"We're still a nation of laws, even in war." "That's the reason we're fighting the war - because of the laws that we believe in." "Just because you're at war, it doesn't justify doing away with the process that keeps you free." That's the Republican Senator from South Carolina, moments ago. agin 1415, I'm sure you'll be willing to fill the Senator in. You know better than he does, right? It's clear that those who are willing to toss freedom in the garbage can aren't able to internalize these ideas. To put it simply, they just don't get it. But don't worry, you guys. People like us will make sure that your freedoms are protected. End of story.
Listen if you cannot have a discussion without making charges that I am somehow a totalitarian, for disagreeing with your views leave and go to another thread. The President has Executive Powers, he used them legally, and he consulted Congress, and the Democrats have egg on their face admitting it today. I am not sure you understand what the NSA is doing. They monitor international calls to various zones that are of strategic importance. They scan for key words, and they have been doing it since 9-11, and before, and Congress has been informed and briefed. What you appear to suggest they do, is sit back turn off the scan and let the terrorists operate. Well that's not going to happen. So how are you threatened by that? You're not. You are the one with your head in the Sand, and you probably think there will never be another attack on the US. The President does not have that Luxury to think that way. Congress was briefed months ago, the New York Times, has sat on their story for a year, which comes from a leak, of Secret Information. The information on the story is promoting a book that is being published by the NYT. As far as I am concerned the Liberal Media along with the Democratic Leadership just made a huge error, and hopefully it will cost them more seats in 2006.
How is it all relevant to the fact that the law "§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited" was broken? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html Just because you keep repeating that it was legal does not make it legal, if you're aware of a law allowing the government to spy on americans without a warrant please let us know about it. Whether Bush consulted Congress and whether the democrats have egg on their face has nothing to do with legal status of his actions.
Unfortunately you are assuming that he targeted individuals without a warrant. That's not the case. They are scanning for key words on international calls, which, if they found an individual, they would have a wire tap approved immediately by a Judge. The NSA has been doing this for YEARS under every administration. Its simply not illegal. Its a matter of national security.
That's not an assumption, that's what the NYT article is stating. Assuming the article is correct (and no one has disputed it yet) they are indeed spying on individuals without a warrant: "While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials." ... "Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/p...34750-BLPKlicB2xe3z9GqWvgOuQ&pagewanted=print
New York Times - Sorry I don't believe the NY Times has stated a case for illegal intercepts. The New York Times - Is not even Mainstream anymore, its MOONBAT VIEWs. You are using the New York Times for gospel, you might as well use the Guardian. Or Al Jezera. That's as much time as I'm going to waste tonight.
It's really true. I think as the Times stock price faded, management made a conscious decision to become the prominant voice of the pathetic, illogical left. They figured that way at least they have one demographic. Rebels without a cause. I bet they just love that homo cowboy movie that's out.
The last time I was in a movie theatre was 1996. I'm trying real hard to keep that streak going. It would take perhaps Albert Brooks to get me out.