Oh my goodness, lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Regurgatate the blue pill will ya! This and administration and it's minions have "spied" on plain ole' americans. Period. I find this unacceptable. Peace groups, senior groups, pro groups, against groups. Any groups. My goodness there's terror all around us. Run, report, sneak, spy. Terror, terror, terror. What if, (for a goof) they just happen to "spy" on their politcal rivals? Are they spies too? Are they part of the dredded "terror network"?

You guys are beyond belief. What, really what will it take for you to say "enough!".

In the mean time, sit in your little pool of piss, and justify that anything is OK, as long as it's in the name of fighting the war on "terror"! Sad.

Maroons.

raker,

And these are the same folks that are always moaning about "big government" And now they want them to spy on us.

Unbelievable.

raker13

The supporters of Bush have lost sight of what it means to be an American. They think that, in the effort to be safe from the terrorists, they need to blindly follow the President in everything he does and says. To question is, in their eyes, paramount to treason. A real American will question authority, regardless of the consequences.

raker,

The fact that you do not hesitate to label it as "spying" proves the point that the media's plan is working. The fact that you do not show suspicion when major news reportings blatantly use rhetoric and report that rhetoric as fact also lays claim to your gullibility.

The mainstream media, as the foremost reporter of the news, has the responsibility of making certain that they aren't mixing messages or spreading rumors through the use of misplaced rhetoric, or even selectively reporting only the news that supports certain agendas. A medium for news cannot claim to be unbiased when most pieces written for it only show one side of the issue when both sides are relatively reasonable.

Using language like the one used in the article are bound to place in the readers certain...ideas which are not necessarily true. Constantly throwing around phrases like "Big Brother" and "Domestic Spying Program" sows the seeds of distrust of the government into those who are gullible enough to believe everything news reporters say at face value. It is not for the reporters of the news to decide what is and isn't worthy of dissenting against.

The only thing which is beyond belief here is your selective blindness.

I know!! You guys are SO right!! I mean, 9/11 was just a big fraternity prank, after all. What's everyone getting so riled up about?! It's not like we haven't been attacked by Al Qaeda since the early 1990's. Those crazy terrorists!

Hey Ash, I'm still waiting on your plan to protect the country against attacks. Could you please expand on the "shore up national defense" explanation?

My selective blindness...right-o. (snicker) It's all a MSM conspiracy. You won't find those kinds of bad words on Fox, now will ya? Bad words, bad. Bad rhetoric, bad. Yeesh, get a grip.

Ya know, those terrorists are probably sneaking in across our borders in absolute droves as we speak! Thank goodness our National Guard is going down there to stop the potential "terrorists" from crossing the border. Now that we are sending the guard south, I bet those sneaky terrorists found out, and (that darn MSM again, what's a patriot to do?) are heading to Canada right now! We better send the guard up there too!

Better yet, yeah, here's the ticket. We send some guard to each and every town, checking ID. We'd better get that national ID now wouldn't ya think?

Those terrorists could be anywhere! That's it! Guards on every street corner. ID checks. Investigations. Interrogation. Goodness, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Maroons.

My selective blindness...right-o. (snicker) It's all a MSM conspiracy. You won't find those kinds of bad words on Fox, now will ya? Bad words, bad. Bad rhetoric, bad. Yeesh, get a grip.

Ya know, those terrorists are probably sneaking in across our borders in absolute droves as we speak! Thank goodness our National Guard is going down there to stop the potential "terrorists" from crossing the border. Now that we are sending the guard south, I bet those sneaky terrorists found out, and (that darn MSM again, what's a patriot to do?) are heading to Canada right now! We better send the guard up there too!

Better yet, yeah, here's the ticket. We send some guard to each and every town, checking ID. We'd better get that national ID now wouldn't ya think?

Those terrorists could be anywhere! That's it! Guards on every street corner. ID checks. Investigations. Interrogation. Goodness, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Maroons.

It was reported today that Bell South contracts out it's billing to an Israeli company. That means that the Israelis have all the records and phone numbers they require to data mine that information and sell what they discover to the NSA and CIA. This is how the Zioniasts,neo-cons and armageddonists meet and greet. Peace

Mark said: "As if the headline isn't bad enough the article, it makes virtually no attempt to explain that methods involved in surveillance are targetting terrorists."

Hmmm... I wonder why. But go ahead Matt, explain it to us. What do you know about what's going on? What does anyone here know?

Isn't it interesting, though, that up until recently the righty talking point was... "well, as far as we know they're only monitoring calls where one node is overseas: thus, it's not really a domestic phone call, so it's no big deal. We trust Bush. No need for any real oversight." More recently, however, the righty talking point has shifted to... "well okay, the communications they're monitoring are totally domestic... but as far as we know they're not monitoring the contents of the actual call, so it's no big deal. We trust Bush. No need for any real oversight."

Yet despite that rather techtonic shift in knowledge, many here on the right didn't even skip a beat -- the lefties were still the kool-aid drinkers and crying wolf. Jeepers.

I have to ask... what more is it going to take?

Let me propose a few hypothetical examples... How about if the powers that be privately decide among themselves to monitor journalists? Maybe that's okay with you, maybe not. What if the powers that be privately decide that it's too risky to allow state militias? Maybe that's okay with you, maybe not. What if the powers that be privately decide that it's too risky to allow private ownership of firearms?

I'm sure some are going to claim that banning state militias and private ownership of firearms is way beyond the pale. But is it really? Obviously the state militias are already largely under federal government control. As for private ownership of firearms, do read the 2nd Ammendment literally sometime. Literally, it only guarantees the right to bear arms within the context of a "well organized [state] militia". State or no state, how long do you think that's going to bear up to scrutiny in light of expanded powers under the 2nd Article?

I really don't know what sort of monitoring the government is currently engaging in, but I have a few educated guesses. And all of those guesses suggest that proper oversight is very, very important. The potential for important insight is quite high. But the potential for abuse is much higher. I have never been against the programs that are currently exposed, but I am adamantly against placing their control under the auspicices of the legislative branch exclusively. Informal briefings to the congressional Big 8 are not enough. I hope you guys understand what I'm saying. It's not about the programs, it's about oversight.

Congress is unlikely to be the best nexus of that oversight. Nonetheless, congress is the legislative branch, so it's up to them to put the proper legal umbrella in place. IMHO, it would be awful to let congress shirk their responsibilities in this matter, this time around. To spin this into a partisan Dem/Rep issue is not a good idea AT ALL.

oops... I said: "I am am adamantly against placing their control under the auspicices of the legislative branch exclusively".

I meant the executive branch. Sorry.

I wonder if most Americans know that we allow foreign agencies to spy on Americans...M16 for example. Just as we are allowed to spy on the British citizens.

It's been going on for DECADES but most people don't know about it. Gov'ts have these agreements in place for a reason, can you guys tells us why.

I'll bet Spook and some others can assist here.

You guys ever notice it's the party that re-elects Marion Barry and adores the criminal Bill Clinton that is so tied up in nots about being "watched."

The party that also supports felons having the right to vote.

Hmmmm...no wonder they are so concerned about law enforcement activities...these people are in bed and worship criminals all of the time.

LOL

The problem with your argument, Matt, is that you read too much into one word in the article rather than taking your blinders off and viewing it as it is meant to be viewed.

We KNOW that the NSA is collecting data on PEOPLE. You TRUST that the NSA is ONLY collecting data on terrorists. Now all terrorists are people, but not all people are terrorists. The latest news is that the NSA is collecting phone records, not the calls themselves, but data. However, the millions of people they are collecting data on are not terrorists, but they are all people.

Not everyone trusts this administration. Not everyone trusted Clinton. Not everyone trusted Bush 1, Not everyone trusted Reagan. Now you tell me, of the last 3 Presidents, have ANY of them been trustworthy??? No. So what makes you think that current Bush is any different than the rest of them? As if we suddenly have a president that never tells a lie, never does anything for his own self-interest. In other words, too many people look at him as if he's the second coming of Christ here to lead us all to the promised land. That's the problem I have.

Let's see if I can get a handle on this spying thing. It's only been going on for centuries. Does anyone remember way back when-- you had to dial the operator to get a call out? Or party lines? How about telegrams during WW2 going to the FBI? When I get my phone bill, all my calls are listed on it. Good grief, even Dave from Dish Network has my phone number. Oh, and can't just anyone go online and get anyone's phone number? You do know that any telephone operator can monitor your phone conversation. And how about those satelites that can take your picture and that of your car license plate number. Or how about those Electronic stores that sell eveasdropping devices. Gotta love all those high tech gizmos they sell to the public. Does most of America really think they are that important that the NSA is monitoring them?? Do you know how many millions of calls are placed each day just here in the USA? If people are so hyped about their "private" phone conversations they obviously aren't talking to Dave.

OK, rico and raker and ash and CO---are you consistent? Were you equally concerned about Echelon? As the data mining going on today originated with the Clinton Administration's Echelon Project, you might cite liberal outrage at that time, about that project.

Where was your outrage when the Clintons started investigating those who got on their wrong side, collecting more than 1000 FBI files on people like Pennsylvania Rep. William Clinger, who (coincidentally?) chaired the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which conducted extensive hearings into both the Filegate and Travelgate scandals in 1995 and 1996.

Did you get your knickers in a know when it came out that "Clinton damage controller" Marsha Scott briefed Associate White House Counsel William Kennedy on plans to upload information from the illegally obtained FBI files into the White House computer database---plans which originated with the First Lady?

How did you feel about the Clinton Administration's approval of warrantless searches of public housing? Did you agree that those living in federally-funded housing had waived their fourth amendment rights?

Did you absolutely flip out when Clinton started his warrantless surveillance of white supremacist communities after the OKC bombings? Surely you remember the low-flying surveillance which included infrared scanning to determine exactly where people were in the compounds---this kind of thing could never get past true civil rights advocates such as yourselves.

Fact is, there is no proof, nor is there even any indication, that any confidential information is being sought, or obtained, by the computerized data mining program. Watch the TV show "numbers" for examples of how abstract mathematical computations are used daily to establish behavior patterns. The data mining is an effort to collect enough data, on phone calls' frequency, duration, and other impersonal details, to try to find predictable patterns which might, MIGHT, then be used to red-flag certain communication patterns in the future. It is DATA mining, not INFORMATION mining.

The only people who have a problem with it are those for whom data, and information, are infinitely fluid, changing form and definition according to their own political preferences.

Take the red pill fella's. Spit out the blue one.

Captain Ron, what you are missing is that NO ONE thinks that George W. Bush is " the second coming of Christ here to lead us all to the promised land."

I am for the most part a Bush supporter, and I certainly don't think that at all. I don't know anyone who does.

I think he is, as a human being, a fallible and flawed man, subject to error and miscalculation. I think he has made mistakes, both before his election and during his presidency. I expect he will continue to make mistakes until the day he dies, just like all the other flawed and fallible human beings out here---which is to say, all of us, and all who have come before us.

I also think that he is basically honorable. I think he takes his position very seriously, not as an ego booster or a springboard to great personal wealth or to satisfy a need for power or to guarantee a supply of compliant young women, but as a profound responsibility. Therefore, while I see and often despair of what I think are errors on his part, I do believe that they are errors made in a sincere effort to do the right thing FOR THE COUNTRY. That is the key phrase. I am so relieved to have a president who thinks of the country first, whether he is right or wrong, that I can be rational about his mistakes.

Unlike those not only suffering from but reveling in their BDS--Bush Derangement Syndrome---who are so elated by anything they think they might be able to use against him that the best interests of the country fall a distant second---if that.

It is sad, but oh so true, that what is good for the country is bad for these rabid liberals, while what hurts the country is what makes them the most gleeful.

OK, I can handle the spittle-stained rantings of the uber-liberals who seem to be so drawn to this blog. But I have to take a strong stand against the Rogue Apostrophe. No penalty too strong......

I'll bet Spook and some others can assist here.

Warriornation, Almiranta kind of stole my thunder. Project Echelon was first implemented, IIRC, back about the time I enlisted in Navy in the mid-60's, primarily as a collection/intercept program that targeted Soviet communications. It's been a while since I've really read up on it, and I'm sure it's undergone a myriad of changes since I retired in '89. It seems to me that there have been recent allegations that the Clinton administration used Echelon to get around the prohibition of US intelligence agencies monitoring U.S. persons by swapping data with the Brits (they spy on us, we spy on them, and then share the results). I'm not sure whether this is actually a known fact or just alledged by the NYT, etc. It's honestly hard to know anymore what's real and what's not.

Spook - you raise a good point. The signals intelligence program would be far more powerful if they were able to merge the phone databases of other allied nations (UK, France, Canada, etc.) and allowed all nations to mine the data and share findings. That way, communications nodes that branch off in another nation could be included in a 'global' data model, thus maximizing the chances of detecting terrorist plots, smuggling operations, immigration fraud, etc.. I certainly hope our intelligence agencies are proactively sharing with other nations in this way.

Very interesting to read the wiki about how this morphed from against the Soviets to a tool for business intelligence to today's iteration of domestic spying.

It also mentions how they can capture voice so it is not a big leap of faith to think the Neo-cons aren't using it against us.

Take a big sip of the kool-aid and cliok on the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

-Joe

In my opinion Bush is doing the right thing, I disagree with the idea that he has “sold the store”. The fact of the matter is: we are talking about human beings. What Bush wants to do recognizes this, and serves to protect lives. Furthermore, you can’t punish employers until you have a Guest Worker Program and an identification card.

The Bush plan does several things:

1) It recognizes the dignity of human life.
2) It secures America.
3) It recognizes our historic roots.
4) Doesn’t pander to any interest group.
5) And protects workers for exploitation.

Overall I think Bush is taking a principled stand.

Also if anyone watched Karl Rove yesterday they know that mid-terms are going to be a real fight. The Democrats will be caught off guard and evidently they haven’t learned from last time that their sole position can’t be: I’m not Bush.

In my opinion Bush is doing the right thing, I disagree with the idea that he has “sold the store”. The fact of the matter is: we are talking about human beings. What Bush wants to do recognizes this, and serves to protect lives. Furthermore, you can’t punish employers until you have a Guest Worker Program and an identification card.

The Bush plan does several things:

1) It recognizes the dignity of human life.
2) It secures America.
3) It recognizes our historic roots.
4) Doesn’t pander to any interest group.
5) And protects workers for exploitation.

Overall I think Bush is taking a principled stand.

Also if anyone watched Karl Rove yesterday they know that mid-terms are going to be a real fight. The Democrats will be caught off guard and evidently they haven’t learned from last time that their sole position can’t be: I’m not Bush.

The Democrats will be caught off guard and evidently they haven’t learned from last time that their sole position can’t be: I’m not Bush.

You are probably right Chris. But it is a good starting point.

I think a BIG point that all you "Alls ok in the fight on Terror" people need to think about is:

The NSA spying program has been going for at LEAST 5 years. Thats 60 months, or 1800 days.

No doubt its cost tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars so far.

And yet, no one in the administration can say that that the program can caught a single terrorist. Not one. So just how long are you people willing to give up your privacy and freedoms for with no results?

Please don't bother with the old "There has not been another attack so thats proof", because it was 8 years between attacks during Clinton and he wasn't a fascist bastard like these guys are.

Where does it stop? How much of your freedoms are you willing to sacrifice? All of them?

So far, you have lost your rights to privacy, your 4th ammendment rights and your rights to due process.

The government can arrest you, toss you in jail with no charges or due process, no lawyers and hold you for the rest of your life and all they need to say is we think he's connected to terrorists. They don't need to show ANYONE any proof. Remember, those 3000 people in jail in CUBA? Terrorists they called them for years. NO due process, no lawyers, no charges. 500 of them just released, THEY WERE INNOCENT! Yet, they have been robbed of 4 1/2 years of their lives. What if it was your son, daughter or friend that was in jail over there? Remember, these are all Americans, not foreigners.

Every month we learn more and more about the spying and it gets worse and worse. Now its coming out that the NSA spy satellites that they are supposed to be using to spy on foreign countries to watch for weapons etc, have been repositioned and are watching YOU. Wiretapping is not enough. Recording all your phone records are not enough. Now they are literally watching you. They are literally watching 130+ American cities and spying on innocent citizens ordinary coming and going. That sure doesnt sound much like looking for terrorists to me.

Now, its also coming out that the government is putting special attention into journalists phone records. Who are they calling and whos calling them. Are they writing stories that are not in our best interests? So the abuse is already started. They will be pressuring journalist to avoid covering any more of their dirty laundry and only write good things.

To anyone with an open mind and an eye on past history, these are DEFINATE signs of an emerging FASCIST state.

Next, you will find out that yes indeed they are recoding domestic phone calls and logging them. Some more will be upset, others will put the blinders on and say, anything goes in the war on Terror.

Hitler had the Jews to hide his evil agenda behind.

Bush has the Terrorists.

Wake up people and start taking back your country while you still can.

Ok Axis so what do you suggest Bush does instead? What policy do you think should be implemented that will be effective?

Well, since the only calls that Terrorists are known to use are disposable cell phones, wiretaps are useless against these.

They need to concentrate on traditional techniques that WORK and don't infringe on peoples privacy. You know good old investigative work.

Bush has ALL he needed before 9/11 to stop it, CSI knew something big was happening, as did the FBI, and BUSH blocked every single one of their investigations in one way or another that would have allowed to to capture the terrorists before 9/11.

The entire NORAD system failed. The Entire Pentagon defese network failed and allowed a handful of terrorist with box cutters to land a crushing blow to the United States.

If you investigated and documented every one of the failures that would have had to happen to allow this to happen, it would make your head spin. But, it was just like pre-Iraq, Bush HAD the intelligence, he just ignored it and then claimed that the Intelligence was bad.

If yout read the Neo-cons little manifesto, "Project for a New American Century", thats authoried by half of those in the white house including Cheney and Rumfeld, ( Find it here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ) on page 51, you will see that what they NEEDED to jumpstart their Neo-Con agenda was "A Second Pearl Harbor."

Then by the gace of God, they got it just 8 months into Bush's term. Neat huh.

NC Cop:

2. Bring home the troops. They hate us because we are occupiers. Every day we are there we create more enemies and hatred for us. We are not the boss of the world.

Almiranta said: "OK, rico and raker and ash and CO---are you consistent? Were you equally concerned about Echelon? As the data mining going on today originated with the Clinton Administration's Echelon Project, you might cite liberal outrage at that time, about that project."

Well, first of all, I voted for Bush I, not Clinton. I did, however, vote for Clinton over Dole. I just didn't like Dole. And I voted for Bush II twice. As far as the episodes you mentioned, Echelon was/is a foreign surveillance system, not a data mining operation (so far as we know). Foreign surveillance is specifically permitted without oversight by US Code Title 50, Ch. 36. As Spook mentioned, there were allegations that the US and Brits pussyfooted around the ban on domestic intel by sharing each other's "foreign" communications intel. They remain allegations to this day. But if they were true, would I be happy about it? No. On the one hand, at least there were two independent agencies involved to oversee what information was swapped. But better control is needed.

Concerning the FBI files, I supported the INDEPENDENT investigation into it. Likewise, I accepted special counsel Ray's (he was Ken Starr's successor) decision exonerating the Clinton White House of the charges.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the "warrantless searches of public housing" charge (or at least I can't identify what you're talking about from the description), so I can't really comment on it.

Regarding Clinton's warrantless surveillance of white supremacist communities after the OKC bombings, yes I did support it. How about you? And how did Clinton handle the situation? Did he attempt to keep the activities he wanted to pursue against terrorists a secret and -- more importantly -- try to prevent oversight of them? The answer is no, of course. It's not the programs at issue here, it's the oversight of the programs. If you let President Bush do what he wants without any other governmental branch looking over his shoulder to make sure he's not over-stepping his bounds, you will have to let future presidents do the same thing.

Almiranta said: "Fact is, there is no proof, nor is there even any indication, that any confidential information is being sought, or obtained, by the computerized data mining program."

Well, there are indications (or at least allegations), but not proof. Is that what you're waiting for -- proof that abuses have already occurred? Isn't that a bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone? Again, it's not about the programs, it's about oversight of the programs. It's about going after terrorists effectively WHILE AT THE SAME TIME protecting civil liberties as best you can.

I don't get how that's an "uber-liberal" point of view. I mean for goodness sake, who lead the opposition to Clinton's efforts to get the FISA law changed to allow more intrusive surveillance of suspected terrorists? What's changed? Is it just who's in power? How ridiculous is that?

ABC News reported on Monday that a senior federal law enforcement had revealed that the government is now tracking phone calls made by journalists from the New York Times, Washington Post and ABC News.

Now if this doesn't raise the hair on the back of your necks we are doomed. This is beyond data mining. This is illegal. This is an attempt to intimidate both journalists and sources. And we all know what happens when Big Brother controls the information:

The terrorists will have won!

Axis:
Thanks for the reply. I don't agree with you that terrorists only use disposable cell phones.

With regards to 9/11 are you saying that Bush and company deliberately ignored info so that a terrorist attach would occur? I will read the Manifesto when work calms down a bit.

Ash:
2. Bring home the troops. They hate us because we are occupiers ... . I understand that you wish that troops had never invaded Iraq, however they are there now whether we like it or not. How should we 'bring home the troops'? All at one go? Or gradually withdraw the troops as the Iraq government grows in strength and the Iraq security forces take over the keeping of the peace in their own country? The all at one go is obviously a dumb move. The second gradual option is probably whats going to happen.

That's great Ash. Bring home the troops. Perhaps you can tell me where the troops were when over 2,000 Americans died on 9/11? Who were we attacking when that happened? Or in 1993 for the first WTC bombing, or the USS Cole, or the embassies in Africa. All of these occurred before the troops were deployed. So perhaps you can give a more realistic plan, you know, realistic in the sense that there are people out there who are constantly planning attacks on our country. People who were planning long before we ever entered Iraq.

Please try again.

You are probably right, JJ. But one has to wonder how long it will be before the Iraqi security forces are ready to take over. In my lifetime? In my childrens lifetime? There is a good argument to be made that whenever we do leave there will be a full blown civil war, whether that is now or 20 years from now. We just can't fix a problem between factions that has existed for a long, long time.
So I say start bringing them home, gradually, but at a pace that will make Iraqi's will understand we ARE leaving.

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being "tracked."

"Think of it more as backtracking," said a senior federal official.

But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

"The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

NC Cop - Don't you think that the military bases the US established in Saudi, the land of Mecca, after the first Gulf war could have create the hatred that let to all of the attacks you mentioned? After all the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi.

Echelon? No, I did not know about it at the time, would not have agreed with it, but from some that I have read about it, it used the FISA court and they had warrants to do most of what they did.

JJ: I assume they don't use just disposable cells, however they are not registering phones in names that can easily be identified, thats for sure.

NC Cop: The Troops in Iraq, are NOT fighting terrorists, they are fighting INSURGENTS that are only fighting US troops because they are occupiers.

The troops in Afganistan are fighting terrorists, which is where the US should be, not in Iraq. The Taliban is coming back now that there are hardly any US troops left there. In Iraq, Hussein is gone, let the Iraqis fight it out now and decide who should lead the country. The US presence cannot help there.

axis,

Ash stated that the way to help secure the country was to bring the troops home. He implied that if there were no troops in Iraq then there would be no more terrorist attacks. I pointed out that we were attacked many times before Iraq was ever in the picture. The discussion had nothing to do with whether or not the troops were fighting terrorists.

Secondly, I wish you guys would make up your mind. First you scream at the president saying that "thousands" of foreign fighters are pouring into the country to fight our troops. NOW, it's your everyday Iraqi that is fighting the evil occupiers. So which is it? It can't be both.

Go to Iraq for awhile and then you can tell me what it's like.

question all,

I believe you are right. In fact, I think it was the fact that U.S. troops were in Saudi Arabia that set Osama Bin Laden off and he began his attacks against us. However, we were legally invited by the Saudi government, who apparently was convinced that Saddam had his sights set on them after Kuwait (why else would they ask us there?). We can't back down because certain people "don't like us", dont you think?

I wish it were a perfect world where we could pull every troop from around the world and bring them home forever, but it's not realistic. If a terrorist group in Germany got upset that we were there and started attacking us, would we pack up and leave, or fight back? We can't turn tail and run everytime somebody gets ticked off that we are in their country, especially if we are legally there.

I do see your point though, and it is a good one.

The NSA spying program has been going for at LEAST 5 years. Thats 60 months, or 1800 days.

"No doubt its cost tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars so far.

And yet, no one in the administration can say that that the program can caught a single terrorist. Not one. So just how long are you people willing to give up your privacy and freedoms for with no results" Axis

I love your logic...because YOU haven't heard about any successes there must not be any. We are just plain lucky that there have been no attacks on our soil.

"Remember, those 3000 people in jail in CUBA? Terrorists they called them for years. NO due process, no lawyers, no charges. 500 of them just released, THEY WERE INNOCENT! Yet, they have been robbed of 4 1/2 years of their lives."

Where do you get the idea they were innocent? They have also released a number of the armed combatants from Afganistan who were caught fight and killing Americans. I suppose they were innocent as well.

Could it be that either they were not worth trying or that some had been turned and are now acting as agents? Or that they are now being monitored to determine their connections. Of course that must be illegal to because you haven't seen the court orders.

I know you'd rather believe that the administation has nothin better to do than pull people off the street at random, just for the sadistic pleasure of it.

You are one sick paranoid dude.

NC COP, Troops in Iraq are NOT fighting terrorists. They are fighting insurgents that are fighting the U.S. occupation. Picture this, North Korea drops 10 000 enemy troops into the middle of your city and starts killing its citizens. You pick up a gun and start fighting the enemy troops. Would you be a Terrorist by doing that? If not, and you think that Iraqis and sympathic foreigners fighting the occupation are, then you are a hellva big hypocrite.

Terrorists are people that kill innocents to a political, monetary, idealogical or religious cause. People fighting enemy troops would not qualify.

Posted by NC COP

"Ash stated that the way to help secure the country was to bring the troops home. He implied that if there were no troops in Iraq then there would be no more terrorist attacks. I pointed out that we were attacked many times before Iraq was ever in the picture. The discussion had nothing to do with whether or not the troops were fighting terrorists.

Secondly, I wish you guys would make up your mind. First you scream at the president saying that "thousands" of foreign fighters are pouring into the country to fight our troops. NOW, it's your everyday Iraqi that is fighting the evil occupiers. So which is it? It can't be both.

Go to Iraq for awhile and then you can tell me what it's like."

"Well, since the only calls that Terrorists are known to use are disposable cell phones, wiretaps are useless against these."
Which is exactly why warrants don't work. While not ALL calls are on disposables, they provide an important method for terrorists to avoid wiretapping warrants, thereby making FISA inoperable.
Which is exactly why NSA needs to be able to listen to a conversation originationg from a known terrorist to any phone, anywhere. What to do with the information gleaned from those intercepts is a legal matter, but not the method of getting it, which has already been covered over and over again in court ruling after court ruling on the legal boundaries of the president.

"Don't you think that the military bases the US established in Saudi, the land of Mecca, after the first Gulf war could have create the hatred that let to all of the attacks you mentioned?"
Then why don't the terrorists say they are out to kill the military, or those who placed them in Saudi? Why do they simply say they want to kill "infidels"?
D'ya think it could be because what they really want to do is kill infidels? Infidels in their country, infidels not in their country, whatever, as long as they are not Muslims? I have to go by what they SAY, not some Blame America First liberal talking point.

Here is a radical experiment: using logic to talk to liberals. But here goes:
If the INSURGENTS are only killing people (Muslims, women, children, Americans, ete.) because we have soldiers in Iraq.....
and if we only have soldiers in Iraq until the country becomes safe.......
then wouldn't those INSURGENTS realize that the best way to get us out of there would be to simply stop killing people?
That is, IF our presence is the real reason they are doing what they are doing.

But if they are doing what they are doing to shut down the Iraqi attempts to establish self-government, one which is probably going to be more secular than religious, they will continue killing even after we leave. And, as they are targeting more Muslims than Americans right now, that pesky logic would lean more toward the second theory.

So pulling out our troops now would only have the effect of telling the radical Muslims that Osama was right, that we are toothless tigers, that we do cut and run when the going gets tough, that we will not fight to defend ourselves or what we believe in, and that the spineless American public will never stand for a bloody conflict. OK, so what?

Well, the So What is that those are the reasons given by Bin Laden for upping the ante and going after even more Americans, and feeling secure in doing so on our own soil. His own words.

Connect the dots....

Ash, I suggest that you register your outrage at any law enforcement or government agency ever checking the phone records of anyone in trying to investigate any crime, because that should make those neck hairs of yours come to attention every time it happens.

You're not going to be very happy in Colorado---it is far too reasonable a place for delusional paraniods like you. Is Alamosa within two hours of Florence---in your radius? Because they did have those cattle mutilations and UFO sightings there, and maybe even some black helicopter activity---you might find a fellow traveler or two, after all.

Almiranta, please don't try to spins a web of BS

NSA can intercept calls and apply for warrants with FISA within 72 hours after. They are not using warrants because and only because they are doing things that they KNOW FISA would never allow, such as tapping journalists and political activist groups and people that they have no probable cause to suspect wrong doing

I didn't say that only insurgents are killing people, I said they are the ones attacking US troops. Others are involved in civil war, AKA sectatian violence and they are killing others. Sunni killing Shites, Shites killing kurds etc. The terrorists in Iraq now for the most part are killing each other and there is NO threat of them coming to america to continue their terrorism. So the Bushchevic arguement that the troops are fighting them there so we dont have to here is all KAKA and you are only following the lead because its your party in power. Once your party is backbenching it,I can guarantee you will be singing an entirely different tune.