The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue

The other day in the spying thread, one of the ditto-heads repeated the fox news spin that democratic legislators knew about the domestic spying program. Its getting to the point now, where I can not only smell the lies, but I can taste them too. They taste like [censored].
This morning, I listened to fox and friends like I always do and they kept repeating that the dems knew about it.

Bob Graham, the former chair of the intel committee,
[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

The re-spin on this one is that he 'misremembered the meeting'. Good one. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/07/10/graham.vp.html) Too bad nobody takes as detailed notes as he does.

It boils down to the fact that the Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld have nothing but contempt for the consitiution and will do everything in their power to weaken it. They want to consolidate all the power in the executive branch, cutting off any oversight from other branches.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
This morning, I listened to fox and friends like I always do and they kept repeating that the dems knew about it

[/ QUOTE ]

It really doesn't matter if they knew about it. The Senate doesn't give legal advise to the President.

Here is the main question that I have.

Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[BillUCF]

In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants. The only way to stop the executive branch from a specific course of action is for congress to become organized and pass a bill to stop the executive branch.

I am grateful for such a committed leader in this trying time. The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil? That is the only real issue at stake during wartime.

In a time of war I hope the executive branch wiretaps anyone they perceive to be a threat to national security. A failure to do this would be negligent.

I am not sure but I do think it was an executive decision in WWII to round up all the Japanese into camps. That was accomplished by a democratic president.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the main question that I have.

Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he did he must have been overjoyed at the fact that Kerry's campaign was so poorly run and incompetent in crafting a winning message. But then again, that was obvious to all so there was no need to spy. There's your answer.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the main question that I have.

Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he did he must have been overjoyed at the fact that Kerry's campaign was so poorly run and incompetent in crafting a winning message. But then again, that was obvious to all so there was no need to spy. There's your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask if there was a need! I'm asking if he did!

[BluffTHIS!]

Sorry, it's classified.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, it's classified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care if it does stay classified. Do you have a problem if the Senate looks into this issue?

[BluffTHIS!]

I have no problem if they do so in closed session so as not to expose our intelligence gathering capabilities. But I do have a problem if they seek to prevent what the president has authorized since it would hamper our ability to track those foreigners in American who seek to commit or aid terroristic acts, which has of course been shown to happen.

[andyfox]

That was accomplished by a Democratic president.

FYP.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem if they do so in closed session so as not to expose our intelligence gathering capabilities. But I do have a problem if they seek to prevent what the president has authorized since it would hamper our ability to track those foreigners in American who seek to commit or aid terroristic acts, which has of course been shown to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with the wire tapping.

There is a system in place where a wire tap can be placed and within 72 hours they would have to get this approved by a secret court. These aren't exact numbers but I'v heard there have been something like 12000 wire taps since 1980 and the court has turned down like 9.

Here is where my problem is. Why did the president order wiretaps then never take it in front of the secret court? Is there something to hide?

Would the court have disallow these wire taps? Were they spying on foes of the Bush admin? ect. ect.

Did Bush go to far this time?

[BluffTHIS!]

If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that this is the reason that they did this? At least nothing that I'v read or heard would lead me to believe this. This is a weak taking point.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Did G.W. spy on John Kerry and his staff during the election?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is an interesting question.


q/q

[andyfox]

It is my understanding that the approval from the special FISA court can be gotten after the fact. That is, that they can do what they want for 72 hours and get approval thereafter for what they did. And out of about 19,000 requests for approval, only five had been denied since the law was passed.

The law was passed with this in mind. Namely that the situations involving terrorism or other emergencies would require quick action that wouldn't necessarily come from regular courts.

If the Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, had felt that FISA was inhibiting fighting the war on terrorism, they could have gone to Congress with a proposal to amend the law. Who in Congress would have opposed this?

The most obvious explanation for the failure to get approval from the FISA court is that is might not have been given. For the president to say that he didn't have to go to the court because of the Constitution or the congressional authorization for the use of force against Afghanistan is quite a stretch.

[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more right wing lies and propaganda in depth on this issue, you will be fed the canard that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That pretends that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Or, just read anyfox.

[BluffTHIS!]

Excerpt below from today's WSJ op-ed page gives the president's legal authority for warrantless wiretaps.

Thank You For Wiretapping (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703)

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The other day in the spying thread, one of the ditto-heads repeated the fox news spin that democratic legislators knew about the domestic spying program.

[/ QUOTE ]

The funny part of this debacle is that some people actually believe that only Republicans are capable of this stuff. Lyndon Johnson gave J. Edgar Hoover the Distinguished Achievement Award. Do you think it was for his work organizing church bake sales??

[ QUOTE ]
In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants. The only way to stop the executive branch from a specific course of action is for congress to become organized and pass a bill to stop the executive branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I don't remember a Congressional declaration of war. And, although I'm pretty young and unlearned when it comes to many things, I'm pretty sure the executive branch can't do anything it wants.

[ QUOTE ]
I am grateful for such a committed leader in this trying time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, spare us. For the vast majority of people, the time isn't 'trying.' Bush could've asked for some shared sacrifice a few years back, but wanted us to keep on mallratting and guzzling gas. What exactly is he committed to, anyway? Getting the WMDs? Catching bin Laden?

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil? That is the only real issue at stake during wartime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can almost hear Fox News in the background of this post. So we invaded Iraq to fight the terrorists on foreign soil? Also, I don't really discriminate between American lives on U.S. soil and on Iraqi soil. Actually, I don't discriminate lives based on any geography.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure but I do think it was an executive decision in WWII to round up all the Japanese into camps. That was accomplished by a democratic president.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? This is just an extension of the "but, but, but Clinton..." argument whenever a conservative is attacked. These little potshots don't do much for your image, and definitely nothing for your argument. If I dig up some crazy [censored] that Nixon did can I win the argument? Or do I have to go further into the past? You know Lincoln, the most famous and lauded Republican, suspended habeus corpus. Do I win now?

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that you and all the members of the Republican party really realize how wrong this is. Would this include invalidating the Second Amendment by rounding up all the personal firearms in the country, so no terrorists here could ship them to terrorists over there? Or use them in a shopping mall at Christmastime? Would THAT fall under executive priviledge??

We've already seen this adminstration fight for the right to seize ANY American citizen and hold them, without charges and without legal counsel, for suspicion of terrorist activities. In Jose Padilla's case for THREE YEARS.

Each and EVERY President as part of their oath of office has sworn to "Defend and UPHOLD the Constitution of the United States". Discarding the bill of rights because it is inconvienent (or just a god damn piece of paper) does not qualify as fulfilling this oath.

[andyfox]

Thanks for the link. It's going to take a lot to analyze the editorial. A whole shovelful.

"America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility."

Really? Where does the Journal see that in the Constitution? I can't imagine the framers didn't recognize that 535 "talking heads" couldn't have grave responsibilities because they clearly wanted a balanced government where congress made the laws and the executive executed them. And, of course, there were not 535 members of congress in 1789.

"FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed."

The president and the attorney-general are claiming that the Constitution grants them the right to wiretap whenever they feel like if they say national security is involved. One wonders where in the Constitution they see this. The vice president weighed in on this today. More on that below.

"the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties"

Where is this evidence?

"Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear."

The fact that Mr. Gonzalez approved the wiretaps is no consolation to me. He believes in an apparently unlimited presidential prerogative to do whatever the president wants; if the president does it, it's legal. And there is no smear as the Journal insinuates. I heard President Bush's most prominent critic on this issue, Senator Feingold, on Jim Lehrer's show last night and he said nothing of the sort.

"All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy."

There is no time constaint whatesoever. The president can wiretap and then has 72 hours to get ex post facto approval from the FISA court. That approval has been granted in all but five of the thousands of times the government has gone to the court. In fact, critics of the court have called it the Rubber-Stamp Court. There is no time constraint and no problem in getting court approval.

"Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans."

In a word, [censored]. Too many in the administration have forgotten that the executive is only one branch of government and that we have a free society only so long as all three branches follow the laws.

That brings us to Vice President Cheney's comments today:

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them."

What is he talking about? Does he really think the executive authority has been attenuated?

"If there's a backlash pending," because of reports of National Security Agency surveillance of calls originating within the United States, he said, "I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow that we shouldn't take these steps to defend the country."

Note that language. Those who disagree with the wiretaps or other things ("these steps") are saying that we shouldn't defend the country. This has been a consistent argument of the administration, questioning the patriotism of those who take issue with the administration's tactics.

"Either we're serious about fighting the war on terror or we're not," the vice president said. "The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat."

Apparently then, by implication, those who disagree with the administration are not serious about the war on terror and don't believe there is a hell of a threat.

This is simply shameful. It's a throwback to the redbaiting of the McCarthy era when politicians at the same point in the political spectrum as Mr. Cheney constantly smeared those who disagreed with them with the accusation of being "soft" on Communism.

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

Watergate and Vietnam showed us that we had an imperial presidency that was out of control. Pathological liars, most prominents, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon shamed America, one quitting before he could be chased out of town and the other resigning in the wake of illegal actions. It was Nixon who said, "If the president does it, it's legal." This is apparently the doctrine the administration believes in, since both the vice president and the attorney general have said as much this week.

Cheney said that "many people believe" the War Powers Act, enhancing the power of Congress to share in executive branch decision-making on war, is unconstitutional and said "it will be tested at some point. I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president."

I await further explication from the vice president. According to the constitution, the congress has the war-making power.

"But I do believe that especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats of we face - and this is true during the Cold War as well as I think is true now - the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," the vice president said.

His constitution powers "unimpaired"? Mr. Cheney should read the constitution sometime.

"You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," Cheney said. "I think there's a temptation for people to sit around and say, 'Well, gee that was just a one-off affair, they didn't really mean it.'"

What people have been sitting around saying this? (According to the 9/11 commission, it's the Bush administration, who got a terrible report card from the commissioners recently.) Who has said, "they didn't really mean it?" Again, it's a smear on opponents insinutating that either "you're for us or you're against us."

"The bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressively defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," he said.

The criticism is not that the administration is not defending the nation but that it might have broken laws in doing so.

The administration has brought back a hubris and arrogance, and a disdain for respect for the law that we haven't seen since the worst days of Vietnam and Watergate. And, according to Mr. Cheney, he thinks it should, because the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate was an unwarranted diminution of presidential power.

The comparison of Iraq with the disaster of Vietnam becomes more apt every day.

[elwoodblues]

If Bill Clinton had done the exact same things as Bush is doing, to those on both the right and the left, would your opinion change as to whether it was appropriate?

Consider: The PATRIOT Act, the Padilla case (and similar actions), the wiretapping issues.

[canis582]

Thanks for the analysis andy, good stuff.

As for Bluffs: "Excerpt below from today's WSJ op-ed page gives the president's legal authority for warrantless wiretaps."

LoL..The WSJ's op-ed page supercedes the constitution? Do op-eds by NAMBLA proponents give me the legal authority to you know what? not that I want that, as I am not the member of the clergy.

[andyfox]

LBJ was supposedly the author of that great line about Hoover. When asked whey he didn't fire him Johnson said, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in."

[BluffTHIS!]

andy, I want to commend you for your humility in admitting that it does indeed look like previous court decisions validate the legal opinion of the Attorney General and the legality of the president's actions. Very big of you.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
In a time of war the executive branch has the power to do anything it wants. The only way to stop the executive branch from a specific course of action is for congress to become organized and pass a bill to stop the executive branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting theory. Where exactly is this in the Constitution? Hint: Nowhere.

We are not legally at war. No declaration of war has been pawwd by Congress since WWII.

Bush is applying Hermann Goering's theories now.

[andyfox]

Touche! Very good.

I would have to read the court decisions (and know more about exactly what the wiretaps involved) to see if the Journal's take on them is correct. It is interesting that neither Gonzalez nor the president mentioned those court decisions as validating their argument. Both mentioned the 2001 authorization to use force and the Constitution. Perhaps they meant the court decisions when they said the Constitution.

Out of curiosity, do you have any fears about an imperial presidency or abuse of power in light of President Bush's, Vice President Cheney's, and Attorney General Gonzalez's comments of the past fews days?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that the approval from the special FISA court can be gotten after the fact. That is, that they can do what they want for 72 hours and get approval thereafter for what they did. And out of about 19,000 requests for approval, only five had been denied since the law was passed.

The law was passed with this in mind. Namely that the situations involving terrorism or other emergencies would require quick action that wouldn't necessarily come from regular courts.

If the Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, had felt that FISA was inhibiting fighting the war on terrorism, they could have gone to Congress with a proposal to amend the law. Who in Congress would have opposed this?

The most obvious explanation for the failure to get approval from the FISA court is that is might not have been given. For the president to say that he didn't have to go to the court because of the Constitution or the congressional authorization for the use of force against Afghanistan is quite a stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go ahead and agree completely with andy.

The FISA court is set up for emergency situations. You can set up a tap for 72 prior to getting approval. In addition, you can get the tap extended in 15 day increments to give approval time.

It is very disingenuous to state that you "don't have time" to get approval.

I think he can argue that he was given authorization through the 9/11 act, but that is a REAL stretch and the reason that we have the judiciary.

They have the job of sorting it out. I am very leery of this whole thing. It is a very scary America if this becomes OK.

-Gryph

PS: Still wouldn't have voted for Kerry...

Bush in 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, do you have any fears about an imperial presidency or abuse of power in light of President Bush's, Vice President Cheney's, and Attorney General Gonzalez's comments of the past fews days?

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

I am not too troubled by a stronger presidency in general because congress, though the sovereign in our 3 branches, is too fragmented to lead in times of crisis. Another reason is that just as the Federalist Papers writers predicted two centuries ago, the biggest threat to the separation of powers can come from the judiciary, and I believe that has happened in the past 30 years and so a counterweight is needed.

And the fact of the matter is that any president who seeks to assert more privileges and power can only do so with the tacit acquiesence of the american people. If the democrats had any real cohesive agenda other than saying NOT to the repubs without offerring alternatives, then even the fact that they are currently in the minority in both houses would keep the president from enjoying as much support of the people as he does for his actions.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you 100 percent sure that the government is just spying on Terrorists?

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[ QUOTE ]

The U.S. military is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing; fighting the war on foreign soil. Since 9/11 when was the last attack on American soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

would you like to buy my magic rock that keeps tigers away?

It is a shame that at a time of war, we cannot be supportive of our Commander in Chief. At a time when Islamic terrorists want nothing more than to kill every last one of us I personally see nothing wrong with this. Do you know of a single instance where an inoccent person has suffered as an example? In this war against muslim extremists he is only acting to uphold the oath he took on the day he was sworn in as President to protect his fellow Americans. There is federal case law supporting what he has done. It is perfectly legal.

The truth of the matter is that if it were a liberal president, those of you that are complaining would be standing by this right now. Hell, we see how ineffective President Clinton was at fighting terrorism but all you lib's can do is put down the president that IS doing something about it.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the wiretaps are legal or not. There is a process in place to legally place the wiretaps and the President is delibrately ignoring it and the law.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush in 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was able to find this quote through a google search, including on the White House webpage (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html). Despite disagreeing with many of Bush's policies and his conception of how to deal with terrorism, I have tried very hard not to overstate his flaws and defects. I have not been in a rush to call him a liar.

But this seems to me a clear indication that he has lied to the American people as to what the government is doing. This, to me, is a very serious breach of trust. I do believe that Mr. Bush is doing what he thinks is best for America, but I find it very troubling that he believes that he is justified in lying directly to the American people. I already do not like how much this administration withholds information from American citizens and makes it very difficult to be well-informed about what is happening in our government, but the outright dishonesty here is at another level entirely.

[ratso]

it is mid-term election time folks. the "out of power party" does (and has done this) for decades. it is politics...not ethics or anything else adnirable. it is pure bull#@it

[ratso]

during the vietnam era, i was aligned (and jailed) with the far-left. i thought i was correct and ethical etc. the real world is survival of the fittest. the islamic people know this, and the islamic facists also know this. they cannot win the war but they can win the hearts and minds of amerikan fools which can turn the tide. compare facist germany with facisit islam, not vietnam. i spent time in the middle east. most of the middle eastern people like us and respect us for our might and our ethics. the news media want only to put in front of a sponsor. how do they do it? you be thejudge. it is not about bush vs. kerry. i can't decide who is sleezer. ed kennedy...it does not get sleezer than him (leaves a girl to drown while he calls his lawyer for an alabi). wake up boys and girls. it's your amerika.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

I am not too troubled by a stronger presidency in general because congress, though the sovereign in our 3 branches, is too fragmented to lead in times of crisis. Another reason is that just as the Federalist Papers writers predicted two centuries ago, the biggest threat to the separation of powers can come from the judiciary, and I believe that has happened in the past 30 years and so a counterweight is needed.

And the fact of the matter is that any president who seeks to assert more privileges and power can only do so with the tacit acquiesence of the american people. If the democrats had any real cohesive agenda other than saying NOT to the repubs without offerring alternatives, then even the fact that they are currently in the minority in both houses would keep the president from enjoying as much support of the people as he does for his actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the defense of the Liberties even when you see apparent justification for the taking of the liberties that gives the lover of freedom great pause.

Defending the liberties when you oppose the reasons for the takings is easy.

[ QUOTE ]
If Bill Clinton had done the exact same things as Bush is doing, to those on both the right and the left, would your opinion change as to whether it was appropriate?

Consider: The PATRIOT Act, the Padilla case (and similar actions), the wiretapping issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. If Clinton had done this I would have thought the same thing -- a dangerous, unprecedented power grab that threatens the foundation of our nation.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the wiretaps are legal or not. There is a process in place to legally place the wiretaps and the President is delibrately ignoring it and the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That process must not hamper or prevent operational necessities which occasionally require speedy action. The process is not > than our safety from terrorists when those operational necessities do not involve impinging on liberties on a large scale.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convenient argument where you purposely assume that there are not more terrorist attacks if we let world terrorism and the rogue states who could help them go unchecked.

The future costs of not dealing with today's problems are always greater than the price to be paid today to eliminate them.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you 100 percent sure that the government is just spying on Terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show intentional cases where they are not and I'll start having a problem with the president's actions. Until then, I am content to allow the president in conjunction with bipartisan congressional oversight to operate to keep our homeland safe.

[BluffTHIS!]

From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994 (http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp) : Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

[ACPlayer]

... and is it a good thing when politicians are making decisions that infringe on individual liberties. If you are, as claimed, a libertarian republican (whatever THAT is) you should be less than sanguine.

The executive order does have some checks in it and in limited to one year. Two good things in an other not so desirable document.

[ QUOTE ]
From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see what the order actually says, shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

[/ QUOTE ]

That certification is one that the search "is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers".

In other words, these are FOREIGN searches, and routine compliance with FISA by Clinton, rather than the "we're-at-war-so-the-law-is-what-I-say-it-is" lawlessness of the Bush administration.

Indeed, the different attitudes of the administrations are readily apparent even in the Byron York NRO piece that you link to as if it was a 1994 Washington Post article. But since it is Byron York/NRO, and BluffTHIS!, and therefore likely to be a total hack job, let's go to Gorelick's actual testimony and see what our firends have left out, shall we?

"Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific
legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President's authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted."

...

"As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements. Nevertheless, I reiterate the Administration's willingness to support appropriate legislation that does not restrict the President's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. We need to strike a balance that sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties.

If we can achieve such a balance -- and I believe we can if we use the basic provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- we can accomplish a number of things. First, we will reaffirm our commitment to democratic control of intelligence functions. Second, by mirroring the FISA process including the involvement a neutral judicial official, we will remove any doubt from the minds of reasonable persons concerning the legality of these searches. And finally, we will also provide additional assurances to the patriotic individuals who serve this country in intelligence positions that their activities are proper and necessary."

Soooooo, let's recap. The Clinton administration supported bringing physical searches under the FISA umbrella, and when Congress did so the Clinton administration complied with the law. The Bush administration acknowledges that the law prohibits what it is doing but claims that it has the authority to unilaterally nullify any law that it dosen't like, secretly, because we are at "war". [howie mandel]Equivilant, or not equivalent?[/howie mandel]

[BluffTHIS!]

Any premise or coummication channel used by an agent of a foreign power while on US soil qualifies, and regardless of whether such an agent is a US citizen.

[ QUOTE ]
Any premise or coummication channel used by an agent of a foreign power while on US soil qualifies, and regardless of whether such an agent is a US citizen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. Read the statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html) . The read the rest of the executive order. (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) The paragraph you rely on is specifically directed at subsection (a)(1), which is directed to foreign physical searches. Searches "on U.S. soil" are covered by subsection (b), and are the subject of another paragraph of the executive order.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994 (http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp) : Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? It was wrong when Clinton did it and it is wrong now.

[ QUOTE ]

What's your point? It was wrong when Clinton did it and it is wrong now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except of course, that BluffTHIS! is wrong, and Clinton complied with the law.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convenient argument where you purposely assume that there are not more terrorist attacks if we let world terrorism and the rogue states who could help them go unchecked.

The future costs of not dealing with today's problems are always greater than the price to be paid today to eliminate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm obviously not a security expert, so, honestly, I have no idea whether and to what extent the government's domestic activities have prevented another large-scale terrorist attack.

I just wanted to point out that the human and economic cost of the Iraq war is already 2-3 times that of 9-11. I think a lot of folks are justifiably skeptical that the Iraq war has prevented another 9-11, much less two or three of them.

[BluffTHIS!]

Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that this will continue to be your presumption regardless of whether any court or congress actually declares these searches to be illegal. When you believe that the law is whatever the president says it is, then by definition you believe that anything the president does is "legal".

In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except, of course, that the "similar things" were different in that Clinton supported legislation requiring court oversight and complied with the law, whereas Bush claims that he has the inherent authority to do as he pleases no matter what the law is.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him.

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Clinton administration was of the view that the president had the authority to authorize warrantless "national security" physical searches at a time where such searches were not covered by FISA. I question whether that was even correct; I suspect it was not. But tellingly, the Clinton administration supported putting these searches under the FISA umbrella and complied with FISA when it was done. Bush says that he has the authority to ignore FISA. I understand that you do not see these as different -- like I said, when you start with the mindset that the president has the unchecked power to override any law he likes, then by definition anything the president does is legal. That mindset, in my view, is profoundly un-American. For those of us that prefer the rule of law, the Clinton administration's approach is light years away from the cavalier "my word is law" attitude of the Bushies.

[BluffTHIS!]

Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost. And note that as I mentioned in another post the FISA process is longer due to preparation and docket scheduling time than just the 72 hour time frame in which they act once a motion is heard.

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and once the terrorists are able to pull off a successful operation, the same people that helped them not be detected by US authorities will blame Bush for it.

They want to return to the Clinton idea of refusing to take custody of OBL, and then act shocked that OBL killed thousands of Americans.

[BluffTHIS!]

Yes and same thing with Sen. Biden's statement that it was important to win in Iraq to prevent an Iranian style autocratic government, but that we had to do it in the next 6 months. The dems whole political strategy is based on damning the administration if they do and damning them if they don't while not presenting any policy alternatives other than NOT and artificial time constraints to problems that can't be fixed in 3 months.

[ QUOTE ]
Well I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US are heartened by your attitude that it is better to go through FISA even when doing so would mean that valuable intelligence could be lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am sure that terrorists and their operatives in the US, as well as all of our other ideological enemies, are heartened by your attitude that it is better to dispense with the checks and balances in the Constitution in favor of granting a president you support the unchecked power to disregard the law in the name of "national security"

As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are temporary measures driven by the exigencies of war.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I've said elsewhere, this position is far more dangerous to the nation than terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are temporary measures driven by the exigencies of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. Surely we do not need to go though history to see the variety of oppresive measures that have been so justified.

[BluffTHIS!]

Do you remember in the film The Untouchables where Sean Connery's character asked Costner's character, "What are you willing do do?", and Costner/Ness responded, "All that the law allows". And then Connery asked, "And then what?".

The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties. If we're not willing to do that then either we will fail to defeat them or the cost will be much higher in american lives if we do succeed.

The positions of those such as yourself who see dictatorship looming when we make reasonable sacrifices with restrictions on our liberties during wartime are what makes terrorists and rogue nations think we are weak and that they can defeat us by dragging out a conflict and sapping our political will.

And the sacrifices such as I have adovcated here being correct, are what helps save the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. They're doing their duty and we need to do ours to them.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties. If we're not willing to do that then either we will fail to defeat them or the cost will be much higher in american lives if we do succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

True; my take however is that we still need to be very careful as to what liberties or rights are reduced or suspended--especially for U.S. citizens. Foreigners who are just visiting and possibly under suspicion should have less rights to protection from search and/or seizure, for instance.

[ACPlayer]

All men (and women) are created equal.

Sanguinely turning a blind eye to search and seizure of foreign men on our soil is a bad idea and shows a lack of understanding of Liberties. Our courts should afford them the same rights as those given to citizen -- in the matter of criminal proceedings. They obviously have less than equal secondary rights -- like no welfare or immigration rights etc. The fundamental human rights should be the same.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you google for and read some more in depth on this issue, you will find that although it is true that the secret court is fairly speedy in its mostly rubber stamp approvals once the issue has been heard, that it nonetheless is very time consuming to prepare the matter for the court and get it on the docket and heard. That shows that there is in fact an issue of urgency in many of these matters that is hampered by the entire process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the wiretaps are legal or not. There is a process in place to legally place the wiretaps and the President is delibrately ignoring it and the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

That process must not hamper or prevent operational necessities which occasionally require speedy action. The process is not > than our safety from terrorists when those operational necessities do not involve impinging on liberties on a large scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt the need for speedy action. None of the 9/11 hijackers were U.S. citizens and they were in the country for months or years without being detected. But your point is taken, that's what Pres. is argueing.

Does anybody think, in this day and age of encryption codes that no government can crack, that al-quayda is going to openly transmit its plans via phones, when they can just email them in unbreakable code?

Surely the terrorists are aware of wiretaps and the vulnerability of phone conversations vs. the invulnerability of modern encryption codes.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Sanguinely turning a blind eye to search and seizure of foreign men on our soil is a bad idea and shows a lack of understanding of Liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting "turning a blind eye"; rather, only that they should have somewhat less such protection than U.S. citizens on our soil. After all, they are GUESTS, not citizens. They are here at our pleasure and by our grace. If they are suspected of nebulous wrongdoing, they should quickly be kicked out--just as you would ask a bad dinner guest to leave your house. If they are suspected of serious criminal mischief, of the most serious kind (jeopardizing our lives and liberties through terrorist activities) they should be investigated and possibly detained. In fact, we should make it an openly known policy that all foreign visitors who fall under suspicion of terrorist activity may be so investigated.

[ QUOTE ]
Our courts should afford them the same rights as those given to citizen -- in the matter of criminal proceedings. They obviously have less than equal secondary rights -- like no welfare or immigration rights etc. The fundamental human rights should be the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the HUMAN rights should be the same. But should foreigners on our soil not be eavesdropped upon if suspected of terrorist activity? I think they should be. We should also apprise them up front of that possibility: so if they don't like it, they don't have to come here. That ought to be fair enough by any standard.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, and once the terrorists are able to pull off a successful operation, the same people that helped them not be detected by US authorities will blame Bush for it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Cheneys and Roves and Coulters and Savages and Delays and Humes and Barneses wouldn't dare blame the Democrats for trying to stop the Republican Congress from giving their President unchecked power to steal our civil liberties WHEN this attack happens, will they?

Maybe THEN we can get our martial law!

The Democrats are being stupid. Not for their ideals, but for not seeing how this retarded chess match will play out once another (probably more catastrophic) terrorist attack occurs.

[ACPlayer]

In matters of personal privacy and liberty they should be treated exactly like US citizens. That includes clandestine eavesdropping without due process -- an activity best left to the stalinists and communists.

They are guests and should be treated as guests.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
And the sacrifices such as I have adovcated here being correct, are what helps save the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. They're doing their duty and we need to do ours to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show us ONE example where domestically-gathered intelligence has saved the life of a solider in Iraq. Is this like your little belief in god, where you don't have any proof, but, gosh darn it, you just KNOW it's happening, and everyone else had damn well better believe it's happening too?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
In matters of personal privacy and liberty they should be treated exactly like US citizens. That includes clandestine eavesdropping without due process -- an activity best left to the stalinists and communists.

They are guests and should be treated as guests.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be nothing wrong with eavesdropping on foreign terror suspects on US soil if we first advise all visiting foreign nationals that they may be eavesdropped upon. Simply announce it as a policy; then, if they wish to be guests or not, under those conditions, they are free to do whatsoever they might wish. The "due process", in this case, would be simply forewarning then that they might be monitored should they choose to visit, as might any visiting foreign nationals.

Nothing underhanded or unconstitutional about that.

[ACPlayer]

I am not talking consitiutional per so. It may or may not be.

I am talking about Americanism. Americans do not indulge in clandestine eavesdropping, unlimited detentions without full due process of the law. It is completely un-American behaviour.

We have a good law enforcement system, we can also make it better. Concentrate on that not on KGB tactics.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]


I am talking about Americanism. Americans do not indulge in clandestine eavesdropping, unlimited detentions without full due process of the law. It is completely un-American behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see nothing wrongly clandestine or un-American about making it a KNOWN policy that foreign nationals suspected of terrorist-related activities on US soil may be investigated or may have their communications monitored.

Also, I didn't suggest *unlimited* detentions for suspected foreign nationals on US soil.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a good law enforcement system, we can also make it better. Concentrate on that not on KGB tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The war against terrorism is more than merely a matter for law enforcement. Terrorists--and jihadists--are more than mere criminals. They are at WAR against our country, and against other Western democracies. All foreign nationals should expect a little extra attention when they CHOOSE to visit the United States--and in fact every foreign national who visits the USA should be so advised.

The terror threat to the USA comes almost entirely from foreign nationals. It would be illogical, and even foolhardy, to treat them exactly the same as US citizens when it comes to possibly suspect activity.

[ACPlayer]

I said without due process. I am happy to have phone taps, searches, seizures as long as law enforcement has gone to a judge and received an OK. This is due process. This is how Americans operate when it comes to invading the space of men (and women). This is how it should be.

I am happy to have someone held indefinitely as long as the get a hearing and a lawyer and are treated just like we treat any other criminal.

Having one person or group (and specially the executive) decide what is OK to do and what is not OK to do when invading the rights of men -- that is what communists and fascists do. It is not OK, it is not American, it is entirely reprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I didn't suggest *unlimited* detentions for suspected foreign nationals on US soil.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not acceptable for any agency of the US to hold some one indefinitely without due process whether they are on US soil or not. It is unacceptable for any agency to transfer a prisoner to a secret jail in another country to get around the basic human rights as defined in the statement: all men are created equal.

[ QUOTE ]
The terror threat to the USA comes almost entirely from foreign nationals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now the far bigger threat to us is within not without. The terrorists may be tearing at the flesh of America, these activities are tearing at the heart and soul of America.

As someone said in another thread, and as I have said in the past, the war on terror is fearmongering. It is not a war, there is no defined enemy no defined endstate. Using the War on Terror to erode the principles of America -- that is the bigger threat by far.

If you have even the slightest streak of Libertarianism in you, it should be obvious.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a war, there is no defined enemy no defined endstate. Using the War on Terror to erode the principles of America -- that is the bigger threat by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

It IS a war; it's just a new kind of war.

I do agree with you, though, that our principles should not be "eroded." That is why I think the government should simply make it policy and publicly announce that all foreign nationals visiting may be investigated if deemed suspicious--and that that investigation may include surveillance. Putting this aboveboard and making it plain that that is policy would be the right thing to do. And again, if visitors have second thoughts, well, nobody is forcing them to visit.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It IS a war; it's just a new kind of war.

I do agree with you, though, that our principles should not be "eroded." That is why I think the government should simply make it policy and publicly announce that all foreign nationals visiting may be investigated if deemed suspicious--and that that investigation may include surveillance. Putting this aboveboard and making it plain that that is policy would be the right thing to do. And again, if visitors have second thoughts, well, nobody is forcing them to visit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something in my gut tells me that those with business interests in foreign tourism (which constitutes many different sectors of the economy, all of which, by some measure, have a powerful lobby advocating on their behalf) may not be in favor of such a public pronouncement.

There's probably a whole host of reasons why that message isn't one that's particularly feasible for the United States to broadcast, even if true.

[MMMMMM]

A useful feature.

[ACPlayer]

The concept of advertising that we are monitoring foreign travellers is slightly worse (in the economic-social-political sense) then the horrible (in the ethical, true global libertarian sense) idea of doing the secret monitoring.

My opinion.

[xpokerx]

You realize of course that Clinton DID these things right?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You realize of course that Clinton DID these things right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bill Clinton was a major proponent of and signed the USA PATRIOT act?

Bill Clinton ordered the detainment of a US Citizen, characterized him as an "enemy combatant," and intended to hold him for an unspecified period of time without access to any judicial oversight to determine if he was, in fact, an "enemy combatant"?

I guarantee if the roles were reversed and Clinton acted the same way Bush did following 9/11 --- doing the exact same things --- you would have hoardes of Conservatives (who now follow Bush because they trust him) up in arms about bad Big Government and vice versa.

Clinton might have done some similar things, but they were not widely known about because the country wasn't focussing on those things. 9/11 changed that.

[xpokerx]

Clinton murdered American citizens. Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Clinton launched attacks on numerous nations, among them, ironically, Iraq. The reason, because of Saddams WMDs, that Clinton apparently lied about, therefore people died.

Clinton abducted a child and sent him back to a communist country instead of having him stay here to be raised by loving family. The really ironic part is that the child survived the attempt to flee Cuba, but the mother did not, the mother is surely smiling down from heaven knowing that Clinton sent her child BACK to the place she gave her life to leave.

The problem is that Bush has done NOTHING to infringe on American freedoms that even BEGINS to approach the evil and horrific things that Clinton did. However, Clinton gets a pass, because hes a liberal, and therefore infallible or some such nonsense.

No, Clinton did a great many damaging things, including the treason of selling classified technology to the Chinese, but, at least he didn't make some dude sit in a jail cell for a while before being charged.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
However, Clinton gets a pass, because hes a liberal, and therefore infallible or some such nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is he getting a free pass? You just cited 10 ways in which you think he egregiously infringed on civil liberties.

[xpokerx]

Who am I? And that's the point.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Who am I? And that's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you're a conservative martyr for whom the liberal controlled society-at-large, by way of its minions in the media, have trampled and subjugated at every twist and turn, making sure right-wingers are forever second-class citizens.

Seriously, though -- where exactly did you hear about all these Clinton violations, anyway?

[xpokerx]

Saw them on the news. However, the media covered them in a far less aggressive manner than they do ANYTHING that GWB does.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Saw them on the news.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by 'free-pass', you mean the media both reported these things (as you say you heard them on the news) -- but also stifled the reporting of them (as you say he got a 'free-pass' on them)?

There goes that diabolical media again -- simultaneously reporting news while doing their best to silence it.

[xpokerx]

Perfect example right here... Waco and Ruby Ridge were the government dealing with "religious wackos" basically. That's how it was reported. Not "Clinton administration murders Americans". It IS a media bias, it IS a double standard. You can brush it off all you want, it doesnt make it less real.