Please name the conditions to be met that will result in this war being over. Are there any? Thank you.

Thank you for summming up what I've been thinking so eloquently. I've been wondering what the Left can be thinking of for two years now. This is WAR, people! It's us, or them.

Amen to that Mark!!

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
- Federalist 51.
Given that the War on Terrorism, as defined by Bush, could easily go on forever, how do you go about preventing the government from abuses, Mark? And if our country is supposed to accept that the Fourth Amendment no longer protects our citizens, don't you think that is a decision more appropriately made in public and voted upon by the Congress? Real conservatives are suspicious of government power.

You're talkin' 30 seats overall, right? How's about 13 of said seats coming from the Senate. A little wishful thinking around Christmas time never hurts....

A Visit From Old St. Hillary

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9181

"MERRY HOLIDAY" from the ACLU

http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2005/12/43-merry-holiday-from-aclu.html

longz,

Show me an American who has suffered due to false accusation due to this NSA program and you'll have me on your side for redress...you can't do that because IT HASN'T HAPPENED. We're not "Law and Order" trying to build a case here - we're fighting bloodthirsty murderers who would, if they could, kill millions of us at a stroke.

We need to do this - it is vital...do I like it happening? Heck no - but I also don't like 138,000 of our best and bravest in Iraq...but it is something I support because it is NECESSARY.

I'm new to this site and blogs in general. I agree with much of what I read here. But why not just make your case without the invective about lefties, "deaf dumb and blind", etc.

It's not only the left that is concerned with reaching the right balance between the need to preempt terrorism and the conservative principal of having checks in place to limit government scrutiny of citizens. In this case the "check" is streamlined access to a court order that can even be applied for retroactively when immediate action is required. You may appreciate that simple check if a president you're not aligned with takes office.

So the current debate that's going on is worthwhile. Why not have it without either side implying the other side is stupid? Criticize the opposing argument (you've done that), not intelligence or motive (you've done that too). But maybe that doesn't make for good blogging if the objective of blogging is to arouse passions rather than thinking.

I realize the left uses the same tactics of charged rhetoric. It's a destructive trend in political discussion IMO.

I still cant get over why it was ok for Clinton to do it and not Bush. The left wing lunatics just keep digging themseleves a hole and their credibility is beyond a joke. Just like the book says Do As I Say Not As I Do, these donks just dont get it which is good in some cases since it will affect net us some important seats in 06

Jeff,

Because it is getting rather pointless...we have to think about things, while our leftwing friends seem immune to such activities.

I want stern checks upon government's ability to get into the lives of American citizens going about their daily business...the NSA shouldn't, as it were, being listening in on my telephone conversations because there isn't any conceivable reason for them to do so...but listening in on conversations between Oak Park, Il and Damascus? Given the number of terrorist organizations headquartered in Damascus and the dearth of legitimate business going on between Oak Park and Damascus, I'd like to have a look-see at what was being said. It its discussing the prices of Persian rugs, then no problem...but if its discussing where to plant the next bomb, then it is something we need to know.

As I've said before, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good - life isn't always cut and dried; this is especially true when we're dealing with wicked men who lie as a matter of course. Our enemy is quite cruel and quite wicked - and we need to try and stop them.

It's often said that "September 11 changed everything." Maybe it's taboo to say this, but my life hasn't changed. Not one bit.

Sure, I have friends in Iraq, but we all know that they would be there with or without 9/11 as an excuse. Let's see... I had to take my shoes off at the airport once.

Oh, and my taxes are lower.

Does this bother anyone else, that "we're at war" with an abstract, difficult to define enemy, with no conditions set for our victory, and all we've been asked to do is sit back, enjoy the ride, and don't ask any questions? I'm really starting to wonder what it would take for the right wing to lose its faith in Bush. Because right now he seems to be running a personality cult, not a political party or nation.

Wyckyd,

If you can't see the war for what it is and understand its course, then that is a failure on your part...it is quite clear to me that we are rapidly moving forward and achieving victory after victory.

How long will the war last? The standard figure given after 9/11 was about 10 years, and that seems about right...by 2011 if democracy has spread over the middle east and there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the US, then we can start to tighten up on the ability of government to check into things...but even then, with care...we have to always make it possible for foreign intelligence operations to provide info to domestic law enforcement agencies and vice versa.

Peace, Wyckyd, is not merely the absence of people shooting - it is a feeling of general security against attack...you'll know it when it comes.

Mark,

Setting aside their typical hypocrisy of excusing the same actions when done by a Defeaticrat and claiming criminal wrongdoing when done by a Republican. I believe that the problem here is a basic misunderstanding, and it stems from Clinton's response to terrorism. If you recall, Clinton treated international terrorism as a crime. He employed crime fighting techniques. He sought criminal investigations and indictments. It is a flawed policy approach, but it was his decision to make, and he did. So be it.

Among other things, the inability of a vast many on the left to see international terrorism as an actual enemy to be fought and won in a war, is what is making this issue so difficult for them see clearly. Despite repeatedly being shown that both FISA, the FISA Court itself and case law, support what the president has done, they keep coming back to this Fourth Amendment thing. They seem to have a mental block that prevents them from grasping that foreign intelligence gathering (especially in a time of war) falls outside of criminal law, thus the Fourth Amendment does not apply in this situation. Heck for that matter, the U.S.D.C. for the S.D. of New York ruled in favor of warrantless searches over the Fourth Amendment arguments of one of the defendants in one of Clinton's terrorist criminal cases, United States v. Bin Laden.

The FISA Court itself as recently as 2002, laid out that it is taken for granted by them, and every other court which has reviewed the issue, that the president has the authority to order warrantless searches. Despite the hopes and dreams of some, that pretty much nails this issue down once and for all.

Todd,

That is about it - it isn't a matter of law enforcement, but a war power. Of course, they on the left don't think there is a war, so no war powers...

Well then I don't get it. Bush already had the ability to conduct intelligence operations. If he wanted more power, he should have asked for it. What he should not have done is break the law and then lie about it. Where have all the "conservatives" gone? Wiretaps, torture, unchecked executive power, what will it take? And, a better question: what's next?

“War…what is it good for…”

What war are we talking about?

The War on Terror?
War in Afghanistan?
War in Iraq?
War on drugs?
War on poverty?
War on religion?
…
and let’s not forget my personal favorite, The War on Christmas?

Perhaps the reason some aren’t on-board with you on everything is that there is no “shared sacrifice.” Where are the tax levees that would properly supply our troops, pay for protecting our country, securing our ports, protecting our nuclear and chemical plants, securing the borders, fix the broken DHS? Where is the draft that would give us enough personnel to do all this? Where is the daily hardship that binds a country and people together in times of “War?” Without this sacrifice, it is indeed easy for many to forget and become complacent. However, with the sacrifice, you would really begin seeing how many people truly support this or don’t.

So quit complaining about the left’s inability to see the danger and start asking our government to either take it seriously and do what is necessary or give it up!

OK - If the democRATS win, what are the possibilities.

Shut down all wiretaps. Release all those poor fellows in Gitmo, allow them to use the US courts and court appointed attorneys to sue the US Government for mistreatment. Give the poor people who were detained and flown around the world frequent flyer miles and upgrades to first class. Stop doing the airport checks that may infringe upon someone's right. Let the UN protect us. Suggest everyone burn their american flags, and raise the white flag. Impeach Bush.

Then, how would you feel?

Wyckyd,

Only in the fevered mind of the left (and Saddam, it would seem) does anyone believe that we've tortured anyone...part of your problem is that you're living in a leftwing fantasy world where Iraq is a defeat and President Bush is evil...out here in the real world, Iraq is a victory and President Bush is a pretty nice guy...

Nice spin, Mark! You neglect to mention that IF BUSH WANTED TO MONITOR TERRORISM SUSPECTS ALL HE HAD TO DO TO MAKE IT LAWFUL WAS GET THE NSA COURT TO APPROVE IT, EVEN UP TO 72 HOURS AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE BEGAN. The fact that he didn't bother means YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE TARGETS OF THE SURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS ARE OR WHY THEY ARE BEING SPYED ON.

And another little fact you conveniently overlooked...WE ARE TALKING ABOUT U.S. CITIZENS, NOT FOREIGN TERRORIST SUSPECTS! So your crap about OBL being monitored having any relevence to this issue is just that...crap.

Mark, if you have any credibility left, explain why Bush doesn't simply follow the law and get the court approval he can easily obtain if he is in fact only interested in monitoring U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activities?

Uh huh....thought so!

And before any knee-jerk responders post nasty grams about these facts, remember that a number of prominent Republicans are up in arms about this, as are many members of the judiciary (include one who resigned the NSA court in protest).

What are other countries doing? from the Drudge Report:

French Parliament OKs Anti-Terror Measures

The law will allow mosques, department stores and other potential targets to install surveillance cameras, and it will stiffen prison terms for terrorists and those providing support. It also will enable police to monitor people who travel to countries known to harbor terror training camps, and to extend the detention period for terror suspects from four days to up to six days.

Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey

"This development forms the basis of a 24/7 vehicle movement database that will revolutionise arrest, intelligence and crime investigation opportunities on a national basis," it says.

Mr Whiteley said MI5 will also use the database. "Clearly there are values for this in counter-terrorism," he said.

"The security services will use it for purposes that I frankly don't have access to. It's part of public protection. If the security services did not have access to this, we'd be negligent."

Do these countries also wiretap?

cookiecorp, the judge that resigned was a liberal judge that may be THE LEAK. FISA Judge: Resigned or Suspended

cookiecorp,

You neglect to mention FISA Section 1802 (a)
(1) "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information..."

You also neglect to mention that in order to authorize the intercept of communications, the NSA must determine that one end of the conversation terminates at a foreign power (or terror suspect). We are not talking about conversations within the US between US citizens (that's what Clinton did). We are talking about a conversation between a foreign power or terrorist and someone in the US (they may or may not be a US citizen).

President Bush, through the Attorney General and the NSA, is following the law.

Lefty Posters:

Please stop posting your posts multiple times...it is annoying.

Also, please pay heed to our rules...you're not allowed to insult us.

Lib Patriot, I spent 24 years in the Navy, so I assume I've earned the right to respond to you.

I am ashamed that I live in this country.

I honor your service to this country and to the cause of freedom, and one of the freedoms you fought for was the freedom to leave. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I hope you're able to find a new home in another country where all the personal liberties you've lost here still exist.

Do any of you sense that I have just about had it with the "King Bush" bashers. I can only speak for myself, but I'm betting Todd Dietrich, dl, macker, jodi and a host of others are in agreement. The same old tired rhetoric from the Left is just getting old and tired and boring.

Cookie,

It isn't spin - even an American citizen is not allowed to conspire with terrorists. Remember, this is a war power, not a judicial issue...we're trying to stop armed enemies from killing us, and this means we need to keep tabs on anyone who is doing anything to indicate they are connected with terrorists...

A dozen Arabs taking flight lessons pre-9/11 was no big deal...today it is...and it would be something to look into if it were a dozen Americans who were taking flight lessons after making frequent calls to Pakistan...

Lib Patriot, I spent 24 years in the Navy, so I assume I've earned the right to respond to you.

I am ashamed that I live in this country.

I honor your service to this country and to the cause of freedom, and one of the freedoms you fought for was the freedom to leave. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I hope you're able to find a new home in another country where all the personal liberties you've lost here still exist.

Do any of you sense that I have just about had it with the "King Bush" bashers. I can only speak for myself, but I'm betting Todd Dietrich, dl, macker, jodi and a host of others are in agreement. The same old tired rhetoric from the Left is just getting old and tired and boring.

It isn't spin - even an American citizen is not allowed to conspire with terrorists. Remember, this is a war power, not a judicial issue...we're trying to stop armed enemies from killing us, and this means we need to keep tabs on anyone who is doing anything to indicate they are connected with terrorists...

Bingo! It should be pointed out that case law has already established that U.S. citizens who work with, or for, al Qaeda (yes, it was THAT specific), are considered "agents of a foreign power" irrespective of their citizenship.

Retired Spook, you are making the mistake that "liberal patriot" is telling the truth about serving in the first gulf war. Its awful convenient that the trolls are always, republicans, libertarians or ex military.

Retired Spook, I too was in the Navy and couldn't agree with you more. Our Rights should not be a basis for giving up our security. They have it backwards, and dead americans are a result of their arguments.

If you have no security, and terrorist attack us here at home, how are they going to know whether you are a demoFLAP or republican?

Were all the people in the World Trade Center republicans? My guess is most were liberals. Why did terrorist pick a Red State? Maybe they can't tolerate the never ending BS from them either.

You guys are crazy. A bunch of armchair legal scholars arguing over some mundane issues like implied executive powers. I’m sorry for being repetitive but answer me this simple question, if this is so obviously clear cut and legal, why is the congress going to hold hearings? Why are the remaining FISA judges going to hold a special session over this? Why wouldn’t they just say, oh, that’s ok, it’s all perfectly legal. Every legal authority I have seen isn’t quite able to come to the same conclusion as you. They say it may or may not be legal and/or constitutional, that’s up to the courts and congress to determine after hearing many more details. Again, I am content to allow this to proceed the proper way. Aren’t you?

"Bush already had the ability to conduct intelligence operations. If he wanted more power, he should have asked for it."

If he already had the power WHY should he ask to use it?

Who should he ask, Congress or the Courts?

Either case would create a terrible precedent which would weaken the power inherrent in the executive branch, derived from the constitution, and bestow it on the branch of government which he asks for "permission" to exercise the power of his own office.

Guys, it will be impossible to convince intellectual lightweights like jfk58 of anything. For those interested John at Powerline has broken down the issue and makes it cleat how it's completely legal.

CJ

Thanks again for answering my simple minded question. I'm certainly happy for the right wing that they no longer need the courts, the congress, just the president and the BLOGGERS to tell them what's right and what's wrong.

Intellectual lightweight? Let's see, CJ believes that some idiot on the web is the final authority on constitutional and statutory law...

Of course you're far too stupid to know that John is a prominent legal scholar. That's why we can't get bogged down with the intellectually vacant left.

"It's often said that "September 11 changed everything." Maybe it's taboo to say this, but my life hasn't changed. Not one bit.

Sure, I have friends in Iraq, but we all know that they would be there with or without 9/11 as an excuse. Let's see... I had to take my shoes off at the airport once.

Oh, and my taxes are lower.

Does this bother anyone else, that "we're at war" with an abstract, difficult to define enemy," ...Wyckyd Sceptre

I'm sure that this is the feeling of many on the left. It is difficult for them to concieve that this war is real, that people are loosing their lives, blood is being spilled, and that people want to kill them. It all abstract because they live in a protected bubble, thanks to Bush, and it doesn't affect them so its not real.

The ironic thing about the war on terrorism that President Bush has undertaken since 9/11 is that the more effective it is, as measured by no attacks on US soil since 9/11, the less the left seems to think the war is real, and thus the more they trash Bush.

So far we have avoided another attack on our soil, but I am convinced, as many on the right are as well, that despite our best efforts, an attack will happen again. Those of us on this blog that have seen the horror of war, know all too well that the threat is not abstract, it is very real. We just hope and pray that our government is doing all they can do to prevent a re-occurance of 9/11.

The NUMBER ONE priority of the Government is not the "environment" or "redistribution of wealth" of even "providing social security", its to ensure National Safety and Security.

Until the left understand this reality, and adjust their positions accordingly they will never win the Whitehouse, or take control of both houses of Congress.

"Also, please pay heed to our rules...you're not allowed to insult us."

The Left isn't allowed to insult you? But it's okay if you insult the Left, in every blog post? OMG.

if this is so obviously clear cut and legal, why is the congress going to hold hearings?

Since I'm not even an "armchair" legal scholar, I'll take a wild guess and say the same reason we had the 911 Commission - politics.

Why are the remaining FISA judges going to hold a special session over this?

Again, just a wild guess - CYA. Could be to determine whether or not the one who resigned had something to do with the leaking of this information.

jfk58 - One of the dynamics at work here is that, even though this type of signals intelligence has been going on for a very long time (I knew about it back in the 60's), it really wasn't in the public domain nor should it be now. Either the abuses by Presidents of both parties has been almost nonexistent or they haven't been made public.

Our entire intelligence effort is base on "need to know", and there are just some things that the public does not have a need to know. Generally, when highly sensitive, classified information is leaked, it does a great deal of harm.

I am content to allow this to proceed the proper way. Aren’t you?

LOL Why wouldn't we be? You have to admit, though, it is rather odd for a Lib to be arguing that something be done in a proper way. After all, yours is the party that has refined "the ends justify the means" to an artform. Yours is the party that treats the Constitution as just part of an overall strategy, to be used, bent, broken or ignored depending on your particular requirements at any given time.

CJ,

Didn't claim to be one. Didn't even claim to know if this is ok or not. I don't like it, but it may be fine what they're doing, it may not. I was just curious as to why the congress and FISA court would seem to care if this is all ok. I do know one thing for sure, all the bloggers in the world ain't gonna solve this one.

P.S. Intellectually vacant? Aren't you guys the party of "Intelligent Design?" Go figure!

A bunch of armchair legal scholars arguing over some mundane issues like implied executive powers.

You are exactly correct. So why not (finally) read the OPINION of a former Associate Attorney General yourself and maybe....just maybe, you'll begin to see the light.

I’m sorry for being repetitive but answer me this simple question, if this is so obviously clear cut and legal, why is the congress going to hold hearings?

Why do they ever hold hearings? First and foremost to grandstand.

Answer me this, if what the president did was so illegal, then why bother with hearings? Why not just draw up articles of impeachment? He's admitted it, he's not hiding anything. Go for it! Call Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers and tell them to stop yammering about it and get on with it already.

Why are the remaining FISA judges going to hold a special session over this? Why wouldn’t they just say, oh, that’s ok, it’s all perfectly legal.

You got me there. If you read the link above, you'll see that they, and a number of other courts have already ruled on the president's power to conduct warrantless searches.

Every legal authority I have seen isn’t quite able to come to the same conclusion as you.

Might I suggest you start looking beyond leftwing blogs?

They say it may or may not be legal and/or constitutional, that’s up to the courts and congress to determine after hearing many more details.

Again, if you broadened the "sources" you were looking at it would become alot less murky. And FTR, Congress' ability to "determine" the legality of this issue is irrelevant. The legislature enacts laws like FISA. It is the Courts' duty to interpret those laws. And if you'd step back and look at the case law, you'll find their interpretation favors the president's position on this. But again, don't take my word for it, take John Schmidt's, or Jamie Gorelick's, or Griffin Bell's...

Again, I am content to allow this to proceed the proper way. Aren’t you?

Absolutely, play it ALL the way out. Let's have public hearings over it. Let's keep discussing this issue all the way into late next summer, OK? The president has made it clear he has nothing to hide over this issue. If he's not afraid, I sure don't have anything to fear. If you guys want to drive your party bus off the cliff, who am I to try and stop you?

And how about we agree that if it is found to be perfectly legal, then we prosecute the person, or persons, who leaked this story for treason?

Spook,

I respectfully disagree. It was precisely these kinds of activities in the 60’s and 70’s coupled with the abuses of the Nixon administration that led to congress passing FISA.

Quick history question: Which people in the Nixon administration are in the present one? Fairly interesting I think!

Which people in the Nixon administration are in the present one? Fairly interesting I think!

I know this is going to drive you nuts, jfk58, but the 2 members of the Bush Administration that I admire most, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, both served in the Nixon Administration. I'm not aware that either of them were ever involved with or tied to any abuses committed during Nixon's tenure. I also doubt that you will find too many conservatives who post here today that will defend those abuses.

Look, I think you mistake my point. In the days and weeks after 9/11, I’m sure many rules were broken and processes ignored. That’s fine; nobody on the right or left really cares. I think what’s got people upset is that the president has had many years since then to request and justify changes to the FISA requirements. And by the way, he would have gotten them. There may have been some bitching, but this president has gotten virtually everything he’s asked for. Not ANWR, but realistically, everything else.

It’s the same kind of question with the torture issue. NO ONE, and I mean that, would be held accountable for misuse, abuse, even death of a suspect in an emergency situation where people lives were on the line. Go ahead, burn em, rip their arms off, waterboard em, sh#t, drill into their head I don’t care. I know the guys here think that the left would like to read them their rights and such but that’s not true. What we don’t want is to make it policy/SOP.

Personally, I don’t care if they want to listen in on calls, intercept emails, whatever, I do care that what is going on is legal and done with proper oversight. That’s not too much to ask for is it?

P.S. Spook,

I don’t intend to come off as some government conspiracy nut, but you and I have no idea what those guys did in that administration and what they knew about. And anyone who doesn’t think the White House Chief of Staff (Ford) doesn’t know what’s going on is kidding themselves.

Dear Retired Spook,
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Is that the best retort you can muster? Live somewhere else? Pathetic!

You and your right wing brethren certainly make a lot of noise. But your noise proves nothing. Often the hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she has laid an asteroid.

A true patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. You should know that. Woodrow Wilson once said this about liberty, "The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."

Too many people today are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people.

Because freedom does not mean freedom just for the things you think you should be able to do. Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other people's rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own.

"Please name the conditions to be met that will result in this war being over. Are there any? Thank you." Posted by: For Ever

When Islam has been outlawed and eliminated then the war will be over.

Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff from 1974 - 77, and I wouldn't presume to suggest that he didn't know what was going on, but as you say, neither do we. The Ford administration wasn't known for scandals, certainly not to the extent that Nixon's was, and Cheney was just a lowly staff member during Nixon. To be honest, other than the fact that two prominent (highly regarded or much maligned depending on which party you identify with) members of the current administration also served under Nixon, I'm not sure what your original point was. My sense is that it was a further attempt to malign both men. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Freedom1,

Cool post! How 'bout those pesky blacks and jews while you're at it? You my friend are a clear example of why the "theory" of intelligent design doesn't work!

Rich the freedom of information act. I will gladly mail you a copy of my miltary records. Not a problem.

Trolls? You seriously need a girlfriend or maybe a goat. You grasp of the english language something we should all be envious of oh great Rich. Please tell me you can snap better than troll?

But for Rich I guess being ignorant is not so much a shame as Rich's unwilling to learn.

Rich the freedom of information act. I will gladly mail you a copy of my miltary records. Not a problem.

Trolls? You seriously need a girlfriend or maybe a goat. You grasp of the english language is something we should all be envious of oh great Rich. Please tell me you can snap better than troll?

But for Rich I guess being ignorant is not so much a shame as Rich's unwilling to learn.

Rich,I will gladly mail you a copy of my miltary records. Not a problem.

Trolls? You seriously need a girlfriend or maybe a goat. You grasp of the english language is something we should all be envious of oh great Rich. Please tell me you can snap better than troll?

But for Rich I guess being ignorant is not so much a shame as Rich's unwilling to learn.

Thanks for the enlightening post, Freedom1. But this is a question that needs to be taken seriously. When will we be able to claim victory in the war on terror? Will we know when it happens? Or is this a war that will never end?

Spook,

I didn’t say or mean to imply that either directly had anything to do with the Nixon scandals – maybe they did, but I didn’t say that. I do believe that they were clearly indoctrinated in Nixon’s philosophy of executive authority and given their follow-up positions as chief’s of staff, it would be naïve to assume they didn’t know at that point what was going on or had happened.

Even John Schmidt the assistant attorney general under Clinton even knows it's legal. This whole thing fell apart faster than any of the donks expected.

But I'm sure people on the fringe left like jfk58 will wait for their talking points from Barbara Boxer and Jim McDermitt.

“Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general, insisted in a written statement to the House intelligence committee that ‘the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes….’

“Ms. Gorelick says that in espionage cases, if the Justice Department tried to meet all the strict rules imposed on police in criminal matters, it would ‘’unduly frustrate’’ America’s counter-intelligence efforts.

“She says: ‘Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless.’’‘

That's gonna leave a mark on jfk58

Wyckyd,

The war on terror is fundamentally no different from the war on drugs, poverty, or Christmas (sorry had to add that). There is no "END". It is a new government program. We have been at "war" with the terrorists for many years now. They will not go away. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the real war isn't being fought. We have yet to address the real causes.

"We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia"

Schmidt's defense of warrantless wiretaps, cited by York and Angle, rife with inaccuracy, empty arguments, and unwarranted credulity. Oh you nutty right winger's.

First of all John Schmidt's claim about Gorelick testimony is totally false.

FISA, which was passed in 1978, requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorize any domestic surveillance. In Schmidt's Tribune op-ed, Schmidt wrote: "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms." As evidence, he quoted Jamie Gorelick's 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which she said: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." But as members of congress noted, physical searches were not governed by FISA at the time Gorelick made that statement. So her argument was not that the president could go beyond FISA, as Schmidt wrote, but that FISA did not then apply to physical searches. FISA was amended in 1995 to encompass physical searches. Moreover, Gorelick at the time stated her support for legislation requiring FISA warrants for physical searches.

So please do your research before you make your statements CJ the "Ignorant one."

Because someone might mistake you for someone who knows what they are talking about. You wouldn't want that now would you CJ?

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

We just completely slap down the arguement of liberal patriot and jfk58 and this is all they have to say? Oh man, no wonder they can't win any elections.

jfk58,

Spoken like someone who is completely ignorant of Islam. Islam is racist. Here's a sample of Islam's racist views of blacks and Jews-Racism
Jews

Qur’an 4:55 “Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!”

Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”

Qur'an 59:14 “The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.”

Blacks:

Bukhari: V9B89N256 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.’”

Ishaq:243 “I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!’ He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks…. Allah sent down concerning him: ‘To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom.” [9:61] “Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey’s.’”

Tabari II:11 “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.”
***********

Ali Sina is an ex-Muslim who is advocating the elimination of Islam. Read Ali Sina's "Letter to Mankind" at his website: Faithfreedom.org

Then, read "Read THIS first" (top right of website) for details of the horrific nature of Islam.

CJ

Exactly what post are you replying to? Try to pay attention here. Please show me a post where I stated this was illegal. All I said was that the verdict was out and it wasn't within my limited legal understanding to unequivocally state an outcome. I think perhaps the "mark" you're referring to must be when they removed the electrodes from your head after shock treatments.
.

Is that the best retort you can muster? Live somewhere else? Pathetic!

Lib Patriot, I thought it was a rather civilized response. I could have just told you to go to hell.

A true patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

Sort of like when Clinton used/misused the IRS to audit/harass people and groups that disagreed with him? I'll bet you were at the front of the protest line when you heard about that.

The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."

If we weren't talking about the power necessary to fight the WOT, you and I would be in total agreement. I doubt that Woodrow Wilson, in his wildest dreams, imagined a group like al Quaeda much less what the necessary tools would be to defeat them. What rights/personal liberties would you like to get back that you've lost because of the actions of this administration?

Too many people today are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It's selfish ignorance, and it's exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people.

I think this applies more to the Left than to the Right. The ONLY people in this country who support totalitarian regimes are those on the Left. I'm pretty content with the country just the way it is, except I'd like to see smaller, less intrusive government, wiser spending of my hard-earned tax dollars and less of it. The vision of this country painted by the Left just scares the hell out of me.

Freedom1,

So, Islam is racist? Duh! And your statement isn't?

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.

Oh man, the hits keep coming!

Islam is NOT a race. You moron.

Retired Spook,

I am flat-out floored to see you suggest that to the left, the 'ends justify the means'. Take a situation like this: a president ignores a law, claiming as president he is not bound by it. The same president says torture is permissible, despite the fact it is against the law. One American value (fairness, respect for human rights) after another is ignored because of 'the war on terror'. If that is not a perfect example of 'the ends justify the means', I don't know what is.

This is exactly what infuriates the left- the moral relativism of the right. The example you set is that any behaviour is permissible in pursuit of your goals. In my book, that's immoral.

CJ,

Don't you have to brush your teeth before bed now? Again, please point out what I said and rebut. Otherwise, it's bedtime.

CJ what in the hell are you blathering about? Can win elections? That is the same old worn out bullshit. I beg of you to please come up with something NEW!!!

But just so you know, we did New Jersey and Virgina Governerships. Virginia CJ is a Republican state that Bush won by 9 percentage points a year ago, making it fair barometer of the president's political decline.

So we can win elections.

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

I wonder if this will make liberal patriot and jfk58 heads explode?

Come on you two left wing fringe kooks, try to keep up.

I think you make a mistake to label all critics of the NSA domestic spy effort as leftists and liberals. I, and many other conservatives, are deeply troubled by what has been revealed. Despite all the talk of this being wartime, the Constitution still holds sway, and there are legal ways, including emergency provisions, for intelligence organizations to carry out their wiretaps. The complete disregard for these laws is another example of the disturbing expansion of executive power during an administration that purports to be conservative. Seems to me, and many other conservatives, that the Republicans deliver what the Democrats promise.

Freedom1,

WTF? To quote you "Islam is racist"." to quote my response to your statement, "So, Islam is racist?" Now your reply, "Islam is NOT a race. You moron."

Again, do you have a point? Is it your bedtime too?

CJ,

It's not that we can't keep up. we just tend to think before we post. Sorry if that confuses you.

Oh no, don't tell me, Jimmy Carter did the same thing as Bush? Say it ain't so!

This is too easy, like shooting fish in a barrell. Anyone know of any halfway intelligent leftists out there? We really need more of a challenge. These two aren't bright enough.

JFK58, thank you for being the only voice of reason. With Delay facing trial, Libby facing trial, Cunningham going to Jail, the republicans are making November 06 easier by the day.

JFK we must remember this, the right'ies think Bush is great intellictual!! Right CJ, there has never been a president who has had a better grasp of the english language , than good ol' George!

Time for CJ to turn on his nightlight and go to sleep.

CJ, you joyfully march in rank and file have already earned my contempt. For you have certainly been given a large brain by mistake, since for you, the spinal cord would suffice.

Man was that easy, not even an attempt by our little kooks to refute the fact that both carter and clinton have done the same thing as Bush. Thanks for playing kids. Now go run along

Clinton Has done what? where is your proof? Give me a link, the name of an article, something that says Clinton used illegal wiretaps on American Citizens? Show me the proof! Stop using your dick suckers for a second and pass along your wealth of knowledge.

CONVICTIONS

Webster Hubbell
Jim McDougal
Susan McDougal
Gov. Jim Guy Tucker
Stephen Smith
David Hale
Eugene Fitzhugh
Charles Matthews
Robert W. Palmer
Chris Wade
Neal T. Ainley
Larry Kuca
Henry Espy
James Lake
William J. Marks, Sr.
John Latham
John Haley
Michael Brown (Ron Browns son)
Eugene Lum
Nora Lum
Johnny Chung
Tyson Foods
Sun Diamond Growers
Richard Douglas
James Lake
Ron Blackley
Smith Barney
Crop Growers Corporation
Brook Keith Mitchell Sr.
Five M Farming Enterprises
John J Hemmingson
Alvarez T. Ferrouillet, Jr.
Municipal Healthcare Cooperative
Ferrouillet & Ferrouillet
Linda Jones
Patsy Jo Wooten
Allen Wooten
Roger Clinton
Dan Lasater
Bill McCuen
Dan Harmon
Roger Tamraz (Lebanon by default)

Quite a list there eh liberal patriot.

Man, do you donks make things easy

Scroll up, if you know how to do that. I provided a link. Keep up boy

Spook,

“smaller, less intrusive government, wiser spending of my hard-earned tax dollars and less of it.”

Government is bigger and grows with each republican administration – check the facts.

Less intrusive – kind of flies in the face of this thread doesn’t it.

Less taxes – yes, but technically no. Present tax rates have been cut but the loss of revenue has been added to the national debt. So in truth, unless you die soon, you will owe it back with interest. Comforting.

These are in fact all our wishes. Too bad none of it's going to happen.

CJ,

This “news” is now quite old and debunked. Please refer to the “democrats: it’s ok when clinton did it” thread from YESTERDAY MORNING on this site. Mine is 6th post down. Talk about keeping up.

Tyson Foods? Your kidding? You hungry?

Bill Janklow - he was convicted of second-degree manslaughter

Rep. Andrew J. Hinshaw, R-Calif - being convicted of accepting bribes

George Walker Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush, then 18, were convicted with using illegally obtained and false identification to obtain alcohol. There was no "scandal" when Mark A. Grethen, a Republican activist, nominated for "Republican of the Year" was convicted and is serving a more than 20 year sentence in prison for six counts of sex crimes involving children.

There was no "scandal" when Wendy Gramm, the wife of prominent Republican Senator Phil Gramm, approved illegal partnerships and waived the code of ethics for those partnership formations while on the Board of Directors of Enron. There is no "scandal" when Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay (Enron and Lay contributed $2.16 Million to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle) the largest contributor to the sitting Republican President, George Walker Bush, currently being investigated for leading one of the largest American companies, Enron, into bankruptcy following fraudulently filed earnings reports.

There was no "scandal" when Enron was allowed to price-gouge consumers and the sitting Republican President George Walker Bush refused to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) to impose price caps to control excess profiteering. There was no "scandal" when the current sitting Republican President George Walker Bush appointed Elliott Abrams (convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair) to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.

There was no "scandal" when John Ashcroft, the current Republican Attorney General, spuriously gave a "reprieve" and discontinued the lawfully entered agreement for damages to The Adams Mark Hotel, owned by Fred S. Kummer Jr, a personal friend and $25,700 senatorial campaign contributor, for charges of serious violations of racial discrimination.

There was no "scandal" when key figures, John Negroponte (complicit in the Honduran Death Squads), Richard Armitage (linked to illegal arms transfers and CIA drug-running operations), Otto Reich (propaganda operative), John Poindexter (convicted of conspiracy {obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents}; two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements) of the Iran-Contra Affair have re-appeared in official governmental positions by appointment by George Walker Bush, the sitting Republican President, the son of the former Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom these men worked.

There is no "scandal" when the current Republican Vice President Richard Cheney refuses to release what should be public records of meetings held in the formulation of public policy (The Energy Policy) after being ordered to do so by three Federal Judges (U. S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman).

There is no "scandal" when the personal fortune of George Walker Bush, the sitting Republican President, is being bolstered by governmental war contracts to The Carlyle Group, partially owned by his father, former Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush.

There was no "scandal" when the Republican President George Walker Bush nominated Theodore Olson (investigated for obstruction of justice and lying to Congress during the Superfund investigation) to the office of Solicitor General. There was no "scandal" when Florida Governor Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle Bush, was charged with felony fraud in obtaining a controlled substance.

There was no "scandal" when an intern was found dead of mysterious causes in Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough's office. There was no "scandal" when Republican Mayor Philip Giordano of Waterbury, Connecticut was caught and charged as a sexual predator of young girls.

you clowns do not want to remember republican "scandals." It makes it easier to demonize Democrats. You do not want you to look around. You do not want you to question their version of the news. There are only Democrat "scandals".

libpat,

Don't feed the trolls.(I should take that advise myself with cj) Not too worry much about the scandles of the Clinton years. We are going to see something quite unique when Abramoff starts talking. BTW, don't get me wrong, if democrats participated, hang em too!

Merry Fitzmas to you also.

I agree JFK, these clowns act as if republicans never do anything wrong. I agree with you when abramoff begins to sing and sing he will, whom ever happens to be involved, hang all of them. Black, white, left or right.

But CJ save your Holier than thou shit for someone else, it ain't being bought over here.

libpat,

now hat all the experts have gone to bed, I'd like to share a bit of comic relief with you. I know these guys don't get why we complain so I started a list of what I percieve the main contributions this administration/congress has had.

Enjoy.

Look, just for fun, this is my view of the Republican/Bush accomplishments to date (not a complete list just what comes to mind):

Tax cuts – tax postponements with interest – all added to national debt, IOU’s
Budget deficit – what deficit? Who you callin’ a fiscal conservative?
National debt – ain’t my problem
Death tax – yea, that effects me! Oh wait, I’ll have to pay for it. Damn!
Unemployment – low - thank god for Walmart and Home Depot
Poverty rate– up
Mean wages – down
Uninsured - up
Gas prices/energy policy – buy a coat or some oil stocks
War on Afghanistan – good call
War on Iraq – bad call
Foreign Policy – Screw them all!
International treaties – Screw them all!
The UN – Burn it down!
Homeland security – “F”
“Nukular” proliferation – what the hell is that?
Environmental policy – this space intentionally left blank
Endangered species – maybe there’s a reason that they’re endangered
Global warming – fake science
Intelligent design – real science
Stem cells – amoral, besides the wealthy can always go to Canada
Abortion – amoral, besides the wealthy can always go to Canada
Conscientious objector to giving out birth control – OK
Conscientious objector to going to war – prison
Mixing government with religion – praise the lord!
Campaign finance – who said anything about that?
Competence in government – [insert name here] you’re doin’ a heck of a job.
Government corruption – Please!
Osama – where could he be?
Saddam Hussein – Bad Guy
WMD – Intelligence failure
Iraqi link to 9/11 – Intelligence failure
9/11 – Intelligence failure
Military – Overextended and underequipped
War on terror – can’t talk now, we’re too busy with insurgents

I’m sure anyone could write a similar list for any administration. I just don’t quite understand your particular need to defend everything these guys do.

Hey CJ,

In President Bush's first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show.

He also had extensive access to Bush administration officials, meeting with Cheney policy advisers Ron Christie and Stephen Ruhlen, Ashcroft at the Justice Department, White House intergovernmental affairs chief Ruben Barrales, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and others.

As you know Abramoff is now under federal investigation amid allegations he overcharged tribal clients by millions of dollars, and his ties to powerful lawmakers such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay have republicans running for cover!!

Again, do you have a point? Is it your bedtime too? Posted by: jfk58

I'll say this slowly so that you can keep up. It's not racist to be against Islam. Why? Because Islam is not a race, it's a religion. The religion of Islam is racist against Jews and blacks. Try to keep the terms "race" and "religion" straight.

Those where great. Here is some more.
You will enjoy this as well.

The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan.

This is what those historians said and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives about the Bush record:

1. He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process;

2. He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich;

3. He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state;

4. He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign;

5. He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign ( Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida);

6. He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity;

7. He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress;

8. He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime.

That is seriously quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate The idiot from Texas. Because historically, it takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney. Put that in your ass CJ and smoke it!

ok Freedom, what you ARE saying is horrible ignorant. To make blanket statments about any religion, proves noghting. Jesus spoke about love and tolerance. What you are talking about is neither loving or tolerant.

What you do sound like is someone who has a white sheet in his closet that comes out at night and burns crosses in people's yards.

When you hate everyone, the only person left to hate is yourself.

Freedom1,

Sorry I misunderstood, I finally get your point. I guess you're more of an ethnic cleansing type of guy.

As far as I'm concerned though, wiping out Islam isn't very much different from wiping out the blacks or jews or whomever it is you presently don't like.

Sorry again for the race/religion/ethnicity confusion.

PS for anyone have delusions of grandeur, The Clinton administration's compliance with the FISA requirements regarding electronic surveillance was substantiated by Mark M. Richard, a former deputy assistant attorney general. According to a Department of Justice (DOJ) review conducted by then assistant U.S. attorney Randy I. Bellows of the Los Alamos National Laboratory investigation, Richard stated in 1999 that, during the Ames investigation, "the Attorney General was asked to sign as many as nine certifications to the FISA Court in support of applications for FISA surveillance."

Only the truth will set you free.

Liberal Patriot,

You are ignorant of Islam. Learn about Islam here:

Ali Sina is an ex-Muslim who is advocating the elimination of Islam. Read Ali Sina's "Letter to Mankind" at his website: Faithfreedom.org

Then, read "Read THIS first" (top right of website) for details of the horrific nature of Islam.

Freedom1,

To be completely honest