Guess Who Wants The NSA Spying To Continue

[Bullypulpit]

Democrats want everything investigated. Similar to thier frenzy over the "it must be a cover up" attack on Cheny they are now engaged in may be largest fishing expedition in thier history. Refusing to investigate everything the Libs whine about may fall into thier propaganda trap and incur the wrath of left but it certainly doen't mean there is a fish to be caught.

Cheney violated the first rule of hunting...Don't pull the trigger until you know what you're shooting at.

As for the largest fishing expedition in history, you need look no further than Dubbyuh's domestic spying operation.

The FBI has been swamped with thousands of dead-end leads which some FBI officials regarded as little more than <a href=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0117-01.htm>"...pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy..."</a>. And while Cheney has been saying that the program has "saved thousands of lives", FBI officials state the leads provide have been of little use in sussing out domestic terrorists. THey also feel that the domeatic spying program has diverted agents from couterterrorism work that would have borne more fruit.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Gunny,
If you will review this thread, you will discover that no where in it do I call for the end of the program. What I do say is that, when they are 'listening in' on a conversation with a US citizen, they have to get a warrent. I've even said they can do so after the fact.

Also, from now on when you ask me to defend my position, could you please make sure its my position you are attacking.

Yeah Gunney...It's called the FISA Court. And the only provision in US law for domestic surveillance is found in Title 3 and FISA. Anything outside the four corners of these statutes is ILLEGAL.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's about taking up ANY time when national security is at stake and one party of the conversation is already a suspected terrorist.

Under FISA, they have 72 hours to get a warrant after the surveillance has been initiated. No undue burden there. And, before you get your panties in a wad, since FISA was enacted in 1979 until 2004, warrants have only been <a href=http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html>denied</a> 4 times. Of nearly 19,000 requests in 25 years, only 4 have been rejected. Hardly anything to worry about.

If President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, members of the cabinet and those in DOJ who signed off on this travesty are innocent and have nothing to hide, why are they stonewalling any investigation into the matter? Sounds like a cover-up to me.

 

[dilloduck]

Cheney violated the first rule of hunting...Don't pull the trigger until you know what you're shooting at.

As for the largest fishing expedition in history, you need look no further than Dubbyuh's domestic spying operation.

The FBI has been swamped with thousands of dead-end leads which some FBI officials regarded as little more than <a href=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0117-01.htm>"...pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy..."</a>. And while Cheney has been saying that the program has "saved thousands of lives", FBI officials state the leads provide have been of little use in sussing out domestic terrorists. THey also feel that the domeatic spying program has diverted agents from couterterrorism work that would have borne more fruit.

And violating the first rule of hunting HAS been investigated. Pretending that it's some kind innocent reason for taking this to impreachment is another democrat lie!

 

[Mr.Conley]

Is this supposed to make any kind of sense? I responded DIRECTLY to your comment. First sentence. Please make sure when in your haste to play the pseudo-intellectual you don't overlook the obvious.

If my opinion and question FOLLWING my direct response to your post is a bit too tough for you, please accept my most humble apology for talking over your head.

uhhh... lets take a look an in depth look at this.

First let us observe my original post.

I don't care if some bueraucrat has to fill in some paperwork, they still have to get a warrent. Its not like a warrent is such a terrible thing. I've never come across a group of people who seem to hate warrents so much. If they are so bad why don't we just get rid of them, just like the Chinese.

The first line says that the 'spies' should be required to get a warrent, regardless.

The second line states that warrents are a good thing. At least good enough to be included in the Constitution that is (See my first post in this thread for evidence).

The third line states that many people in this thread consider warrents pointless as evidenced by various statements, such as...

This one, that says warrents are a pointless waste of paper.
"Getting a warrant after-the-fact amounts to a paper-drill. So THAT is what you libs have made all this fuss about? Good job."

And this one that says they are a waste of time.
"When time is of the essence any extra hurdle is too much. It's funny you libs are so freedom oriented when it comes to protecting alquaeda phone calls."

And this one that says it would just be to much more work.
"Even afterward. They should just get on to the next case instead of farting over process papers."

And this one that says the Constitution should just be ignored
"...when the government actually comes into a situation where they actually would need to bypass the fourth amendment, they could just do it."

The last line states that one of the differences between us and Communist China is warrents.

Now lets take a look at your response.

It is not a case of my hating warrants, nor have I seen anyone else make a statement that they hate them.

The first sentence does bear some similarity to my third sentence, but it was admittedly a filler, and not actually related to my main point. But your statement is unrelated to either my main point or my third sentence. You first state that you don't want to talk about warrents and no one else has said anything anti-warrent either. Both statement statements are unrelated to my post. Your opinion on warrents has nothing to do with whether a domestic spy program requires a warrent, and the second point I have already disproved.

What I see is the actual point to the exercise getting lost in the minutia.

In this sentence you say warrents are useless because warrents are somehow 'dewarrentatized' in the process of getting a warrent. You don't address whether a domestic spy porgram should be required to obtain a warrent before wiretapping a US citizen's phone.

Warrants or no, if terrorists are making calls then we should be listening. I don't care WHO they are calling nor WHERE they are calling.

Your third sentence again has nothing to do with what I say. You simply state that we should be trying to prevent an attack by listening in on terrorist conversations. Warrents are not even mentioned.

Lawmakers on BOTH sides say the program is necessary; yet, the ones on the left STILL have to point a finger at Bush just because they have found yet another excuse.

This sentence simply says we should be listening to suspected terrorist call, and that lawmakers agree. It is a valid point for having the program, but does not relate to whether the program should get a warrent, the point of my post, and is again unrelated.

GMAFB already. The precedence is set for the President, regardless or party, to act in what he feels is the best interest of the security of this Nation. A ruling otherwise will be unprecedented, and just another instance where the left ties our hands behind our backs instead of thinking of a way to better security.

In this post you comment on the fact that the President can, should, and does do what he feels is best for the security of the nation. However, you fail to address whether this power is greater than that of the Constitution. You are not defending whether warrents are required to tap the phone calls on US citizens, but whether the president can try to protect national security, two related but seperate issues. Again you don't deal with my post.

Are YOU more important than the entire Nation?

This is a question to me and obviously does not relate to warrents or wiretaps.

Not to me you aren't, so get off your high-horse and apply some common sense.

In this last sentence, you start insulting me. Unfortunately, my position on my "high horse" has little to do with whether domestic spying requires warrents.

As we can now see, your post has nothing to do with mine.

By the way, good work on personally attacking me in the last to posts addressed to me, it really helps validate your position.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Conley, you try so hard, but are still unconvincing. NONE of our rights are designed to protect overseas terrorists. The confounding fact that half of the conversation may be domestic is not something we should pretzelize ourselves over. Why are you libs so against winning the war on terror? We know you don't REALLY care about rights. Or are you so mentally vacant that you just go against Bush regardless of any deeper sense or reasoning?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Conley, you try so hard, but are still unconvincing. NONE of our rights are designed to protect overseas terrorists. The confounding fact that half of the conversation may be domestic is not something we should pretzelize ourselves over. Why are you libs so against winning the war on terror? We know you don't REALLY care about rights. Or are you so mentally vacant that you just go against Bush regardless of any deeper sense or reasoning?

The Bush Adminstrations' "war on terror" has less to do with terrorism than it does with maintaining, and expanding, the powers of the presidency. 'Winning' the 'war on terror' would mean the end of the Republican strangle-hold on power in Washington, so the Bush Administration has little interest in or motivation to actually win such a war.

<blockquote>"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials </blockquote>

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The Bush Adminstrations' "war on terror" has less to do with terrorism than it does with maintaining, and expanding, the powers of the presidency. 'Winning' the 'war on terror' would mean the end of the Republican strangle-hold on power in Washington, so the Bush Administration has little interest in or motivation to actually win such a war.

<blockquote>"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials </blockquote>

So you believe Bush is greater threat that islamofascist terrorism. Keep on talking. The voters are listening. I'll buy you a bullhorn, and remember to remind people you're a democrat after you spout your "wisdom".

 

[dilloduck]

The Bush Adminstrations' "war on terror" has less to do with terrorism than it does with maintaining, and expanding, the powers of the presidency. 'Winning' the 'war on terror' would mean the end of the Republican strangle-hold on power in Washington, so the Bush Administration has little interest in or motivation to actually win such a war.

<blockquote>"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials </blockquote>

Bull--"winning" the war on terror would secure the republican hold of Washington for years.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you believe Bush is greater threat that islamofascist terrorism. Keep on talking. The voters are listening. I'll buy you a bullhorn, and remember to remind people you're a democrat after you spout your "wisdom".

Yes, given that administration policies only fan the flames of "islamofascist" terrorism. And, I'm not a democrat.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, given that administration policies only fan the flames of "islamofascist" terrorism. And, I'm not a democrat.

If a cartoon inflames the masses of Muslims, I guess they are pretty easy to piss off then, huh? you want appeasement, Bully? If it walks and talks like a democrat, it's a democrat.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, given that administration policies only fan the flames of "islamofascist" terrorism. And, I'm not a democrat.

But you just implied that the war is just an invention to justify taking away rights of the people. Which is it? Do you see how you contradict and thus nullify your own self? WOuldn't you like to be a real little boy? Cut the strings.

 

[G Edward Cook]

Remember why Nixon was forced out? He didn't have a warrant to search the DNC at Watergate! It is NOT ok.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither"

 

[Annie]

Remember why Nixon was forced out? He didn't have a warrant to search the DNC at Watergate! It is NOT ok.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Remember why Nixon was forced out? He didn't have a warrant to search the DNC at Watergate! It is NOT ok.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither"

Those that act stupid die. These phone calls to and from terrorists are exempt. Don't be a dumbass.

 

[trobinett]

Those that act stupid die. These phone calls to and from terrorists are exempt. Don't be a dumbass.

THANK YOU.

 

[Emmett]

If a warrant can be obtained later, then what difference does it make?


Answer this question YES or NO !!!!

Do we want people here in America talking to members of Terrorist organizations outside our country?




Now I realize that only the No answerers will be able to do that with one word. I can't wait to see the rhetoric attached to the Yes answers.

Indulge me please!

 

[dilloduck]

If a warrant can be obtained later, then what difference does it make?


Answer this question YES or NO !!!!

Do we want people here in America talking to members of Terrorist organizations outside our country?




Now I realize that only the No answerers will be able to do that with one word. I can't wait to see the rhetoric attached to the Yes answers.

Indulge me please!

DUDE--you need to make it a yes or no question LOL

 

[dilloduck]

DUDE--you need to make it a yes or no question LOL

good fix---no we dont want spies

 

[Bullypulpit]

But you just implied that the war is just an invention to justify taking away rights of the people. Which is it? Do you see how you contradict and thus nullify your own self? WOuldn't you like to be a real little boy? Cut the strings.

Silly boy! The subtleties simply escape you. Let me spell it out for you. Stupid, misguided policies create more terrorists...More terrorists justify a perpetual 'war on terror'...Perpetual 'war on terror' is used to justify and increasingly imperious presidency...An imperial president is a law unto himself, and is answerable to no one. All rights are gift of the leader, not the inalienable rights as laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

SO, you just put on your rose-colored glasses, take your meds and lay your head back to think happy thoughts. Don't worry about the facts, you'll only get confused.