I actually use to think very highly of Senator Feingold, now he is just a lowly asshat in my opinion.

Dems putting politics ahead of destroying those who would kill us all, one fake ad at a time.

Maybe Russ Feingold and Saxby Chambliss should open an ad agency together. Then they could "slander," by implication or otherwise, political foes on either end of the spectrum.

On June 6, 1996, The Los Angeles Times reported that the White House sought confidential FBI background documents on fired White House Travel Office chief Billy Dale. The next day, the White House admits it ordered FBI files of more than 330 people, including dozens of Republican leaders, saying it was working off an "outdated list" of people who had applied for access to the White House. Eventually it is discovered that about 1,000 people's FBI files were obtained by Clinton officials.
One of those people whose FBI file was obtained by the White House was Linda Tripp, who blazed onto the national scene when she released to Independent Council, Ken Starr, secretly taped conversations she had with Monica Lewinsky about the sexual conduct of the President. Tripp's connection to FBI files also include her witnessing fellow employees copying FBI files onto White House computers when she worked in the Clinton White House. (The Washington Times, 9/4/98) Tripp is also at the center of conspiracy theories involving Vince Foster’s suicide. Tripp had worked in the early Clinton administration in 1992 as executive assistant to Bernie Nussbaum, then the White House counsel. Tripp first surfaced in the original report on Foster’s death by former independent counsel Robert Fiske. Fiske said in his report, that Tripp was the last person to speak to Foster before he committed suicide. It was also Tripp who provided testimony on what happened inside Foster’s office after word of his death surfaced, again leading to questions of impropriety.
Tripp also is the original source of information regarding Kathryn Willey’s reported claim that Clinton had kissed and fondled her, claiming to be the first person to talk to Willey after she left the Oval Office.

On the 9th, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta offers a public apology for the White House's obtaining the FBI files: "Mistakes were made. It is inexcusable."
President Clinton later offered a direct apology and calls the FBI files controversy a "completely honest bureaucratic snafu."
FBI Director Louis Freeh said on June 14, that he and his agency were "victimized." He also says that the White House acquisition of the files represented "egregious violations of privacy."
The Washington Post reports on the 16th, Secret Service officials say the tracking system they used for White House passholders could not have generated the supposedly outdated list that the White House claimed it used to request FBI files on the now more than 400 former passholders.
White House places personnel security office director Craig Livingstone, directly responsible for obtaining the FBI files, on administrative leave.
House Government Reform and Oversight Committee begins hearings on FBI file affair on June 19th. Livingstone tells officials that the office holding the files was often left unsecured and that people with the lowest level security clearance were allowed access to the room. ABC News reports that Livingstone himself did not get proper security clearance until more than a year after he began his job as head of security.
Attorney General Janet Reno calls on FBI to expand its probe to determine how and why White House obtained files on former Reagan and Bush administration staff members - later she reverses her earlier call for the FBI to lead the inquiry, and announces that Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr should investigate how the White House acquired the FBI files in an improper manner.
New documents on June 25th, show that a total of more than 700 FBI background files were improperly obtained by the White House.
Craig Livingstone resigns from the White House staff on June 26th.
Anthony Marceca informs the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 28th, that he is taking the Fifth Amendment and will not answer any more questions concerning the White House acquisition of FBI background files.

This is precisely the kind of disingenuous "dissent" I've referenced in several posts on this site. Sen. Feingold can imply some nefarious misdeeds on the part of our government flying in the face of the facts. Then, if called to task for it, they will retreat to the "it's only a parody" defense. But the damage has been done by smearing our President and this Administration. And nowhere in this ad is a constructive alternative offered instead of that to which the objection is raised.

This is not patriotic dissent. It's disingenuous and deceitful smearing of the lowest order. It is a bastardization of our political process in that it hurls hateful and baseless accusations at our President purely for partisanship purposes.

Russ Feingold, if he has a conscience, should feel shame. But given the nature of the discourse coming from his side of the political aisle, I doubt that he feels anything but pride in his polluted pandering to the demented left wing of the Demublican Party.

But those of his ilk who regularly post their diatribes here on BlogsforBush are probably energized and appreciative of this shameful effort. I'm certain we'll be hearing from them on this issue very soon. Does anybody want to wager where they'll be coming down on this latest display of what they deem to be obligatory "patriotric dissent?"

The ultimate irony, as Matt pointed out, is that HIS PARTY has a long (and recent) history of subverting the rule of law, as cited above. It's the greatest display of hypocrisy and rank partisanship that I've heard of in a long, long time.

JS posted,
"Maybe Russ Feingold and Saxby Chambliss should open an ad agency together. Then they could "slander," by implication or otherwise, political foes on either end of the spectrum."

Saxby Chambliss is my Senator. What specific issue are you referencing by associating him with Senator Feingold in this matter?

How's about that Fuss Reingold, eh?

He's OK with Al Queda killing thousands of innocent Americans but if GWB dares to listen in on their plans, suddenly he's George Washington!

How dare he compare Bush to Washington! Washington kept slaves, so where is his morality?

George Bush is defending this nation, but good old Fuss 'n Boots would like him to do it the "correct" way, holding up the Constitution as if it actually guarantees against this sort of thing. What part of CHIEF Executive doesn't the libby-left understand? The Chief can do whatever he needs to protect us and thank God George W. Bush is that Chief.

Maybe the NSA should listen in on Feingold and every other liberal and, the minute they go negative on Bush, arrest them for sedition.

God bless America and save us for idiot liberals.

dbogdan,

Saxby Chambliss is my Senator as well. The comparison to Russ Feingold is based on Chambliss,or Chambliss supporters, running an ad during his campaign that compared his opponent, triple-amputee Vietnam Vet Max Cleland, to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

This was certainly a classy move made even classier by the fact that Chambliss avoided serving in Vietnam due to a "football injury".

Russ Feingold has always been an asshat. If the Democrats think they are going to get any kind of play over this issue, they are severely wrong. The American people are far more intelligent than they would like to believe.

dbogdan - I associated Sens. Chambliss and Feingold only by their usage of questionable advertising during the election cycle. If Senator Chambliss represents you, surely you remember the scandalous ads he ran against Max Cleland in 2002. It's all about perception.

The significant thing, to me, is that this will get Russ in more firmly with those he needs to suck up to, to get the nomination for '08.

As I keep saying, even if the Democratic Party refuses to define itself, its actions and the actions of those who angle to get in its good graces will tell us all we need to know.

I've been called to account for lumping 'all dems' or even 'all liberals' together with the radical left. It's things like this that will continue ot help sort out the reasonable, rational, Democrats (all 7 of them, I'm beginning to thinl) from the loonies. Because if you don't denounce this kind of reckless demogoguery, then you accept it.

The wild leap from one baseless accusation----'wiretapping' 'illegally'---to another----doing it to gather information on political adversaries---is so low, I would not have expected even Feingold to do it. That was then. Now I know he is shameless, and pandering to those with as little concern for the truth as he has.

I'm learning it is impossible to underestimate the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party. And if the Democratic Party is tired of hearing stuff like that,they need to tell the lowlifes to get out and start their own.

where would feingold get such a preposterous idea - that bush might actually overstep the bounds of his power to perpetrate such covert and illicit acts of surveillance on americans? not like there would ANY reason to suspect bush would ever think of doing such a thing:

ACLU Seeks Pentagon Files on Peace Groups (2/1/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of new evidence revealing Pentagon surveillance of peace groups and protest activities, the American Civil Liberties Union and its affiliates across the country today filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking to uncover who is being spied on by the Pentagon and why.

“The Pentagon’s monitoring of anti-war protesters is yet another example of a government agency using its powers to spy on law-abiding Americans who criticize U.S. policies,” said ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner. “How can we believe that the National Security Agency is intercepting only al Qaeda phone calls when we have evidence that the Pentagon is keeping tabs on Quakers in Fort Lauderdale?”

The ACLU filed national Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee, Veterans for Peace, United for Peace and Justice and Greenpeace, as well as dozens of local groups in Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, Maine, Pennsylvania and California. The ACLU is seeking the disclosure of all documents maintained by the Department of Defense on the individual groups. Many of the groups involved in today’s action, such as the Rhode Island-based Community Coalition for Peace, have already learned that they are listed in the Pentagon’s Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database.

The TALON program was initiated by former Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in 2003 to track groups and individuals with possible links to terrorism. But according to portions of the database that were leaked to the media in December, the Pentagon has been collecting information on peaceful activists and monitoring anti-war and anti-military recruiting protests throughout the United States. Following public outcry over the domestic spying program, current Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England issued a memorandum on January 13 directing intelligence personnel to receive “refresher training on the policies for collection, retention, dissemination and use of information related to U.S. persons.”

The ACLU believes the organizations and individuals monitored by the Pentagon have a right to know what information the military has collected about them. Today’s FOIA requests also seek to uncover whether the TALON records have been or plan to be shared with another agency, or otherwise disseminated.

“There is mounting evidence that people who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech or peaceful assembly are being unfairly targeted and scrutinized,” said Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Quakers worldwide. “Trampling upon the Bill of Rights is not the answer to stopping terrorism. Let us not erode the very principles and safeguards upon which our country was founded.”

The ACLU has exposed and challenged other expanded domestic spying programs as well. Documents requested by the ACLU under previous FOIA requests have revealed that the FBI is using its Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather extensive information about peaceful organizations such as Greenpeace and Food Not Bombs. Earlier this month, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and attorneys against the National Security Agency for illegally intercepting vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of Americans without court approval.

“The Pentagon spying program is part of a broad and disturbing pattern of spying on innocent Americans,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “Unchecked government spying has a chilling effect on free speech and causes Americans to think twice before expressing dissent or engaging in lawful protests.”

For details and documents regarding the FOIA requests filed today by the ACLU around the country, including a list of clients, go to www.aclu.org/spyfiles

incidenatlly, bob barr, the guy who called for impeachment of clinton on the grounds that he abused his power and committed crimes against the Constitution, has consulted on privacy issues in the past with the ACLU.

September 22, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — Two staffers on a Democratic political committee headed by Sen. Chuck Schumer are being investigated by the FBI for an alleged dirty trick — getting a Republican candidate's credit report illegally, officials confirmed yesterday.
"We are investigating the matter jointly with the FBI," said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Schumer-headed Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said two staffers were instantly suspended — with pay — in July after admitting they obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for Senate.

Almiranta: Go outside and get some sun. No one reads your manifestos typed by cheato stained fingers.

Almiranta,
DAV's attention span won't hold for more than two sentences. Let me help you;

DemocRATS accuse the President without evidence of doing what they do without a conscience.

bloviator,
That’s odd; the article you posted was dated February 1, 2006 two and a half months ago. The ACLU filed numerous FoIA requests in 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006 accusing the FBI of the same thing. Can you give us an update on all of the illegal domestic spying the ACLU has uncovered?

Bloviator,

Because the ACLU sez so?! LOL!! LOL!! LOL!!

Anyone with any amount of interest in history can see that the ACLU is a socialist "trojan horse" planted here in America in the early 1900s by the Marxist-Leninists of that day. Since then, they routinely nibble away at our society with frivolous lawsuits, alleging that they stand for individual liberties. Their founders and even today many of their members, are avowed socialists and/or communists. Those that aren't, are in the far-left wing of our political spectrum - much, much closer to communism than any other political persuasion. They only step in when it can advance the agenda of the far-left. Rarely, if ever, have they actually litigated in defense of social order.

And despite all their "bloviating" about "illegal domestic spying," I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that there is any merit to their grandiose, paranoic assertions...

But feel free to adhere to whatever philosophy that you wish. Despite the ACLU's best intentions, this still IS America...

And why would the DOD, FBI, NSA or any other intelligence organization have to engage in "secret, illegal wiretaps," when those who call themselves "patriotic dissenters" are brazenly in our faces day and night, foaming at the mouth and spitting invectives at the President, The Republicrats, Conservatives, and anyone else with whom they harbor disagreements? It seems like a huge waste of taxpayer money, when people like you are so eager to make yourselves known publically...

But I forget. Many of these types have apparently watched one too many X-Files...

For all this alleged "air of pervasive repression" often repeated by the kooks on the left, it doesn't seem to have forced anyone into silence. Hell! We've got illegal trespassers in this country demanding their "civil rights," and showing this country as being handed over to LaRaza once their "occupation" is complete. No effort was made to silence them. No effort is being made to silence you or your thoughts. Of course, if serious rebuttal occurs that refutes your points in question, is that "a pervasive air of repression," or just knocking down your false assertions?

steveGA responded to my inquiry by stating,

"Saxby Chambliss is my Senator as well. The comparison to Russ Feingold is based on Chambliss,or Chambliss supporters, running an ad during his campaign that compared his opponent, triple-amputee Vietnam Vet Max Cleland, to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

This was certainly a classy move made even classier by the fact that Chambliss avoided serving in Vietnam due to a 'football injury'."
______________

I was here during that time, and I vaguely remember some controversy to that effect, so I'll take your word on that. I personally didn't see or hear the ad in question.

But how is that related to the topic under discussion here? That partisanship exists and often exhibits itself in unsavory ways? Is that the point? If so, I accept your point.

But I think it's a non sequitor and not worthy of comparison in this instance, inasmuch as Russ Feingold's "parody ad" is attacking the President and his policies with a clear intent on conveying that the President is unsavory, illegal, and not worthy of support. No matter how you look at it, Russ Feingold is not running against the President for a job. Saxby Chambliss and Max Cleland were hotly engaged in a political struggle for the same job. Other than the fact that both ads were insulting and sleazy, the connection ends there...

Excellent ad, Matt. Thanks for the link! You rock!

dbogdan -
you employ a classic defense tactic, smearing the organization or conveyor of factual information as part of some vast left-wing conspiracy. the OLDEST trick in the book. problem is, you can never challenge the facts or assertions presented.

its all smear and attack but never challenge the facts. its ok to get hysterical (LOLOLOLOLOL) and make reckless accusations of an organizations supposed political inclinations, but you still don't address the facts.

of course, i'm sure you were a huge supporter of bob barr when he wanted to impeach clinton. of course, looks like this vast left-wing conspiracy has a few of your own:

Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential

1/17/2006 6:36:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Laura Brinker, 202-715-1540, for Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, laura.brinker@dittus.com

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

The following can be attributed to PRCB members:

"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union

"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.checksbalances.org.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

you know damn well, if this had been clinton's doing , you'd be going NUTS! the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Ooooohhh---the ACLU is complaining about Bush! Why not quote Al Gore or Paul Begala while you're at it?

Citing the ACLU as a source of reliable information is nuts.

bloviator,
Yeah, Bob Barr, nice guy, I don't agree with him.

You still haven't provided any evidence of illegal domestic spying the ACLU has uncovered after filing mountains of FoIA requests in every jurisdiction in the country. Is it your contention that the mere accusation of wrongdoing is sufficient?

dbogdan is correct; the ACLU is, and always has been a Communist front organization, their motives for tying up the government in frivolous motions are suspect.

You still haven't provided any evidence of illegal domestic spying the ACLU has uncovered after filing mountains of FoIA requests in every jurisdiction in the country. Is it your contention that the mere accusation of wrongdoing is sufficient?

The administration has openly admitted sidestepping the FISA court, a legally binding proceedure passed by congress and signed by the executive. And additional "proof" is in the details of who was illegally wiretapped.

Inform yourself.

Winnow,
Did you even read the question?

Gee, minnowhead and LimpWang--aka DAV--appear in the same thread. Now they're back at each other's blog, making out, hugging, and celebrating "kicking ass over at B4B, again."

No, bane, minnow is an idiot...

Bane of Liberals' Existence -
talk about not reading other comments or questions - everyone is demanding i produce evidence of illegal NSA spying (the program itself is ILLEGAL in entirety), but i actually said the following in my VERY FIRST comment:

where would feingold get such a preposterous idea - that bush might actually overstep the bounds of his power to perpetrate such covert and illicit acts of surveillance on americans? not like there would ANY reason to suspect bush would ever think of doing such a thing:

what i'm saying, and let me be crystal clear, is that there is wholesale justification to believe this president is manipulating his so-presumed unitary authority so that he can in fact spy on 'innocent' americans (including political opponents). and once again, i'll state it right now, you know DAMN well if clinton had done something like this, you would be calling for his head. if you can admit otherwise, maybe i'll take you seriously.

Did you even read the question?

I followed the discussion. Did you? Wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. We have a system that allows for immediate emergency surveilance when necessary. Why has the administration been so secretive in avoiding a secret court? Don't make me spell it out.

Yes, it's innuendo to suggest the Bush administration is monitoring political opponents. But we created the FISA court, following Watergate, to ENSURE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Now we have no oversite.

Sorry, our congress exercised it's right to regulate this kind of surveilance. Don't like oversite? Move to China. Most of us don't blindly trust our politicians, especially ones like Bush with an awfully tarnished track record.

Winnow,

But it isn't a warrantless wiretap program - it is a signals intelligence program. Massive difference, and Fiengold knows it even if you don't...NSA is not tapping into people's phones to listen to conversations...they are listening in to transmissions in and out of this country and searching for key words, names and phrases which might indicate a terrorist connection...

Drop the paranoia, join the real world...

Now we have no oversite.

Oversite? Hello?
Surveilance? Hello?

minnow, I always knew you were a moron, but I didn't think your were at Barney-level. You and DAV need to get together for some writing practice.

And quit your bitchin' about the wiretappin'--you could be next...

How will you stop a terrorist using a throw-away cell phone bought with cash and registered to no name? How will you stop a terrorist using a yahoo e-mail account while sitting at a coffee shop hot spot? Just how (really) would you know who or what to get a warrant for? I have asked this question again and again and NO-ONE has answered it.

But guess what, the NSA has. They watch the IP addresses and even the MAC addresses of suspected enemies overseas. They watch their phones. The connection on this side will be random and and may not ever repeat. It is impossible to get a warrant. One time the e-mail address is xyz@yahoo. Next time it's ABC@hotmail. You capture every e-mail and every phone call to suspected enemies overseas - or you lose. You lose, and they kill us.

But hey - lets here the liberal solution.....

kahn, I have asked the same question, at least as often as you have. And, surprise surprise, I got no answer, either.

Even a lib knows that once a call is placed from a known terrorist's phone there is a window of only a few minutes at best to find out who he is talking to and what they are saying. Even with a judge in the room, by the time the paperwork was done it would be too late.

BTW, in the vein of The Truth Hurts, once dbogdan identified DAV as the self-described Big Wang, I started calling him the Big Weenie. Ouch. Far more accurate, far more distressing. Also, the Freudian slip of referring to my "cheato" stained fingers---too much awareness of the cheating done by using more than one name here.

Sun was great, today, by the way. Balmy weather on the way, spring is sprung. Thanks for caring.

keefer...don't forget the dreaded Rogue Apostrophe. It may be a code so the libs can identify each other---in case the drooling wasn't enough.

" In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place."

Love the ACLU? Then you'll love this exceprt from an article from March 1997:

"President Clinton, however, has asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history."

I pray this guy is nominated. Pray, pray, pray that Feingold is nominated.

He was my Senator while I lived in Wisconsin, from there I went to California where I have Boxer and Feinstein.

Talk about three idiots.

Warrior,

Hell, I grew up in western massachusetts in the heart of the "five colleges" area. I saw anti-war demonstrators picketing Nixon when he came to visit his daughter at Smith. Met Kerry when one of my nun's brought him to speak to our class, and generally must have been a pretty stuborn kid to not grow up liberal. The area dripped (and still does) liberalism. On a recent visit, the Smithies had "anti-Columbus Day" signs and banners all over the place. Wackoville.

I credit it to high school geometry. The best class I ever took anywhere. It taught me about setting premises and demonstrating proofs. In short, logic. And, at least my house was rural enough so I grew up fishing, hunting, and just shooting. I'd leave my house in my tweens and early teens with a .22 rifle and bike to the river to goof off. Don't have to worry about child molesters when you're packin'. I actually held a Nixon sign at a polling station during his second election. Hopeless - there anyways. DC and Mass were the only two places that went for McArthy.

kahn, I have asked the same question, at least as often as you have. And, surprise surprise, I got no answer, either.

Even a lib knows that once a call is placed from a known terrorist's phone there is a window of only a few minutes at best to find out who he is talking to and what they are saying. Even with a judge in the room, by the time the paperwork was done it would be too late.

BTW, in the vein of The Truth Hurts, once dbogdan identified DAV as the self-described Big Wang, I started calling him the Big Weenie. Ouch. Far more accurate, far more distressing. Also, the Freudian slip of referring to my "cheato" stained fingers---too much awareness of the cheating done by using more than one name here.

Sun was great, today, by the way. Balmy weather on the way, spring is sprung. Thanks for caring.

um - they can surveil for up to 72 hours without obtaining a warrant (end of story). your first argument is baseless. by the way - if it makes so much sense, why did bush think he had to step around the courts and congress to do so (and don't give me any of the 4th amendment crap either)? oh and where are all the purported terrorists this program is supposed to have dragnetted?

How will you stop a terrorist using a throw-away cell phone bought with cash and registered to no name? How will you stop a terrorist using a yahoo e-mail account while sitting at a coffee shop hot spot? Just how (really) would you know who or what to get a warrant for? I have asked this question again and again and NO-ONE has answered it.

But guess what, the NSA has. They watch the IP addresses and even the MAC addresses of suspected enemies overseas. They watch their phones. The connection on this side will be random and and may not ever repeat. It is impossible to get a warrant. One time the e-mail address is xyz@yahoo. Next time it's ABC@hotmail. You capture every e-mail and every phone call to suspected enemies overseas - or you lose. You lose, and they kill us.

But hey - lets here the liberal solution.....

(i think you meant 'hear')
so tell me - how you discern between emails addresses that are utilized by individuals overseas and of those by american citizens like you and i? as i understand, all yahoo email address float through a US loco server. oh wait - no doubt the terrorist took the time to fill-in his address in pakistan, so, we would know that he was an 'overseas enemy'

basically, what you are saying is that there is no way to track terrorists unless we surveil the entirety of data traffic and entrust that our president (who has proven to be so honest and trustworthy in the past - ha!) will use this data in a responible manner. of course, coming from a former alcoholic and blow abuser who's failed at everything he's ever done, hard not to think otherwise.

bloviator and minnow,
I didn't ask either of you sophistrites to produce evidence of illegality in the NSA program.

You posted (at length) claims the ACLU made of the Pentagon and the FBI surveillance of anti-war groups. After mountains of filings over three years have they produced one credible claim that this has happened?

That’s the problem with you moonbats; you haven’t had an original thought is so long if there isn’t a moonbat talking point to tell you what to say you repeat whatever talking point you do have, even if it doesn’t apply to the discussion.

I don’t know why I try to engage you, you can’t or won’t read the question, just regurgitate your crap then congratulate yourselves for being clever; no wonder you’re in the minority, and thus it shall ever be.

blov, you're an idiot, the NSA can't "surveil (sic) for up to 72 hours without obtaining a warrant"

Do you people just write stuff as if it can't be checked? The NSA would be required to have the AG obtain a warrant from FISA after the fact. The problem with that is that the standard is still reasonable cause to have listened in the first place. That's why it falls under signals intelligence.

sur·veil - Audio pronunciation of "surveil" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sr-vl)
tr.v. sur·veilled, sur·veil·ling, sur·veils

To keep under surveillance.

so what you're saying is that, bc reasonable cause can never be determined, all surveillance falls under signals intelligence? well, there you go. since they can't ESTABLISH REASONABLE CAUSE, who the f*ck are they chasing? everyone - bc they have no clue who they are tracking. they're throwing a net over everyone hoping they'll come up with a target. that includes a majority of americans who actually use 21st century technology to communicate. and that's my point - this whole "we're only engaged in surveillance of individuals who are making international calls to al qaeda and related groups" is crap bc they don't know who these individuals are. if they did, they would OBVIOUSLY have reasonable cause to wiretap.

call me an idiot if you will, but at least i have the spine to sit here and debate it with you.

Debate? When will you start that? Spouting talking points and a refusal to accept facts isn't a debate; its contrarianism.

“um - they can surveil (sic) for up to 72 hours without obtaining a warrant (end of story).” Reasonable cause is a legal standard, not an opinion.

And you continue to avoid the question;
"After mountains of filings over three years have they produced one credible claim that this has happened?"

Now, quickly, go find some talking point to divert attention from the issue, I'll wait ...

nope - they have not found one credible claim - because they don;t have access to the data! how on earth are they supposed to find out? you think bush is going to turn around and tell them? the whole key to engaging in illicit activity is to NEVER BE FOUND OUT!

i make the argument that there is reasonable cause for suspicion purely based on the way they went about implementing the program (behind the backs of the courts and congress) and based on the past history of an administration hell-bent on politicizing everything and doing everything in its power to tamp dissent and maintain power. and that what it boils down to for me.

and talk about debate - you didn't even TOUCH the first paragraph of mine.... you slipped right by that without addressing one point i even made.

Blo-hard,
Your accusations are not based in fact. The ACLU has received everything they asked for from the FoIA Requests from the FBI, and have proved nothing.

NSA was not set up "behind the backs of the courts and congress" that claim is not only irresponsible it has been proven wrong in this very thread and numerous other times by Mark, JPL, Almiranta, dbogdan and me (and others).

You're blindly refusing to accept facts to your determent; you are looking like a foolish partisan, the very kind of person that would buy Feingold’s advertisement as factual.

Now, because you have yet to add to the debate, or offer anything resembling facts; only your demented opinion and conspiracy theories, I take my leave to go back to work.
End of discussion.

Bloviator - did you deliberately mis-read my post? Anyone logging on to the internet in Pakistan would have to dial in via phone or log on via a LAN. Yes? get that? That establishes the Pakisatn connection. His computer would have a physical MAC address that would be assigned either a hard or temporary IP address. That IP address would form the groundwork fot that person to log into various services (including e-mail).

So, he's talking to someone here. You are exactly right - no way to tell who. Could be using a fake name on Yahoo, google, hotmail, or anywhere. Probably rotating fake e-mails with some kind of code to authenticate the user. Maybe the mails are even coded or encrypted.

Now listen closely, because you ALMOST got it. Since the American side of the connection is anonymous and changes constantly - you record and analize EVERYTHING going to the target in Pakistan. THAT is how it works. How can you possibly get a warrant for e-mail from a connstantly changing series of fake e-mail addresses? Get it? That is what you Democrats are complaining about! The NSA monitors everything going to or from suspect e-mail and phones overseas. There isn't just no time to get a warrant - there is no way to get a warrant.

You twist this into all kinds of crap and accuse the President of all kinds of things you make up. now to you, this is great fun. Stick it to Bush! That Bastard! But in the meantime, the not stupid but maybe ignorant terroruist changes his communications patterns to make it harder to catch them. And YOU did this. Every child killed by someone we COULD have caught had you not helped the enemy is on your hands. This is real. You are helping them kill people.