Gonzales PR trip to stem NSA criticism backfires

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

Traitor

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

Traitor

Sorry, I can't serve two masters.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

FISA court = too slow and may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands. Any further questions? The probable cause thing too. Not to mention the endless leaks of classified information from our legislative bodies. Perhaps they wanted to act swiftly, with purpose and without warning the target. No effective attacks since 2001 screams "Well Done!"

 

[bctbct]

Even Saddam didnt listen in on his citizens.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

FISA court = too slow and may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands. Any further questions? The probable cause thing too. Not to mention the endless leaks of classified information from our legislative bodies. Perhaps they wanted to act swiftly, with purpose and without warning the target. No effective attacks since 2001 screams "Well Done!"

You are welcome to shove a leash up your a$$ but don't force others to do it too. K thx bye.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Condor
may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands.

Given FISA's record the chance that they will reject the monitoring of this call is ~.0002%

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

FISA court = too slow and may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands. Any further questions? The probable cause thing too. Not to mention the endless leaks of classified information from our legislative bodies. Perhaps they wanted to act swiftly, with purpose and without warning the target. No effective attacks since 2001 screams "Well Done!"

After the fact is too slow?

How much easier do you want them to make it?

All they need is the slightest bit of evidence, and they don't even need it until after they start listening! It's not about secrecy either - the court itself is secret, and provides only the barest minimum of protection to citizens, no notification, no day in court, it's a rubber stamp and the Bush administration is so arrogant they simply choose not to do it.

I think this is more about setting the precedent that Bush really is above the law than about avoiding warrants. This has been a thorn in the side of authoritarians ever since the Magna Carta, and I guess Bush and co. decided to do something about it.

This isn't about spying on known terrorists - if it were, it wouldn't be an issue, because a warrant would be easily obtainable.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Even Saddam didnt listen in on his citizens.

You are joking, right? He had spies in the streets, bars, etc.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

FISA court = too slow and may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands. Any further questions? The probable cause thing too. Not to mention the endless leaks of classified information from our legislative bodies. Perhaps they wanted to act swiftly, with purpose and without warning the target. No effective attacks since 2001 screams "Well Done!"

You are welcome to shove a leash up your a$$ but don't force others to do it too. K thx bye.

Yeah, walk away from the ring.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Condor
may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands.

Given FISA's record the chance that they will reject the monitoring of this call is ~.0002%

Brings the question then: Why bother with the red tape. I'm sure that was asked at the time in the White House. Foregone conclusion requires no action.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Condor
may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands.

Given FISA's record the chance that they will reject the monitoring of this call is ~.0002%

Brings the question then: Why bother with the red tape. I'm sure that was asked at the time in the White House. Foregone conclusion requires no action.

Remind me to use that argument next time I don't feel like putting change in the parking meter 'well, if I had, I wouldn't have got a ticket, it's not like they would have turned me down'.

Way to not respond to any actual arguments, btw.

The reason for the red tape is to make sure there is some minimal justification for a wiretap, and to provide a record, retroactively, if it's ever desperately needed.

How can you be so eager to throw away your own freedoms? There are other less free places you could live, but I don't see you idealizing those places, why turn the US into a police state?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

FISA court = too slow and may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands. Any further questions? The probable cause thing too. Not to mention the endless leaks of classified information from our legislative bodies. Perhaps they wanted to act swiftly, with purpose and without warning the target. No effective attacks since 2001 screams "Well Done!"

After the fact is too slow?

How much easier do you want them to make it?

All they need is the slightest bit of evidence, and they don't even need it until after they start listening! It's not about secrecy either - the court itself is secret, and provides only the barest minimum of protection to citizens, no notification, no day in court, it's a rubber stamp and the Bush administration is so arrogant they simply choose not to do it.

I think this is more about setting the precedent that Bush really is above the law than about avoiding warrants. This has been a thorn in the side of authoritarians ever since the Magna Carta, and I guess Bush and co. decided to do something about it.

This isn't about spying on known terrorists - if it were, it wouldn't be an issue, because a warrant would be easily obtainable.

Too many people are paranoid about the government spying on them. Cameras in cities are OK, but listening on the phone is verboten. It has been ongoing for years and no amount of legal posturing will stop it. Governments just do that. Always have. They get way more information than they can process. This isn't indignation because of loss of libeterties. This is just another loser party attack on the President. No one really sees it as anything else. Think about it. The same liberals that want to delete the right to bare arms are up in arms because of what are probably legal intelligence ops. The irony!

I have been warning people for years that they should never speak or type anything they don't want responsibility for. I started doing that during the Clinton administration and have continued to do so. Anybody that speaks or types anything harmful to themselves is just being foolish. I was investigated in 2000 because of some 1000 postings on the internet. The feds spent some 30K on the investigation and it was all for nothing. I wasn't stupid enough to have posted anything that wasn't already public domain. The feds investigating me at that time was overtly against my civil rights. They had a legal work around - of course they did - it is what they do. I got a bunch of BS and they got nothing except numbers on a chart to prove they were "protecting the nation"! If you guys want to flutter about on this thing - fine! It accomplishes nothing.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Condor
Too many people are paranoid about the government spying on them. Cameras in cities are OK, but listening on the phone is verboten. It has been ongoing for years and no amount of legal posturing will stop it. Governments just do that. Always have. They get way more information than they can process. This isn't indignation because of loss of libeterties. This is just another loser party attack on the President. No one really sees it as anything else. Think about it. The same liberals that want to delete the right to bare arms are up in arms because of what are probably legal intelligence ops. The irony!

I have been warning people for years that they should never speak or type anything they don't want responsibility for. I started doing that during the Clinton administration and have continued to do so. Anybody that speaks or types anything harmful to themselves is just being foolish. I was investigated in 2000 because of some 1000 postings on the internet. The feds spent some 30K on the investigation and it was all for nothing. I wasn't stupid enough to have posted anything that wasn't already public domain. The feds investigating me at that time was overtly against my civil rights. They had a legal work around - of course they did - it is what they do. I got a bunch of BS and they got nothing except numbers on a chart to prove they were "protecting the nation"! If you guys want to flutter about on this thing - fine! It accomplishes nothing.

You aren't entitled to free, anonymous speech, unless that speech is in a private forum (not to be confused with a 'forum' like this one).

If the agency that investigated you followed the rules, and had a warrant for whatever they were doing, then it doesn't fall under unreasonable search or seizure. ANyone making a few web postings could make themselves a target of investigation; I tend to think the FISA rules are too lenient, but at least if they were followed you couldn't accuse King George of acting like a monarch.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Condor
This is just another loser party attack on the President. No one really sees it as anything else.

The CRS doesn't seem to think so.

link

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: bctbct
Even Saddam didnt listen in on his citizens.

You are joking, right? He had spies in the streets, bars, etc.

Yeah we have those too. Reportely they are now investigating peanut butter and jelly sandwich givers.

So many have fallen for our freedoms, and 1 man has decided he no longer has to subscribe to the law.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Condor
I was investigated in 2000 because of some 1000 postings on the internet. The feds spent some 30K on the investigation and it was all for nothing.

No doubt they did, you already stated you want to see american cities bombed in this thread, sheesh sounds like you need to be investigated AGAIN. What a nutjob!

Do yourself a favor and seek help, normal people do not wish flaming death upon fellow countrymen.

Nothing more dangerous then a coward with no way to vent.

Like a cornered rat who will bite anyone.

When it comes down to it, your comments are nothing less then traitorious, and sociopathic is a given seeing your posting history, AT should ban you for benig a security risk.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: screech

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: JS80
So what liberty are you sacrificing for allowing the government to listen to terrorist phone calls without a warrant?

Two fold.

1. Do you let the president pick and choose which laws to obey? Ever heard of the Constitution or 4th Amendment?

2. Do you trust the NSA when they say "limited" and yet the whole thing is secret? Who really knows how many calls they are throwing into a database, there is no oversight. If a known terrorist is calling, why not get the warrant?

1. Yes. Yes.
2. Yes.

It seems like you guys are doing shady things if you're so afraid of the government listening in on your phone conversations. I don't give a rat's ass if they listen to my phone conversations; in fact they'd probably laugh their asses off if they did.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't see anything about tapping phone calls. Oh OK it's the 20th century blah blah. OK it says "unreasonable"; listening in on terrorist phone calls is pretty damn reasonable to me. They wrote this into the Constitution so military personnel don't come into your house and eat your food and house there like the British soldiers so famously did.

Catch-22 with your liberals. OK let's say the government went through the courts blah blah and went through the bureacratic red tape and then there's another terrorist attack. And after the investigation they find out that the information was available but because of the bureacracy they didn't catch it in time. They'llcrucify Bush no matter what he does.

Good lord, what a mess. I rarely post here, but I make exceptions in certain cases....

People like privacy. Do you ever close the door when you go to the bathroom? if so, why? Nothing to hide right?

I'd much prefer that the 4th amendment be followed, ie, get a warrant if you want to listen to me sh1tting my guts out, or talking on the phone, whatever...

As for your last paragraph, I strongly suggest you get a clue about what you are tlaking about before posting. Through FISA the govt can actually get the warrant after tapping the phone line, as long as they do so within 72 hours ( I think). the "OMG TEH COURTS ARE GOING TO ALLOW TERRISTS TO ATTACK!!1111" defense has been refuted about 20 times already....

Gawd I hope a Democrat becomes president and San Francisco gets nuked bc the pvssy was soft on terrorism.

Congratulations you used the magic words. You are now going to be monitored as a terrorist supporter!

 

[shira]

Bush's "terrorist surveillance program" terminology would be hilarious if it weren't so scary.

Think about it: Bush (and by implication, Gonzalez) is saying that the only ones targeted in this warrantless surveillance program are terrorists. And the NSA knows who the terrorists are ahead of time because . . . ?

Because the NSA can read minds?

Because the "terrorists" register with the NSA before they start making phone calls?

Because terrorists wear a bright red "T" on their foreheads?

According to the Administration itself, there are approximately 500 of these warrantless surveillances ongoing at any one time. How many of the subjects of these surveillances do you think are actually terrorists?

Remember, the REAL reason the Administration put this program in place can ONLY be because they knew their applications for warrants for these particular surveillances would NOT have passed muster with the FISA court. The "FISA retards agility" argument is pure BS: the existence of the FISA three-day retroactive provision completely explodes that claim.

If (approximately) 17,9995/18,000 FISA-warrant applications were okayed over the past 26 years under the current FISA standard ("intelligence gathering" must be "a primary purpose" of the surveillance), the Administration must think the case to get approval from FISA to surveil this new class of targets is awfully weak.

But our right-wing friends here keep up the good argument that all these warrantless-surveillance targets are terrorists.

If the NSA is so good at pre-identifying terrorists, but they know their evidence is so weak they wouldn't be able to convince even the pushover FISA court to issue a warrant, then why bother with ANY warrants at all? Let's allow the NSA mindreaders to figure out who the murders, rapists, embezzlers, child-pornographers, and all the other bad people in our society are. Then we'll just perform those "extraordinary renditions" on all of them. Why bother with trials, rules of evidence, and domestic prisons? I mean, we "good" people have nothing to fear, since the NSA somehow can tell the "good" among us from the "bad", even though they can't provide even the lamest proof.

I'm not afraid.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shira
Bush's "terrorist surveillance program" terminology would be hilarious if it weren't so scary.

Think about it: Bush (and by implication, Gonzalez) is saying that the only ones targeted in this warrantless surveillance program are terrorists. And the NSA knows who the terrorists are ahead of time because . . . ?

Because the NSA can read minds?

Because the "terrorists" register with the NSA before they start making phone calls?

Because terrorists wear a bright red "T" on their foreheads?

According to the Administration itself, there are approximately 500 of these warrantless surveillances ongoing at any one time. How many of the subjects of these surveillances do you think are actually terrorists?

Remember, the REAL reason the Administration put this program in place can ONLY be because they knew their applications for warrants for these particular surveillances would NOT have passed muster with the FISA court. The "FISA retards agility" argument is pure BS: the existence of the FISA three-day retroactive provision completely explodes that claim.

If (approximately) 17,9995/18,000 FISA-warrant applications were okayed over the past 26 years under the current FISA standard ("intelligence gathering" must be "a primary purpose" of the surveillance), the Administration must think the case to get approval from FISA to surveil this new class of targets is awfully weak.

But our right-wing friends here keep up the good argument that all these warrantless-surveillance targets are terrorists.

If the NSA is so good at pre-identifying terrorists, but they know their evidence is so weak they wouln't be able to convince even the pushover FISA court to issue a warrant, then why bother with ANY warrants at all? Let's allow the NSA mindreaders to figure out who the murders, rapists, embezzlers, child-pornographers, and all the other bad people in our society are. Then we'll just perform those "extraordinary renditions" on all of them. Why bother with trials, rules of evidence, and domestic prisons? I mean, we "good" people have nothing to fear, since the NSA somehow can tell the "good" among us from the "bad", even though they can't provide even the lamest proof.

I'm not afraid.

That's a very good point. I forget who pointed this out, but some article I was reading suggested the justification for this program relies on the existence of a strange kind of domestic terrorist or domestic terrorist ally.

This terrorists is someone who is so guilty that it is so necessary to wiretap them that bending the rules is necessary, but somehow they are also so innocent that getting authorization from the courts is impossible. As you pointed out, this begs the question, if we are so positive that they are linked to terrorism, why can't we just put that in front of the court and get a warrent? It's tough to imagine a situation where we would know we need to wiretap somebody, but somehow that knowledge isn't in a form that cast pass muster with even the FISA court.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I think we should sacrifice security for liberty after all. My mind was changed when I remember that the terrorists are likely to attack blue cities, not red! Libs, I am on your side in this one!

My my, thats 2 little osamas wishing bombs on americans, just whos side are you on anyway? I thought you guys pimp the flag out like you were americans?

Bombing iraqis and afganis not enough? need more american cities blown up for your bloodlust?

Do yourself a favor and just join aq now geez. Your not only a bunch of cowards ready to surrender you are ready to help with this talk. :roll:

I don't care who listens on my phone. Most every place I have lived in the last 20 years had intelligence officers who did that every day. What are you trying to hide?

I have nothing to hide, but the government has no right to spy on me without probable cause. That's why we have search warrants. Are you against those too?

The administration claims that these are only used to spy on people with AQ ties, but why don't they use the FISA court? That's exactly what the court exists for. As I've said many times, the FISA court is as close to a rubber stamp as you can get, and no excuse that the administration has used explains to me why that court wasn't satisfactory.

FISA court = too slow and may not approve the monitoring of the very call that saves thousands. Any further questions? The probable cause thing too. Not to mention the endless leaks of classified information from our legislative bodies. Perhaps they wanted to act swiftly, with purpose and without warning the target. No effective attacks since 2001 screams "Well Done!"

After the fact is too slow?

How much easier do you want them to make it?

All they need is the slightest bit of evidence, and they don't even need it until after they start listening! It's not about secrecy either - the court itself is secret, and provides only the barest minimum of protection to citizens, no notification, no day in court, it's a rubber stamp and the Bush administration is so arrogant they simply choose not to do it.

I think this is more about setting the precedent that Bush really is above the law than about avoiding warrants. This has been a thorn in the side of authoritarians ever since the Magna Carta, and I guess Bush and co. decided to do something about it.

This isn't about spying on known terrorists - if it were, it wouldn't be an issue, because a warrant would be easily obtainable.

Too many people are paranoid about the government spying on them. Cameras in cities are OK, but listening on the phone is verboten. It has been ongoing for years and no amount of legal posturing will stop it. Governments just do that. Always have. They get way more information than they can process. This isn't indignation because of loss of libeterties. This is just another loser party attack on the President. No one really sees it as anything else. Think about it. The same liberals that want to delete the right to bare arms are up in arms because of what are probably legal intelligence ops. The irony!

I have been warning people for years that they should never speak or type anything they don't want responsibility for. I started doing that during the Clinton administration and have continued to do so. Anybody that speaks or types anything harmful to themselves is just being foolish. I was investigated in 2000 because of some 1000 postings on the internet. The feds spent some 30K on the investigation and it was all for nothing. I wasn't stupid enough to have posted anything that wasn't already public domain. The feds investigating me at that time was overtly against my civil rights. They had a legal work around - of course they did - it is what they do. I got a bunch of BS and they got nothing except numbers on a chart to prove they were "protecting the nation"! If you guys want to flutter about on this thing - fine! It accomplishes nothing.

They say it's best to leave idealism to the young folks, I guess in your case that is certainly true. I don't know why you feel the need to just give up and bend over for the government, but if you don't mind, I think some of us would still like to fight it. It may, as you suggest, accomplish nothing...but you know what they say about going down fighting...

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Condor
This is just another loser party attack on the President. No one really sees it as anything else.

The CRS doesn't seem to think so.

link

So the lawyers will make a couple of million fighting it out and nothing will come to nothing. Think about it. A bad government will do what it wants regardless of the laws structured to prevent it. A good government will just be shackled by the same laws and unable to protect the citizenry. Governments don't work on laws. They make laws. They work on power. Law is not law until interpreted and if it doesn't serve what the powers want, it gets overturned or sunk in a sea of meaningless words. Right now what you are really observing is one power against the other. The one power keeps trying to unseat and weaken the other - and failing. One day, the other power (we can call that one evil, OK?) may find a real beloved patriot in the armor of the other power (we can call that one good, OK?) that is in power, then chaos will rule. This is as small an issue as Clintons BJ's and is being used in exactly the same way. This one is weaker because there appears to be no concensus on the law and if there was, what is the punishment? Bush is out of office in 2008. The Republicans have no one to put on the ticket as of yet and the Dims only have undesirables to choose from. The people in the pickle are us, the citizens.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Condor
I was investigated in 2000 because of some 1000 postings on the internet. The feds spent some 30K on the investigation and it was all for nothing.

No doubt they did, you already stated you want to see american cities bombed in this thread, sheesh sounds like you need to be investigated AGAIN. What a nutjob!

Do yourself a favor and seek help, normal people do not wish flaming death upon fellow countrymen.

Nothing more dangerous then a coward with no way to vent.

Like a cornered rat who will bite anyone.

When it comes down to it, your comments are nothing less then traitorious, and sociopathic is a given seeing your posting history, AT should ban you for benig a security risk.

You are off the meds, aren't you?