And you're certain of this, you asked the terrorists, you attended a few Al Queda cell meetings and got the inside scoop, eh?None of the terrorists have any more information than they had before. An individual terrorists still has as much of a clue as to whether or not he in particular is being spied on as he did before.
[
Using a lot of facts does, though, and that really bugs you, doesn't it?Do you think that using a lot of words to make yourself sound smart is going to change the fact that nothing specific about our wiretaps was revealed - such as who in particular was being spied on, what was found out, etc.?
Frankly, ST, when you continue being pugnacious it doesn't prove your points, it just reflects your character. When confronted with something that you can't rebutt, you simply start acting nasty.
When I, or anyone else on this board, rebutts your nonsense, you just dismiss it all out of hand rather than replying to it. That tells me that you don't have a counter argument.
And, as I suspected, it really didn't occur to you that phone calls contained coded messages, that encrypted message traffic was also being monitored. If it had, you would have addressed it in your reply.
You seem so certain in your claims... "There wasn't any specific information revealed, other than that we were spying on their phone calls, which they already knew", "None of the terrorists have any more information than they had before"... what makes you so certain?
Secondly, if those aforementioned claims are true, then why are you making such a big deal out of the whole wiretapping affair? After all, by your own claims, nothing was compromised, the parties being wiretapped already knew they were being monitored. You're just using a circular argument.