted by john9001
don't forget about the media telling ben laden that the US govt was listening to his cell phone calls, he don't use his cell phone anymore, thanks "freedom o' da press"

And how do you think the press found out about it.  Someone in the government opened their big fat mouth with they shouldn't have.....

Talk about shooting the messenger.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Again, BS, you think the fisa court would deny any reasonable request from the president, no way. Extreme actions to stop extremists, like throwing our constitution out the window? Huh?

Again, there is only one reason you would not want a paper trail, so no one would know what you are doing, and if it is bad people, then why hide it? He is breaking the law, big time, and there is no justification for it

Again you fail to grasp the concept.  Who would they tell the fisa court they wanted to listen to if they didnt know who was involved???  If they knew who to name, they wouldnt have to bother with this problem, and we wouldnt be having this discussion.  Think about it for a change.

Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating?  This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence.  I am amazed you have a problem with that.

Are you familiar with "prerogative powers"?  There is the open ended question yet about whether Bush was legal in using prerogative powers to order the surveillance, as just about every President before him has done in somewhat "gray areas".  So, this may in fact be perfectly legal, though on the surface distasteful to some who have lost nothing and risked nothing to terrorists yet.

Time to stop acting all emotional and start thinking.  Explain why it shouldnt have been done, what right exactly was violated (not a broad "the Constitution"), tell me the harm and how it supercedes the safety of the society and it's people please.

dago

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which - like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al-Qaeda bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle - has done serious harm to our national security.

I've actually been waiting to see a thread specifically on the NSA issue (not just in a Patriot Act thread).  This is the first one I've seen since the story broke and it isn't about the Administration's unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps, but about the NYT!  

Well, I for one hope they investigate and prosecute this issue as vigorously as they are the Plame outing.

BTW Gun...the Plame issue did huge harm to our national security.  It showed our enemies abroad some of the inner workings of our intelligence collection network.  I personnally would not have suspected that family members of our embassy employees (let alone the wife of the Ambassador) would covertly be employeed by the CIA.  Now every family member for our FSOs will be under suspicion and using those assets in the future are now made useless.  Plus it makes anyone who associates with those family members suspect as well.  And that is why it is illegal to out a CIA agent...not because it puts the agent in danger (they have accepted that risk by joining the Agency)...but because it damages that agent's entire current and previous networks.

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Attorney General Gonzales should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell -Jack Kelly

Now now...lets get a special prosecutor since I'm sure the Bush Administration wants these leakers prosecuted as vigorously as with the Plame affair.

[Dago]

Originally posted by crowMAW
I've actually been waiting to see a thread specifically on the NSA issue (not just in a Patriot Act thread).  This is the first one I've seen since the story broke and it isn't about the Administration's unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps, but about the NYT!  

Well, I for one hope they investigate and prosecute this issue as vigorously as they are the Plame outing.

BTW Gun...the Plame issue did huge harm to our national security.  It showed our enemies abroad some of the inner workings of our intelligence collection network.  I personnally would not have suspected that family members of our embassy employees (let alone the wife of the Ambassador) would covertly be employeed by the CIA.  Now every family member for our FSOs will be under suspicion and using those assets in the future are now made useless.  Plus it makes anyone who associates with those family members suspect as well.  And that is why it is illegal to out a CIA agent...not because it puts the agent in danger (they have accepted that risk by joining the Agency)...but because it damages that agent's entire current and previous networks.

Now now...lets get a special prosecutor since I'm sure the Bush Administration wants these leakers prosecuted as vigorously as with the Plame affair.

Do you ever wonder about someone who would serve a partisan political agenda at the risk of national security?  I certainly do, regardless of political affiliation.  But then, I also think all US citizens convicted of spying against the USA should be executed by firing squad.  On that I am not kidding.  Death should be the punishment, no exceptions.

dago

(I am dago and I approved this message)

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Dago

Again you fail to grasp the concept.  Who would they tell the fisa court they wanted to listen to if they didnt know who was involved???  If they knew who to name, they wouldnt have to bother with this problem, and we wouldnt be having this discussion.  Think about it for a change.

How can you listen to someone if you don't know who you are listening to? You are listening to someone, who is it? you don't know? huh?

Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating?  This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence.  I am amazed you have a problem with that.

If it is to listen to those who commit mass murder, then why not go through the fisa court? I am amazed you have a problem with that

Are you familiar with "prerogative powers"?  There is the open ended question yet about whether Bush was legal in using prerogative powers to order the surveillance, as just about every President before him has done in somewhat "gray areas".  So, this may in fact be perfectly legal, though on the surface distasteful to some who have lost nothing and risked nothing to terrorists yet.

Well, then you are fimiliar with the fact that he must justify his actions to congress after the fact. If he cannot justify it, it was illegal.

Time to stop acting all emotional and start thinking.  Explain why it shouldnt have been done, what right exactly was violated (not a broad "the Constitution"), tell me the harm and how it supercedes the safety of the society and it's people please.

Why? Because it is illegal.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Again you fail to grasp the concept.  Who would they tell the fisa court they wanted to listen to if they didnt know who was involved???  If they knew who to name, they wouldnt have to bother with this problem, and we wouldnt be having this discussion.  Think about it for a change.

How can you listen to someone if you don't know who you are listening to? You are listening to someone, who is it? you don't know? huh?

Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating?  This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence.  I am amazed you have a problem with that.

If it is to listen to those who commit mass murder, then why not go through the fisa court? I am amazed you have a problem with that

Are you familiar with "prerogative powers"?  There is the open ended question yet about whether Bush was legal in using prerogative powers to order the surveillance, as just about every President before him has done in somewhat "gray areas".  So, this may in fact be perfectly legal, though on the surface distasteful to some who have lost nothing and risked nothing to terrorists yet.

Well, then you are fimiliar with the fact that he must justify his actions to congress after the fact. If he cannot justify it, it was illegal.

Time to stop acting all emotional and start thinking.  Explain why it shouldnt have been done, what right exactly was violated (not a broad "the Constitution"), tell me the harm and how it supercedes the safety of the society and it's people please.

Why? Because it is illegal.

Wouldnt it have been easier and quicker for you just to say you cant answer the questions with any intelligent and relevant responses?  You have basically now ended the arguement with your submission that you dont have answers.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Dago
Wouldnt it have been easier and quicker for you just to say you cant answer the questions with any intelligent and relevant responses?  You have basically now ended the arguement with your submission that you dont have answers.

Nice try

[Dago]

Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating? This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence. I am amazed you have a problem with that.

If it is to listen to those who commit mass murder, then why not go through the fisa court? I am amazed you have a problem with that

Nice try eh?  

You didnt even try.  You just failed to answer questions, couldnt do it, lacked the ability, maybe faced the realization that you didnt know what you were talking about and got embarrassed by it.  Your lacking in perception, understanding of concepts and inability to argue your point are glaringly obvious at this point.  

What's next  from the master of eloquent response, " sticks and stones" or "I know you are about what am I?"???

Or are you hoping for another brain dead liberal weenie to come to your rescue?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Dago
Nice try eh?  

You didnt even try.  You just failed to answer questions, couldnt do it, lacked the ability, maybe faced the realization that you didnt know what you were talking about and got embarrassed by it.  Your lacking in perception, understanding of concepts and inability to argue your point are glaringly obvious at this point.  

What's next  from the master of eloquent response, " sticks and stones" or "I know you are about what am I?"???

Or are you hoping for another brain dead liberal weenie to come to your rescue?

lol, carry on, this is amusing

[Dago]

Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, carry on, this is amusing

I think so, never seen a liberal crumble so quickly and display his limitations so obviously.  Stick to your coloring books, and try to stay inside the lines.

I still wait your answer to the question about exactly how Bush violated the Constitution as you stated.   Call someone if you must to try and find an answer.

I wonder how soon a moderater comes in and declares rule # x?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Dago
I think so, never seen a liberal crumble so quickly and display his limitations so obviously.  Stick to your coloring books, and try to stay inside the lines.

I still wait your answer to the question about exactly how Bush violated the Constitution as you stated.   Call someone if you must to try and find an answer.

I wonder how soon a moderater comes in and declares rule # x?

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.

(Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Government isn't authorized to jail non-citizens indefinitely or deny them due process of law. There's a good reason for that, but that's another subject.)

Now, answer my question, why is it necessary for the president to bypass the fisa court?

[lazs2]

does anyone actualy read newspapers?

lazs

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Administration's unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps,

 

Just because you say it does not make it true.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by lazs2
does anyone actualy read newspapers?

lazs