Matt

The sad thing is that the terrorists are smarter than Bush. Wire tapping American citizens is not going to stop the terrorists from communicating their horrific intentions. They will find another way. So in the end, it is a futile endeavour.

Good for him, he has nothing to apologize for.

He can listen to terrorists all he wants, but he must do so within the law, with proper oversight. If the law is too limiting, change it, LEGALLY, not by DECREE. We are a nation of laws, no man in this nation is above the law, the president is not above the law.

Why is this so hard for you to understand. It is the bedrock of the greatest constitution known to mankind. Why must you degrade it so?

Yah that's what we need, a president that is more compassionate to terrorists. Let's put Kerry in the white house, he's pretty compassionate towards terrorists*.

*This representatives stance is subject to change at any moment depending on poll numbers.

Will he appologize for wite tapping non-terrorists?

If the Democrats had there way, President Bush would have to ask Osama bin Laden for permission before he could listen in on terrorists' conversations.

Hey it's only fair.

If the Democrats had there way, President Bush would have to ask Osama bin Laden for permission before he could listen in on terrorists' conversations.

What's to stop Mr. Bush from eavesdropping on his political enemies? We've established here that Bush's foes who criticize the war have committed treason. Should Bush be spying on them? In Bush's view, he gets to spy on whomever he sees fit. Is anybody worried about that? Do we want to give Hillary the same power should she be elected President, or does this power only apply to conservative presidents?

EXTRAMEDIUM:

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? If you weren't just some parrot who repeats everything you heard on libral news media i might take your opinion seriously. I'm a Republican but seriuosly i'm not telling you to just listen to Rush or Hennity, or Fox news, but listen to everything don't just read the libral New York times, get info from both sides. Your just listening to one side. BUSH CAN"T JUST LISTEN TO ANYONE, you dunce. BUSH DOESN"T LISTEN TO ANYTHING. Secret services does that and they don't have time to waste listening to libral nonsence from john kerry or any other communist on the other side. THEY ONLY LISTEN TO CALLS AND EMAIL FROM KNOWN AFFILIATES OF TERRORISTS. If you don't socialize with terrorists then relax your libral little mind. ok?

P.S. Hillary will never be President even the Donks don't want her in. The only people supporting Hillary are hippies and communists.

"Is anybody worried about that? Do we want to give Hillary the same power should she be elected President, or does this power only apply to conservative presidents?"

Hell yes ANY president should be able to listen to terrorist incoming calls, until the time it is PROVED otherwise that he/she is listening to you and your mom discuss cake recipes

Thomas.... do you have any idea howridiculous YOU sound????
The only thing you said that made sense was that Bush (himself) doesn't listen to anyone.

The NSA is not looking for specific phone calls from or to person X (a terrorist). If it were that simple, they would get the warrant. They are scanning THOUSANDS of calls fishing for anything.

Bush should not have to apologize for wiretapping Terrorists. He should apologize for the thousands of calls that have nothing to do with Terrorists that were tapped.
Articles have been written how the FBI was getting overwhelmed with useless information on the wiretapping.

So Thomas DeSanta, YOU are the one who sounds ridiculous.

Stellar Mind - I'm a dunce? The job of the Secret services (sic) is to protect government officials from harm, not to conduct surveillance. That would be the job of the FBI, CIA or Homeland Security. I'd correct the rest of your mistakes, but I believe that is officially keefer's job.

Actually, I do listen to Rush, Hannity and even Dr. Laura on the radio and watch the H&C and the O'Reilly Factor on TV. I'm well aware of both the liberal and conservative positions on these issues. I could even give you a daily Natalie Holloway update if you like!

My question remains - how do you KNOW the administration has ordered surveillance only on suspected terrorists when they do it without oversight? Is it just that you know in your heart that he's a good guy - and a good guy would only be spying on bad guys? I'm curious, mainly because our system isn't really based on trust - it's based on checks and balances.

Thomas... you have this in CAPS, so you must REALLY believe this:
"THEY ONLY LISTEN TO CALLS AND EMAIL FROM KNOWN AFFILIATES OF TERRORISTS."

Do you believe it because Bush said so? Or do you believe because Rush, Hannity and all the other talking heads on FIX News said so?

extra,

You have to ask yourself this - why would the NSA listen in on anything not related to threats against American security?

You've got to stop thinking of the government as evil...its made up of people, just ilke you and me.

If you're being paid to do a job, you do the job...you don't go out looking for extra work to do.

Tomas Desanta - what makes you believe so fervently that "BUSH CAN'T JUST LISTEN TO ANYONE"? Do you know something we don't? Can you give me reason why he should be left unchecked? Do you really think anyone considers Bush trustworthy anymore?

To be honest, I don't think you even believe it yourself. I do not think you do.

And I don't think shoelimpy believes him(her)self either. Nor Noonan.

Think about this Mark...........
If they are ONLY wiretapping Terrorists, why wouldn't they go get them? They would obviously know where they are.
Read about the wiretapping Mark.

Say for example, a co-worker of yours calls you. Say he is from iraq, but now lives in the US. Just before you called him, he called an Iraqi friend that also lives in the US. Just before that, that friend of your co-worker called someone in Iraq believed to be a terrorist. After that, they will have to tap your phone and your friends phone to see if either of you had anything to do with the person believed to be a terrorist. Maybe that is collateral damage, but it is still infringing on your privacy for NO REASON.

Don't be so naive to think that ONLY terrorists are being tapped.
At the same time, I'm not thinking there is some huge conspiracy that they are tapping everyone.

All we are saying is there should be some oversight. Some checks and balances on whatever tapping is going on. Some people in power tend to abuse that power. That is the whole reason this country was built on checks and balances.

While at a forum in Charolette, North Carolina, a man identified as Harry Taylor told President Bush that he should ashamed of his policies, such as the wiretapping of terrorists.

Matt, you stupid , this is a red harring. Bush should be ashamed for wiretapping American citizens without warrant on American soil... not terrorist. In fact, Bush should be on trial for wiretapping American citizens on American soil without warrant.

Mark - you don't need to presume that the goverment is evil to want checks and balances. All men are falable and our system of government was designed by the founders to take that into account. Leaders have often succumbed to the abuse of power. Nixon was a good example with Watergate, as was Clinton with sexual harrassment in the White House. Big leader and even little people like you and me need oversight, plain and simple.

Why would the government agency do something like wiretapping political dissenters? For the same reason they ran off to find a connection with Iraq after 9/11 - because the administration pressured them to do so. These guys do what they are told. Thats why we need oversight.

You guys can try to frame this over and over again as a terrorist spying program, but in the end it's really an illegal wiretapping program. It's easy to fix, but it requires the administration to humble themselves to do so. They'd have to admit they cut corners- then the conservative base would call them weak. Not bloody likely - but we'll keep pushing for it nevertheless.

I love how "Illegal wiretapping of American citizens talking to people who the government claims are suspected terrorists" is re-phrased as "wiretapping terrorists." If there's one thing I've learned from the Bush Cultists, it's that every horrible activity sounds good if you re-phrase it and cut out all the horrible stuff.

What's next? "Clinton won't apologize for having sexual relations with a female?" "Custer won't apologize for fighting Indians?" "J. Edgar Hoover won't apologize for wiretapping Communists?" Oh, wait. He did say that.

[comment deleted - violated comment policy]

Mark, Looks like you are going to have to quit your day job if you hope to keep defending this administrations misdeeds.

Bush should not have to apologize for wiretapping Terrorists. He should apologize for the thousands of calls that have nothing to do with Terrorists that were tapped.

Can you cite proof, Sick of Facts, or are those noises I hear in the background helicopter engines?

You can't tell me that after three years of listen to American citizens phone calls on American soil, all of them "terrorest," that we haven't caught one of them!

You can't tell me that after three years of grade school, this is the best you can come up with. Slippy, you need to stop copying off of Baloney's essays--or are you Baloney in disguise?

Is a "terrorest" a motel for terrorists?

Terrorest. That's funny. I can just picture the Teddy Bear in the nightshirt with a bomb straped around him.

We should just bug the rooms there, save time, trouble and money.

Allah Akbar, and continental breakfast in the Osama Room.

bin Laundry Service available.

extramedium,

You're believing paranoid conspiracy theories about the Bush Administration...given this, I can see why you don't trust at all.

As for me, I'm of the opinion that President Bush is honest and has never deceived the American people. With his track record, when he states its a signals intelligence program designed to listen in on terrorists, I'm going to go with that...and you'll need far more than MoveOn/Moore/Daily Kos rants to convince me otherwise.

"We've established here that Bush's foes who criticize the war have committed treason."

Hold on there dude. You've established no such thing.

"You have to ask yourself this - why would the NSA listen in on anything not related to threats against American security?"

I dunno Mark. Let's ask Richard Nixon for a few ideas.

Mark - I guess I'm believing the same paranoid conspiracy theories that the framers of the constitution believed when they installed checks and balances into our system of government. I'm not even claiming that the administration wiretapped non-terrorists - I'm simply stating that the laws were put there for a purpose, and that regardless of which side is in power, it serves the people of this country that they be followed.

I believe you are sincere when you (and others here) say that it's good enough for you to go on faith that Mr. Bush will do the right thing because he is a good man, an honest man, etc. It's just not good enough for me. I need the laws to be followed and the oversight intact.

I'll take your baseless accusations that I'm rehashing liberal blogs to mean that you have nothing intelligent left to say.

Anyone wanting to see the exchange between Bush and Harry Taylor can go to the link below. Bush's body language speaks volume. Here is a man who got the smack down he needed and he couldn't believe it. Go watch it for yourself.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/06.html#a7814

Anyone wanting to see the exchange between Bush and Harry Taylor can go to the link below. Bush's body language speaks volumes. Bush couldn't believe some patriot had the audacity to stand up to him and give him the smackdown about 65% of America believes he needs.

Harry Taylor rules! Harry Taylor and Helen Thomas for President and Vice President!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/06.html#a7814

Ash, thanks for the link!

How much you wanna bet that the Chimp was thinking to himself when Taylor was dissnting(something this man cant handle)against his policies, 'Who the f%^k let this guy in and start talking sense?'

"Who the f%^k let this guy in"

teenage lilberal, I think those were his exact words

Honestly, how does Bush's body language reveal anything? The only thing it revealed to me was that he knew that at the core of the man's arguments were the same recycled liberal rhetoric as he's been hearing since he was the Republican presidential candidate.

I have a question to ask to all of the liberal-minded posters here. Do you treat all of the information you receive with equal skepticism and reserve? Or are you just reluctant to believe what this blog and other sources of information that oppose your views tell you, gullibly gobbling up everything the websites that support your cause tell you?

I also have a question for the teenage liberal. How have you come to be certain of your leader's wrongdoings? Are you certain because you've made calculated judgements on all of Bush's policies, fully aware of the legal process behind each argument? Or have you come to most of your conclusions because, at a relatively short time ago, you concluded that you disliked Bush/Republicans/etc. based on environmental pressures that you had no choice but to appeal to, and to justify your dislike you have to find fault in all of his actions?

Speaking of recycled rhetoric, did you see Bush's statement at the begining of the meeting? Oh my God! He could have mailed that pablum in. "Oceans no longer protect us" Blah, blah, blah.Hay Zuess! The man has absolutely new messages or intellectual curiosity! Just keep propelling the propaganda.

Hm...this is what politics is now reduced to. Each side is accusing the other of the exact same crime. Recycling rhetoric, corporate corruption, mismanaging the military. How is intelligible debate supposed to occur when two opposing sets of "facts" exist that each side is arguing?

Debate is no longer about the best solution to a problem, but determining whose data is correct and whose is false.

Ash, Lies, and the rest of you looney libreals,

We've gone through all this before. Do you have problems reading and retaining what you have read?

This is how the NSA singals intercepts work: Coalition forces capture a terrorist or discover materials belonging to a terrorist, such as a cell phone, computer, or "little black book". Contained in these items are records of phone numbers or eamil addresses contacted in the US. The telephone numbers and email addresses are turned over to the NSA (the DoD agency responsible for foreign signals intelligence). At this time, we don't know who the terrorist was talking to. With today's proliferation of cell phones and email accounts, it is simple to get cell phone or email account without divulging your identity. The NSA equipment is programmed to incercpt communications coming to and from those cell phone numbers and email addresses and a communicator overseas (all of these intercepts are international communications, not domestic as the left is claiming). The NSA continues to monitor those communications is order to detect terrorist plans and to gain the identity of the callers. Once the caller in the US is identified, the Department of Justice applies for a FISA warrant. They applied for and received over 3,500 warrants in 2003 and 2004 alone (thats almost 5 a day, 365 days a year).

Another thing I mentioned the other day and bears repeating: What language to you think the terrorists are speaking? I can assure you it isn't english. They are speaking Arabic or some other native language. You when you call Aunt Mable to get her rum cake recipe, you can rest assured the NSA isn't listening. Unless, of course, your cell phone number was one that was found in a terrorist's little black book.

Lies,

They are not scanning all calls looking for key words. That is a program that was operating under President Clinton. They are targeting specific cell phone and email addresses that have been identified as being linked to a terrorist or a person a terrorist has contacted in the US.

As far as oversight is concerned, The Department of Justice (a member of the Executive Branch) reviews the intercept program every 45 days, before it is renewed. The FISA Courts (a member of the Judicial Branch) have been briefed on the program. Selected members of Congress (the Legislative Branch) have been briefed at least 12 times since 2001. So we have oversight with the Excutive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Legislative Branch. Who else do you want to provide oversight? The terrorists themselves?

tsmith,

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Five seperate Federal Courts have ruled that the President (not President Bush, but Presidents before him) has the Constitutional authority to order signal intercepts to gather foreign intelligence. No law passed by Congress may take that authority away from him. COngress also gave the authority to use the United States Armed Forces (of which the NSA is an operating agency) to fight terrorism. Intercepting your enemies communications and gathering foreign intelligence is part of waging war against our terrorists enemies.

Congress' only recourse is to pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting the President's Article II Powers, or if a superior Federal Court overturned the lower court's rulings. Until then, the NSA intercepts are legal. Case closed.

Until you on the left can offer proof that the NSA signals intercepts have deliberately intercepted non-terrorist communications and have used them for political reasons, I have to assume that such actions have not occurred. To claim that the program is violating our rights and requiring us to prove it is not is just the same as claiming all liberals are lying, thieving, murderers and holding that to be true until you can prove that you aren't.

Sorry about all those typos. Its late and the fingers are responding as they should.

A-10: The proof is in the pudding. During a congressional inquiry, Alberto Gonzalez refused to say that the administration's warrantless wiretapping did not include domestic targets such as peace groups.

Numerous credible stories have surfaced in the last few weeks about surveillance of domestic political targets.

There's your proof.