Guess Who Wants The NSA Spying To Continue

[Annie]

We'd do the same, just different...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174.html?nav=rss_world

Spying Necessary, Democrats Say
But Harman, Daschle Question President's Legal Reach

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 13, 2006; A03

Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program.

At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it."

Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but "if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information."

Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program..."

 

[Mariner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/politics/11wilson.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

February 11, 2006
Republican Speaks Up, Leading Others to Challenge Wiretaps

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — When Representative Heather A. Wilson broke ranks with President Bush on Tuesday to declare her "serious concerns" about domestic eavesdropping, she gave voice to what some fellow Republicans were thinking, if not saying...

That was the point.

 

[trobinett]

Politicians never cease to amaze me.

This whole "wire tapping" issue is a train wreck, that`s still traveling down the track picking up passengers.

The fact that a couple of Republicans are taking issue with what the President has done, just proves HOW amazingly STUPID politicians can be.

The President HAS the authority to order wire tapping for National Security, period. ALL, that continue to undermine this Administrations efforts to protect these United States, need to get their ticket punched.

There`s still some seats available on this "train wreck", all aboard.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

They also are saying nothing about other administrations and the things they authorized.

 

[dilloduck]

They also are saying nothing about other administrations and the things they authorized.

They do hypocrisy better than anyone. The more one-sided it is the better.

 

[Gunny]

We'd do the same, just different...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201174.html?nav=rss_world

Kind of obvious that to the lefties it isn't so much what's being done as WHO is doing it.

 

[dilloduck]

Kind of obvious that to the lefties it isn't so much what's being done as WHO is doing it.

Yup---MORE crap to throw up against the wall to see what sticks until election time. Pathetic!

 

[Gunny]

Yup---MORE crap to throw up against the wall to see what sticks until election time. Pathetic!

I wonder if anyone really takes time to realize that our history since 2000 is nothing more than partisan name-calling and baseless accusations.

 

[dilloduck]

I wonder if anyone really takes time to realize that our history since 2000 is nothing more than partisan name-calling and baseless accusations.

It's amazing how much has been dug up to try to sully the entire Republican party and how much has been flung back at them. I wonder how much we could have really accomplished if our government worked together as a team.

 

[Gunny]

It's amazing how much has been dug up to try to sully the entire Republican party and how much has been flung back at them. I wonder how much we could have really accomplished if our government worked together as a team.

Been wondering the same thing since the mid-90s.

 

[Mariner]

been saying that it's likely the eavesdropping program violated the FISA law. It'll probably be ruled illegal.

USMB seems devoid of libertarian Republicans, who would be as scared of Big Brother as Al Qaeda. What happened to getting gov't out of our lives? To small gov't that does as little as possible?

We know from last weeks hearings that the wiretappings have so far accomplished: ZIP. Gonzalez looked like a worm on a hook when he was asked directly whether any arrests had resulted from them.

People here also don't seem to remember J. Edgar Hoover, who bent surveillance that was originally intended as an anti-Prohibition tool into a major political weapon serving Richard Nixon. It's that bit of history that makes so many people--Democrats and Republicans alike--leery of eavesdropping without records or authorization.

I favor wire-tapping against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Get a warrant before or after. But get a warrant, so we know you weren't listening in on Howard Dean--or Paris Hilton. And don't think I'm exaggerating--the FBI spied on Kerry in the early 70s.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/glance_search.aspx?id=1896

Mariner.

 

[Annie]

been saying that it's likely the eavesdropping program violated the FISA law. It'll probably be ruled illegal.

USMB seems devoid of libertarian Republicans, who would be more scared of Big Brother than of Al Qaeda. What happened to getting gov't out of our lives? To small gov't that does as little as possible?

We know from last weeks hearings that the wiretappings have so far accomplished: ZIP. Gonzalez looked like a worm on a hook when he was asked directly whether any arrests had resulted from them.

People here also don't seem to remember J. Edgar Hoover, who bent surveillance that was originally intended as an anti-Prohibition tool into a major political weapon serving Tricky Dick Nixon. It's that bit of history that makes so many people--Democrats and Republicans alike--leery of eavesdropping without records or authorization.

I favor wire-tapping against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Get a warrant before or after. But get a warrant, so we know you weren't listening in on Howard Dean--or Paris Hilton. And don't think I'm exaggerating--the FBI spied on Kerry in the early 70s.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/glance_search.aspx?id=1896

Mariner.

Who the f would be more intimidated by a fictional 'big brother' than by a reality al Queda? f u

 

[Mariner]

There's a whole breed of Republicans not represented here at USMB--libertarians. These people voted for Bush, but are angry with his budgets, his Big Brother policies, and/or his religious rhetoric. That's why you see some grumbling in the House and Senate about the eavesdropping issue.

For example, from the Cato Institute, which calls itself "market-liberal" conservatism:

"...government officials must demonstrate courage rather than give in to their fears. Radical Islamic terrorists are not the first enemy that America has faced. British troops burned the White House in 1814, the Japanese navy launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Soviet Union deployed hundreds of nuclear missiles that targeted American cities. If policymakers are serious about defending our freedom and our way of life, they must wage this war without discarding our traditional constitutional framework of limited government."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3828

Mariner

 

[dilloduck]

There's a whole breed of Republicans not represented here at USMB--libertarians. These people voted for Bush, but are angry with his budgets, his Big Brother policies, and/or his religious rhetoric. That's why you see some grumbling in the House and Senate about the eavesdropping issue.

For example, from the Cato Institute, which calls itself "market-liberal" conservatism:

"...government officials must demonstrate courage rather than give in to their fears. Radical Islamic terrorists are not the first enemy that America has faced. British troops burned the White House in 1814, the Japanese navy launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Soviet Union deployed hundreds of nuclear missiles that targeted American cities. If policymakers are serious about defending our freedom and our way of life, they must wage this war without discarding our traditional constitutional framework of limited government."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3828

Mariner

We spied on em all and those collaborating with them in the US. I think it was quite courageous to do so. We're not spying out of fear. The spying is done to prevent another 9/11 or even worse. The NSA could care less about you calling your buddy to see if he has some extra pot lying around.

 

[GotZoom]

been saying that it's likely the eavesdropping program violated the FISA law. It'll probably be ruled illegal.

USMB seems devoid of libertarian Republicans, who would be as scared of Big Brother as Al Qaeda. What happened to getting gov't out of our lives? To small gov't that does as little as possible?

We know from last weeks hearings that the wiretappings have so far accomplished: ZIP. Gonzalez looked like a worm on a hook when he was asked directly whether any arrests had resulted from them.

People here also don't seem to remember J. Edgar Hoover, who bent surveillance that was originally intended as an anti-Prohibition tool into a major political weapon serving Richard Nixon. It's that bit of history that makes so many people--Democrats and Republicans alike--leery of eavesdropping without records or authorization.

I favor wire-tapping against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Get a warrant before or after. But get a warrant, so we know you weren't listening in on Howard Dean--or Paris Hilton. And don't think I'm exaggerating--the FBI spied on Kerry in the early 70s.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/glance_search.aspx?id=1896

Mariner.

You do know that every time you mention Al Qaeda, people at the NSA know about it.

They read your emails.

But that is ok....they are getting a good laugh out of them.

 

[Gunny]

been saying that it's likely the eavesdropping program violated the FISA law. It'll probably be ruled illegal.

USMB seems devoid of libertarian Republicans, who would be as scared of Big Brother as Al Qaeda. What happened to getting gov't out of our lives? To small gov't that does as little as possible?
We know from last weeks hearings that the wiretappings have so far accomplished: ZIP. Gonzalez looked like a worm on a hook when he was asked directly whether any arrests had resulted from them.

People here also don't seem to remember J. Edgar Hoover, who bent surveillance that was originally intended as an anti-Prohibition tool into a major political weapon serving Richard Nixon. It's that bit of history that makes so many people--Democrats and Republicans alike--leery of eavesdropping without records or authorization.

I favor wire-tapping against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Get a warrant before or after. But get a warrant, so we know you weren't listening in on Howard Dean--or Paris Hilton. And don't think I'm exaggerating--the FBI spied on Kerry in the early 70s.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/glance_search.aspx?id=1896

Mariner.

Your strawman argument lacks merit. The lack of overreaction to an imaginary enemy based on little more than partisan paranoia does not indicate a lack of any type of political mindset being represented.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And don't think I'm exaggerating--the FBI spied on Kerry in the early 70s.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/glance_search.aspx?id=1896

Mariner.

Like we have been saying, they only used it on TERRORISTS.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Kinda ironic that someone who is deaf is concerned about the NSA "LISTENING" in on his phone conversations

 

[musicman]

Your strawman argument lacks merit. The lack of overreaction to an imaginary enemy based on little more than partisan paranoia does not indicate a lack of any type of political mindset being represented.

An excellent summation; the DNC platform in microcosm.

 

[Annie]

Kinda ironic that someone who is deaf is concerned about the NSA "LISTENING" in on his phone conversations

Actually I think the 'hard of hearing' may be more cognizant of this than the 'hearing.' I doubt very much that those that can 'hear' are as careful as those of us that cannot.