Agreed, the NSA spying program is an invaluable tool when used properly. When used improperly - without warranted oversight - it is valueless, as it violates our constitution and renders all case evidence unusable. Real Americans respect our constitution, those that undermine it are traitors. Stupidity and ignorance are no excuse. Our president is inexcusable.

I still wouldn't put it past Dems to oppose the NSA terror surveillance program... if they ran the GWoT, we'd all be dead right now.

Matt:

Liberals do not oppose anti-terrorism activities. We do not oppose surveillence and special operations to combat terrorism.

What we demand, because we firmly believe in the Constitution is that there are the proper checks and balances on these activities. Moreover, civil rights must be protected. Aferall this is what we are really defending.

We oppose the use of such powers to monitor political opponents, intimidate dissenters and hamper free speech.

In your example, the terrorist plot was uncovered through normal law enforcement channels.

Wade

Wade

Stupidity and ignorance are no excuse.

tsmith, then what is your excuse?

Seen Rudy last night on H&C tell you what, I am getting more and more impressed with him being our next President. If he runs ( and he will ) no one will be able to beat him.

tsmith,

FISA warrants are an unnecessary and do nothing except add time and cost, and appease the conspiracy oriented left. The last I heard, there have been 20,000 or so warrants requested and only a handful disapproved. If there are any illegal actions, those can be thrown out by the liberal judges when the terrorists and terrorist supporters go to jail! I'm sure the ACLU will be there to make sure the "rights" of the terrorists aren't infringed upon. The liberal [progressive] Democrats must look our for criminals and terrorists at all costs -- even if it costs the lives of who knows how many Americans!

It's time we allow the FBI, NSA, and CIA to check on "suspected" terrorists, just like they do in England and Pakistan -- not just those for whom "probable cause" can be fully established. By the time we build up a case for probable cause, it will probably be because American families are lying among the wreckage of downed planes and buildings.

It's time we find out too where money is going that comes from terrorists and nations like Iran and Venezuela! Which of the anti-American, anti-Israeli organizations within America are being funded by nations like Iran, overseas terrorists, and terrorists within this country. Are these organizations or individuals funding or producing some of the anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda we hear from the left? Is any of this money going to fund political organizations working against America's and Israel's interests? The American voters need to know these things!

AAR

didn't the vice-pres used to be the loser in the race? way back in our early history? or was that just a suggestion? hillary and rudy, ruling together. what do you think about that?

hey guys! reminder. scotland yard gets the credit for this one - not chimpy!

The military does not require warrants. NSA is military. You need a warrant to gather evidence to prosecute someone.

The Marine Corps or Army does not need a warrant to gather evidence to kill an enemy. THAT is the standard.

The military does not require warrants. NSA is military. You need a warrant to gather evidence to prosecute someone.

The Marine Corps or Army does not need a warrant to gather evidence to kill an enemy. THAT is the standard.

Oh and blowhard - wrong. At least read the news before posting. National Security means helped trigger the investigation....

And England has different rules on survellience. Maybe that is why they caught these terrorists before the bombs went off.

kjstrouble,

That's exactly what several analysts have said, and I for one believe them. Their opinion was that the U.S. may very well not -- some say would not -- have caught the terrorists because FISA or other courts would not allow our authorities "warrants" to act based on suspicious behavior.

It may very well take more attacks on the U.S. and many more American deaths before the voters stop listening to the left and allow our authorities to do what it takes to stop the terrorists. No matter what we do, it is impossible to stop all attacks, but it is insanity not to do all we possibly can. America is in a war to protect our lives, while the liberal Democrats are in a war of hate against President Bush and America. Unfortunately, their hate is being heard -- and believed -- around the world, including terrorists and would be terrorists.

The American voters must wake up and realize that the anti-American hate propaganda from the liberal Democrats is only serving to weaken the United States, encourage and enable terrorists, and encourage even more terrorism in the future.

For now at least, many Americans are listening with their left ear and hearing only the liberal Democratic brain-candy that sounds so simple, effortless, and without any need to fight -- until they have finished talking!

AAR

AAR, can you imagine what would have happened had some of these libs been spouting off during WWII? When I heard about the terrorist plot to blow up the planes my first thought was that I hoped none of them had made it over here, or planes would soon begin to fall out of the sky.

I hope none of the liberal idiots at the ACLU don't get it into their collective mind to file in court to have the new security measures stopped. If they do, and any associates of the terrorists get over here, planes will begin to fall.

Tsmith- you are right, it would have been much better had the planes been exploded. Three thousand innocents killed would be worth knowing we did not use the NSA inproperly. That information alone would keep the widows and orphans warm at night.

Bloviator- I would assume you realize the U.S. was in on this bust, but then again i would also assume you know your head from your A#$, but I would be wrong.

"What we demand, because we firmly believe in the Constitution"

Liberals believe in the constitution? Only when liberals can find ways to subvert the constitution is when they believe in it. How else can one find the right to abortion in the 4th amendment.

What we demand, because we firmly believe in the Constitution

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

War

How else can one find the right to abortion in the 4th amendment.

Or, the separation of church and state in the First Amendment. War

The anti-war left and their thoughts of handling terrorism is not just a joke, it's downright dangerous.

From a discussion I was having elsewhere, I put together a little debunking on my little site here: Right In A Left World

The Left, this time in the persona of tsmith, keep harping on the need for "oversight" and now "warranted oversight"---whatever that is.

I keep asking, and gee, here's a surprise,never get an answer. So, tsmith, why don't you give it a shot?....

What kind of oversight? What purpose would the oversight serve? If the oversight happened to agree with the Administration, would that be proof that we needed additional oversight? Who would appoint the overseers? Would he overseeers need oversight? Who would appoint THOSE overseers? How would the finiding of the oversight group be handled? Would they be made public? Why is the current court review system not considered adequate? What WOULD be considered adequate?

Further, how would you set up a system which would allow us to monitor disposable phones, which preclude getting warrants?

Here is my suggestion: That we allow the various groups to continue monitoring international communications which originate abroad and which are placed to numbers which are within the United States. I recommend that the information gained from these monitorings be scanned for information of a terrorist nature, and be used only to halt terrorist attacks.

I suggest that the transcripts be presented to a judicial review board, of judges chosen to make sure the information is not used in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.

Would a system like this be agreeable to you, smith and others? If not, how would you change my suggestions to provide what you feel the necessary kind and degree of protection?

Of course the blowhard is wrong---he posted, didn't he?

But he also made a very important point for me---that if the Left really had anything to whine about, they would use it. The fact that they have to keep falling back on the size of a man's ears is proof positive they not only have nothing of value to present, they KNOW this.

The position of the Left is silly, vapid, childish, and wholly emotion-based. Thanks, Blowhard, for making that point even clearer.

Wrong again. The British achieved their result through legal surveillance - not illegal eavesdropping.