America... Spying on Americans

the weary little garrison goes out and find the remains of the saint. The body hangs upside down over a slow fire, and has been mutilated by a thousand cuts. The eyes have been poked out.

I was referring to Clinton's felonious perjury. So far as I know, none of the Conservatives who post here have ever suggested that the President is above the law. Quite the contrary, most of the Conservatives expect tht the laws will be followed.

This President is no more, nor less likely to engage in improper activities than past Presidents. In times of crisis, most Americans have always given the Executive great latitude, and that faith yet to be betrayed.

There is no credible evidence that this President and administration is consciously acting to subvert the Constitution.

The enemy we are currently fighting is different from those of the past.

Radical Islamic terrorist organizations are never openly the agents for any legitimate government, they have no standing in international law

They take pride in violating every treaty and agreement meant to prevent the worst sort of behavior during times of war

They are not uniformed, and incite childern to murder others by blowing themselves up. They prey on the weak. They may hate the USMC, but they almost certainly respect them more than Americans who are willing to support them at the expense of their own govenment.

It is the United States that was the target of a brutal aggression that murdered innocents, not the other way around.

When attacked what response should be taken?

Should we beg the forgiveness of the Terrorists for not holding the same religious views as they do? Should we abandon Israel to its enemies who would like nothing more than to finish the job Hitler started?

Would getting down onto our knees bring peace?

These fanatics have to be fought wherever they appear, there is no compromising with them. They would have us believe that they represent the aspirations of most, if not all of the Islamic world.

People, regardless of their religious beliefs want to be secure in their lives. Most people want their children to have better lives than their parents did. Education and justice are as dear to most Muslims as it is for most Jews, or most Christians ...... and certainly for most Buddhists. No one wants to hear a knock in the night before disappearing forever ... especially not if their crime is to hold a slightly different interpretation of their religion than that dictated by some self-appointed Terrorists. Like most cowards and bullies, they aren't nearly as tough as they pretend. They can and will be defeated, if the cry-babies and doom-sayers in our midst can hold their fears in check will our soldiers and intelligence folks do their jobs.

Why is it so hard for some to have just a pinch more trust in our government than in the propaganda of those who would like nothing better tnan to kill more innocent people?

Our system of government and our values are deeply rooted, and are capable of withstanding far greater tests than those small constraints adopted by Congress to protect us all from a bunch of loosely organized bands of murderers.

Until the radical Islamic movement is clearly defeated we must keep our defenses strong.

What will constitute the defeat of the butchers? Kill their leadership at every opportunity. Disrupt their chain-of-command and communications without cease. Frustrate and foil their operations as much as possible. Keep them on the run, and in fear of their miserable lives. Deprive them of sanctuary and the logistical supplies needed to continue attacks against innocent populations. Hunt them down wherever they go to ground. Deprive them of a "level battlefield", and the choice of when and where to fight. Eventually, the most fanatical will all be dead (and good riddence), and those less willing to be martyrs willl adopt less violent ways of imposing their beliefs on others.

Those countries where terrorists now concentrate their primary efforts, will tire of being victimized by thugs and will develop the strength to control them. Once these countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, are able to stand on their own American forces will be withdrawn.

The United States is not seeking a world empire, but wants a stable world where individuals and commerce can thrive. Whats wrong with that?

There is a famous scene, a cliche, in "B" movie scripts. The good guys are surrounded and under attack by an "enemy". Amongst the good guys is one who for one reason, or another, argues that the fight need not be to the death. "If only we sit down and discuss this disagreement like reasonable people, I'm sure we can come to an agreement. We haven't a chance of surviving against such great odds, let us at least talk about honorable terms with them." The tough old Sergeant tries to talk sense the fool without success. During a lull in the battle, our saintly peacemaker sneaks out into no-man's land carrying a white flag. He holds up his hands showing that he is unarmed, and comes in peace. Then the script cuts to a dark night scene, with distant drums beating and the sounds of the enemy singing of victory and celebrating. Suddenly the drums stop. Out of the sudden silence the audience hears hideous screaming that seems to go on forever. Then it is quiet again. As morning dawns, we hear the sound of a distant trumpet signalling the arrival of the U.S. Cavalry (Buffalo Soldiers at their finest). Save at the last moment, the weary little garrison goes out and find the remains of the saint. The body hangs upside down over a slow fire, and has been mutilated by a thousand cuts. The eyes have been poked out.

Life is not like a movie, it is much more serious and complex. But, cliche's often have some grain of truth to them.

Of course there's a limit to what is acceptable. I take issue with your characterization that this must be an all or nothing proposition. Utilize a balancing test ... when the infringement (whether slight or otherwise) upon your rights outweighs the value of the particular activity in question, it's not acceptable.

You are asking a hypothetical I'm not prepared to give an answer to. In this specific case, I'm confident there were sufficient safeguards on this secret eavesdropping program to limit its application to cases where there was probable cause to monitor the conversations. I do not find this slight infringement -- which in practice, as has already been discussed, is generally little more than the circumventing of the rubber stamp treatment by the reviewing magistrate -- to be that invasive, when the Congressional leaders were made aware of the program, and the FISA court was notified of the monitoring after the fact. I support the use of this program as an important tool in the fight against terrorism, when its application is justified due to the emergency nature of the need to monitor a particular electronic transmission.

We haven't a chance of surviving against such great odds, let us at least talk about honorable terms with them."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Note that many of the people spied on in the article apparently had no verifiable ties to terrorism, but merely politically opposed Bush. And you think that is okay?

Cycloptichorn

No I would not think that is okay. Please point out what you are talking about.

Since October, news accounts have disclosed a burgeoning Pentagon campaign for "detecting, identifying and engaging" internal enemies that included a database with information on peace protesters. A debate has roiled over the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans. And now come revelations of the National Security Agency's interception of telephone calls and e-mails from the United States -- without notice to the federal court that has held jurisdiction over domestic spying since 1978.

The official said the database included police reports and law enforcement tips in a legitimate domestic security effort, but that it had mistakenly swept up and kept information on people who were not threats to launch terror attacks.

"We held onto things that should have been expunged because they weren't a threat," the official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone planned to send a letter to Congress explaining the error and promising to clean up the database and protect the privacy of innocent persons, the official added.

Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

The Post reported that the FBI has issued tens of thousands of national security letters, extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. Most of the U.S. residents and citizens whose records were screened, the FBI acknowledged, were not suspected of wrongdoing.

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

As a wise man recently said: "We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them."

Which wiseman said that? Wouldn't happen to be one of the many wise men that have pointed out our invasion of Iraq has created terrrorists

George W. Bush uttered those words at around 8:09 p.m. CST, this evening.

Ticomaya wrote:

You are asking a hypothetical I'm not prepared to give an answer to. In this specific case, I'm confident there were sufficient safeguards on this secret eavesdropping program to limit its application to cases where there was probable cause to monitor the conversations. I do not find this slight infringement -- which in practice, as has already been discussed, is generally little more than the circumventing of the rubber stamp treatment by the reviewing magistrate -- to be that invasive, when the Congressional leaders were made aware of the program, and the FISA court was notified of the monitoring after the fact. I support the use of this program as an important tool in the fight against terrorism, when its application is justified due to the emergency nature of the need to monitor a particular electronic transmission.

First, forget any of this happened and jump forward to 2010. Hillary is President and she makes the same argument and does the same thing. Can you honestly say you would be okay with it then? What if it was 1990's, and Bill had done the same thing?

Second, you are giving the benefit of the doubt as to this being used for emergencies only. Where did you get that trust? There is nothing to indicate it is for emergencies only.

When attacked what response should be taken? Should we beg the forgiveness of the Terrorists for not holding the same religious views as they do? Should we abandon Israel to its enemies who would like nothing more than to finish the job Hitler started? Would getting down onto our knees bring peace?

These fanatics have to be fought wherever they appear, there is no compromising with them.

They would have us believe that they represent the aspirations of most, if not all of the Islamic world. Nonsense. People, regardless of their religious beliefs want to be secure in their lives. Most people want their children to have better lives than their parents did. Education and justice are as dear to most Muslims as it is for most Jews, or most Christians ...... and certainly for most Buddhists. No one wants to hear a knock in the night before disappearing forever ... especially not if their crime is to hold a slightly different interpretation of their religion than that dictated by some self-appointed Terrorists.

Like most cowards and bullies, they aren't nearly as tough as they pretend. They can and will be defeated, if the cry-babies and doom-sayers in our midst can hold their fears in check will our soldiers and intelligence folks do their jobs.

Why is it so hard for some to have just a pinch more trust in our government than in the propaganda of those who would like nothing better tnan to kill more innocent people?

Our system of government and our values are deeply rooted, and are capable of withstanding far greater tests than those small constraints adopted by Congress to protect us all from a bunch of loosely organized bands of murderers.

Until the radical Islamic movement is clearly defeated we must keep our defenses strong. What will constitute the defeat of the butchers? Kill their leadership at every opportunity. Disrupt their chain-of-command and communications without cease. Frustrate and foil their operations as much as possible. Keep them on the run, and in fear of their miserable lives. Deprive them of sanctuary and the logistical supplies needed to continue attacks against innocent populations. Hunt them down wherever they go to ground. Deprive them of anything close to a "level battlefield", and the choice of when and where to fight. Bring our almost unlimited assets to bear and keep the pressure on ... constantly. Eventually, the most fanatical will all be dead (and good riddence), and those less willing to be martyrs willl adopt less violent ways of imposing their beliefs on others. Those countries where terrorists now concentrate their primary efforts, will tire of being victimized by thugs and will develop the strength to control them. Once these countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, are able to stand on their own American forces will be withdrawn. The United States is not seeking a world empire, but wants a stable world where individuals and commerce can thrive. Whats wrong with that?

You are asking a hypothetical I'm not prepared to give an answer to. In this specific case, I'm confident there were sufficient safeguards on this secret eavesdropping program to limit its application to cases where there was probable cause to monitor the conversations.

I do not find this slight infringement -- which in practice, as has already been discussed, is generally little more than the circumventing of the rubber stamp treatment by the reviewing magistrate

-- to be that invasive, when the Congressional leaders were made aware of the program, and the FISA court was notified of the monitoring after the fact. I support the use of this program as an important tool in the fight against terrorism, when its application is justified due to the emergency nature of the need to monitor a particular electronic transmission.

Once again, THANK YOU NY TIMES for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. We can alway count on the NY TIMES to do the enemy's work.

2. Now, potential communications can not be intercepted and we could be at greater risk.

1. If they were so concerned about TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY, then they should have publish the article immediately.

2. Now, potential communications can not be intercepted and we could be at greater risk.

woiyo wrote:

Once again, THANK YOU NY TIMES for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. We can alway count on the NY TIMES to do the enemy's work.

Since we're at it: Thank you, New York Times, for providing useful information to the public. We can always count on the New York Times to reveal crimes by government instead of shilling for the criminals in office.