well Mark - if the government would be so nice as to provide us with a list of the people they have been surveying then we could check couldn't we. Of course - they won't so its impossible to know either way. Its a catch 22 - and Mark - take a look in the mirror if you think its possible to be dumber than a demcorat

markomaniac
liberalT is a goofball
however his point is pretty dead on this time
you're being a goofball too....thinking you're going to get a list from your namesake and his admin of who they are spying on
but
if you could get that list
i have this feeling your bank account would be drained and you'd be sleeping with barbara
you're being your usual and conveniently timed naive self thinking they are spying on americans
give me a break
how do you believe this stuff?
the human brain is an amazing organ
supporting my theory...that a good b.s.'er always b.s.'es themselves first

I'm sure President Bush hasn't abused his athority to listen to our conversations and I trust President Clinton will do the same.
I’m glad President Clinton will be able to listen in on our phone conversations without the need of a warrant. If we’re not doing anything wrong, we don’t need to worry about it.

liberalT,

Please speak more clearly in the receiver, we are having technical difficulties and couldn't transcript your last transmission. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Sincerely,

NSA

"I know, you lefties will go, "but he is spying on the American people". The official B4B line in response to that will be: "find us an American who was spied on and we'll donate $20 to MoveOn and hang a picture of Barbara Striesand over our bed"." - Mark Noonan

There's at least one case in which the government itself released proof that it was spying without a warrant, but the reason that they've revealed information about this particular case is that the guy probably did have connections to terrorist groups.

check out the court case Al-Haramain v. Bush.

So while this case may even help to legitamize warrantless spying, you still owe me $20 =). Please don't send the $20 to MoveOn for me though, I would prefer a group like Mises or Cato and make it a picture of Rothbard over your bed.

There's also overwhelming evidence coming from some telecom employees, although it doesn't mention specific Americans, it's pretty hard to deny.

Check out the court case Hepting v. AT&T.

"Once again, we just gotta win next year - the United States is too precious a commodity to be handed over to nitwits like the Democratic candidates."

I agree completely. Has Hillary ever run anything? Has she ever been the boss of anything? No, and we're just supposed to hand her the keys to the greatest, and most complex entity in the history of the world? I don't think so.

"Hepting v. AT&T"

Do you know why they want to monitor the Internet? Because almost the entire world telephone calls are routed through the United States. If your in Karachi and you want to call Baghdad, most likely that will be routed through San Fransisco.

"Al-Haramain v. Bush" is actually
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. G.W. Bush

From http://zombietime.com/al-haramain_surveillance/

"What's it all about? In one sentence, it comes down to this:

Does the United States Government have the right to conduct secret surveillance of terrorism suspects on American soil?"

See the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation is a Saudi Charity known to finance terrorists. They caught them red handed, so they hired some RDDB lawyers to challenge the tap. IMHO I'm glad the governement is survailing shady Islamic charities, that's their job!

we're just supposed to hand her the keys to the greatest, and most complex entity in the history of the world? I don't think so.

Posted by: jbiccum at September 16, 2007 10:53 AM

Why not? You've already handed the keys to someone who proved to be detrimental in the downfall of the 'greatest, and most complex entity in the history of the world'. Why change now?

Why not? You've already handed the keys to someone who proved to be detrimental in the downfall of the 'greatest,...blah, blah, blah- CO

Let me point something out to you CO. If Bush was "detrimental" in the "downfall" that would actually mean that he turned the "downfall" around. (That's a double negative, I guess they don't teach that concept in the fabulous curriculum in your failing country.)

So in a sense, what you said was that Bush turned the tide of the downfall that he inheirited, and I agree completely.

jbiccum: Has Hillary ever run anything? Has she ever been the boss of anything? No, and we're just supposed to hand her the keys to the greatest, and most complex entity in the history of the world?

Ummm... she does have a husband who has. I won't vote for Hillary, but lack of executive experience isn't one of the reasons why.

Ummm... she does have a husband who has. - rico

So then I guess what you're saying is that Laura Bush, Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan would also be qualified. Right?

The US Military is detrimental to the downfall of Iraq. Right CO?

neocon: So then I guess what you're saying is that Laura Bush, Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan would also be qualified. Right?

Right -- assuming we lived in a cartoon world.

Said in another way, I won't vote for any of those either, but lack of executive experience isn't one of the reasons why. Except for maybe Nancy: I don't know if you've heard, but Ronnie's dead.

Rico,

Wasn't it your brilliant retort that Hillary had a husband who had executive experience, thereby giving her some credence?

All of the aforementioned ladies did as well, and incidentally, just because President Reagan passed, it doesn't negate his executive experience. Just FYI.

Someone needs to tell Bill Richardson that it's the pro-terrorist MoveOn.Org-DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS which CONDONED, AUTHORIZED, and APPROVED "WARRANTLESS SPYING" (as they prefer to call it) on potential terrorists whose goal is to kill American families and destroy American cities!

Additionally, Bill Richardson should understand that the MoveOn.Org-Democrat Congress includes both the House AND the Senate, not just the latter!

If the MoveOn.Org-Democrats want to blame someone, look in the mirror!

AAR

"Someone needs to tell Bill Richardson that it's the pro-terrorist MoveOn.Org-DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS which CONDONED, AUTHORIZED, and APPROVED "WARRANTLESS SPYING" (as they prefer to call it) on potential terrorists whose goal is to kill American families and destroy American cities!"

I think he already knows, AAR. He was complaining about the Democratic Congress condoning Bush's wiretapping. Read his quotation again.

"Wasn't it your brilliant retort that Hillary had a husband who had executive experience, thereby giving her some credence?"

By 2008, Hillary will have been a Senator for 8 years, which is longer than Giuliani was a mayor and longer than Romney was a governor. And if you complain about her lack of "executive experience," then I trust you will not be voting for Thompson or McCain either. So who are you left with? Huckabee, who I think would be the GOP's strongest candidate (and probably a decent President).

"The official B4B line in response to that will be: "find us an American who was spied on and we'll donate $20 to MoveOn and hang a picture of Barbara Striesand over our bed"."

Allegiance to unchecked government power is dangerous for democracy. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that some check existed so that the FISA Court could review all of the FISA records...why wouldn't you?

Gar Wood

Mark-

You know that you have asked the left to undertake an impossible task, right? The fact that there is no paper-trail not only makes your gamble impossible, it is my primary objection. American citizens are to be treated as such, not as eternal suspects...

"You know that you have asked the left to undertake an impossible task, right? The fact that there is no paper-trail not only makes your gamble impossible, it is my primary objection. American citizens are to be treated as such, not as eternal suspects..." - Rana Quijotesca

No, there's one case, I allready won the $20. =)

lol robert... you got me....

Rana,

If there is an American citizen who has been spied on, then it shouldn't be too hard to find...of course, it wasn't spying, so I know I'll never have to pay up. You see, the program was (and is) a signals intelligence program - its just keeping tabs on people we already know are terrorist suspects and we just don't have the time to get warrants on each and every phone line they decide to use...and the reason we don't get warrants is not because we want to violate their rights, but because we aren't building a criminal case...we're fighting a war and eavesdropping on enemy communications.

All liberals can trust me on this - GW isn't listening in on your phone calls to your therapists, nor is he checking up on how many times a day you visit "jugs.com".

Gar,

Giuliani was mayor for 8 years - so by election day, 2008, Hillary will have less time in elective office than Giuliani...and the main difference is that Hillary is just one of a hundred in a talk-shop...Rudy actually had to make decisions which had consequences.

neocon: Wasn't it your brilliant retort that Hillary had a husband who had executive experience, thereby giving her some credence?

Credence is in certain ways an independent question, and one that I didn't address. But experience, yes. I did say that. Especially in Hillary's case I think it goes without saying that she will rely on her spouse Bill as a very close advisor. Do you dispute that?

All of the aforementioned ladies did as well,

Yes they did. And that's why I said lack of executive experience is NOT one of the reasons why I'd vote for them (except Nancy, but I'll explain the difference later).

Incidentally, you did notice that I said I won't vote for Hillary, right? But again, it's NOT because of her lack of executive experience. I think she has that base pretty well covered. It's for a host of other reasons.

just because President Reagan passed, it doesn't negate his executive experience.

No it doesn't. But it does affect his role as close advisor to his wife (or anyone else). Nancy's fond of psychics, but that's going a little too far, don't you think?

Mark-

As a "Christian" you surely can't vote for Giuliani. He is pro-choice. What other pacaturd candidate is acceptable?

How about two Americans who were spied on?

One--my father, who has done work with the AFSC, a Quaker charity that President Bush spied on because--I don't know why, since the AFSC isn't Moslem or harboring terrorists. But they're not Bush loyalists, so I guess that's enough. They're currently suing the Bush Administration.

Two--ME. I got banned from hannity.com for mentioning Jeff Gannon. No surprise there, so I checked out annecoulter.org exactly two days later and found myself banned from that site, I site had never visited before. So I am on a blacklist somewhere, because apparently I am too dangerous to be in contact with both Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity fans.

I'm not expecting twenty bucks because I know that promise is as worthy as President Bush's promises of troop drawdowns last year, meaning it's not worthy.

Oh and if mack55 feels that it's okay for him to be spied on if he has nothing to hide, than he should put his real name, his address, his phone number and those of his family online here.

He never will.

Do you dispute that? - rico

I don't dispute that, I fear that.

I won't vote for Hillary,....It's for a host of other reasons. - rico

I would hope that it would because of her lack of firm postion on anything, her reliance on the polls to govern, her lack of self esteem for having stayed with a cheating husband, and her socialist mindset. But I have a feeling none of those factor into your decision.

But it does affect his role as close advisor to his wife - rico

Do you not think that he may have imparted quite a bit of wisdom and common sense upon her during their marriage? Or does a woman need a living spouse to counsel with to gain insight? Why are you sexist?

Jay,

Please update your current address. We need to verify our files. Secondly, we are sending you a new phone as your current one does not have the proper chip. Thank you for your cooperation.

NSA

Mark-

Not enough time to get retroactive warrants? Listen... I don't care if foreign nationals on US soil are spied on. If US citizens are being spied on by the Federal Government, without warrants, that poses a problem, even if it is "signals intelligence." US citizens have a right to know that their government is respecting their privacy...

Mitt Romney said in the last debate regarding the surveillance wiretapping, 'There are Civil Liberty Privacy issues involved in this..but let me make this clear, the greatest Civil Liberty that I can have, is on that secures my right to live.'

I agree wholeheartedly with him!!

To all Liberals:

What is wrong with doing something that will protect families and their homes from danger of Terrorism?

Jeremiah

Gene,

You misunderstand what the Christian position is - and, more importantly, the Catholic position is.

Its best, of course, if all Catholics (and, by extension, all Christians) work diligently for a swift ban on the practice of abortion - but things usually aren't the best, and we have to deal with things as we are. Giuliani is of the very incorrect opinion that abortion should remain legal - but as long as he doesn't actually DO anything to make abortion more prevalent, then he's not off the Christian ranch...and if he's willing to do things which de-facto will have an anti-abortion effect (such as appointing strict constructionist judges), then that actually argues in favor of voting for him - especially as his Democratic opponent is certain to appoint pro-abortion fanatics to the courts as well as press for ever more abortions to be performed in the United States and around the world.

I'm still undecided on whether or not I'll vote for Giuliani in the primaries, but I've already concluded there is no moral objection to my voting for him in a general election, should he get the nomination.

Rana,

Once again, only if we are planning on a criminal prosecution - keeping in mind that the Courts have long ruled that the "fruit of the poison tree" is out of bounds...so, if there is a warrantless wiretap and it leads to evidence of criminality, it still isn't admissable. You're completely secure in your right against self incrimination and your REASONABLE expection of security of person and papers (remember, it is only UNREASONABLE searches and siezures which are out of bounds).

We're not going to prosecute the enemy - we're going to kill or capture them. Rules of evidence don't apply when your goal is death.

Jay Gaultieri, I'm sure people have benn accused of wearing tinfoil hats on this blogbefore, but you seem to actually be wearing one!

How does your father know his Quaker charity was being spied on? And you got banned from Coulter's site, so George Bush is spying on you? Dude, you really need to speak to a professional.

Anyway it's real simple guys. If the government is spying on everyone, then why havn't all the drug dealers been rounded up yet? They all use cell phones or land lines to set up their drug deals, so there's no way they could possibly circumvent Big Brother Bush.

In fact, I havnt even heard of ONE drug dealer being busted because he was being spied on, there had to be al least ONE, right?

Two--ME. I got banned from hannity.com for mentioning Jeff Gannon. No surprise there, so I checked out annecoulter.org exactly two days later and found myself banned from that site, I site had never visited before. So I am on a blacklist somewhere, because apparently I am too dangerous to be in contact with both Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity fans.

Jay, just a bit of 411, that does not mean you are being spied on, that means you were blocked for some reason by a PRIVATELY OWNED site, and they wanted no more of you.

I was blocked 3 times from Kerry's official forum. Oh, well. While annoying, no biggy, and, here is the big point, so strap your seatbelt up: only government can break the Bill of Rights. Think about it. A private citizen or corporation cannot violate the Bill of Rights. They can break laws, but not Amendments.

Gar,

You missed my point.

In that one two-sentence paragraph, Bill Richardson blamed President Bush twice and Vice President Cheney once for the "warrantless spying" when it is the MoveOn.Org-DEMOCRATS who are SOLELY to blame!

DEMOCRATS could have stopped it... they DID NOT!

DEMOCRATS condoned, approved, and voted to AUTHORIZE the "WARRANTLESS SPYING" -- both the Senate AND the House -- the DEMOCRAT Congress!

Why isn't the liberal media pounding that fact into the American voters day after day after day!

DEMOCRATS are to blame if it continues.

DEMOCRATS are to blame if it is stopped.

AAR

Sleepy,

Adding to Mark's comment...

New York Times: September 14, 2007, Anti-Roe and Pro-Rudy...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14johnston.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

...Mr. Giuliani promises to nominate judges who are “strict constructionists.” His campaign Web site explains: “It is the responsibility of the people and their representatives to make laws. It is the role of judges to apply those laws, not to amend our Constitution without the consent of the American people.”

Roe vs. Wade, with no textual warrant in the Constitution, struck down the states’ democratically enacted restrictions on abortion. By fighting Roe, pro-lifers aim not to make abortion illegal by judicial fiat, but to return the decision about how to regulate abortion to the states, where we are confident we can win.

Our greatest obstacle is the popular belief that overturning Roe would automatically make abortion illegal everywhere. In fact, our goal may well be undermined by politicians like President Bush, who seem to use “strict constructionist” as nothing more than code for “anti-abortion.”

Only a constitutionalist who supports abortion rights can create an anti-Roe majority by explaining that the end of Roe means letting the people decide, state by state, about abortion.

Mr. Giuliani’s ambivalence about the end of Roe is consistent with his belief that judges should not seek to achieve political ends. This is a judicial philosophy that pro-lifers should applaud, not condemn. It is, after all, the position consistently articulated by the pro-life movement’s favorite Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

If Giuliani can defeat the Democrat nominee (Hillary or Obama), and promises to appoint "strict constructionist" judges who interpret the Constitution and our laws the way they were mean and intended, that's what matters!

Even if that were not the case, pro-lifers, Christians, Conservatives, Republicans -- and America -- would be better served by Giuliani than a Democrat like Hillary!!!

AAR

"In that one two-sentence paragraph, Bill Richardson blamed President Bush twice and Vice President Cheney once for the "warrantless spying" when it is the MoveOn.Org-DEMOCRATS who are SOLELY to blame!"

AAR,

How do you figure? It was Bush's bill that the Democrats could have stopped, but they passed it into law.

"DEMOCRATS are to blame if it continues.

DEMOCRATS are to blame if it is stopped."

Republicans wrote the bill and enforce it in the DOJ. I realize you're a partisan hack, but you're not fooling anybody. The Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for this mess.

Gar Wood

"Mitt Romney said in the last debate regarding the surveillance wiretapping, 'There are Civil Liberty Privacy issues involved in this..but let me make this clear, the greatest Civil Liberty that I can have, is on that secures my right to live.'

I agree wholeheartedly with him!!"

Wow, Jeremiah, what a shock coming from a patriot like you. Bush may not have violated the rights of innocent Americans now, but his expansive view of the executive branch has set a dangerous precedent for future presidents. If Mitt wants to win New Hampshire, perhaps he should consider the state motto: "live free or die."

Gar Wood

I never realized that having the ability to spy on foreign citizens was a "mess."

Allegiance to unchecked government power is dangerous for democracy. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that some check existed so that the FISA Court could review all of the FISA records...why wouldn't you?

Oh, you mean like how Democrats are pushing socialized (ie, government controlled) everything?

neocon: I don't dispute that, I fear that.

Perhaps you are beginning to understand the difference between experience and credence.

I would hope that it would because of her lack of firm postion on anything, her reliance on the polls to govern, her lack of self esteem for having stayed with a cheating husband, and her socialist mindset. But I have a feeling none of those factor into your decision.

Then you would be at least partially wrong.

Or does a woman need a living spouse to counsel with to gain insight? Why are you sexist?

Now THAT'S FUNNY! Okay, I don't really mean funny haha, but I'm trying to be kind so we'll go with that. For one thing, given what you said about Hillary's putative self esteem issue in the paragraph previous to the guestion... "Why are you sexist?" kind of makes it drip with irony. Perhaps the answer to the question is best provided in the form of another question: Why don't you stop beating your wife? Lol!

What I'm saying is that a president -- any president, regardless of gender -- needs live and capable counsel, in addition to accumulated knowledge and wisdom. There is no way any single person, regardless of gender, can grapple with the complexities associated with being the President of the United States without capable advisors. As you recall, the big knock on Bush43 back in 2000 was that he had no experience in foreign affairs. It was a credible concern. How did he attempt to address it?

"Oh, you mean like how Democrats are pushing socialized (ie, government controlled) everything?"

WT,

No, not at all. The Democrats have not proposed making a universal health care system unreviewable in court, which is what the current FISA law does for the spy program. I give your talking points an F+.

Gar Wood

AAR: DEMOCRATS are to blame if it continues.

DEMOCRATS are to blame if it is stopped.

It would be hard to describe a logical tautology any more succinctly. There seems to be a few of them popping up on this thread.

Ricorun,

I'm not sure about the "tautology" part, but it's the type of logic used against Republicans and Conservatives, and the type they must learn to use (but seem incapable of understanding)!

Republicans must get much smarter and more creative at using today's media. They've thrown away the opportunities they had with Congress and the Presidency.

I don't think Republicans know an opportunity when it's presented to them on a golden platter!

AAR

Gar,

Q: How do you figure?

A: It was Bush's bill that the Democrats could have stopped, but THEY passed it into law.

It's NOW the Democrat's bill! The Democrats CONTROL Congress. The Democrats PASSED it. If the Democrat CONTROLLED Congress had not voted to AUTHORIZE the "WARRANTLESS SPYING", it would not be happening! That's really all the American people need to know!

And if Democrats vote to stop it, and Americans die because of that, the Democrats will be to blame. That's really all the American people need to know!

It's simply Liberal (Democrat) [il]logic!!!

AAR

AAR,

You're hopeless.

Gar Wood

So I am on a blacklist somewhere, because apparently I am too dangerous to be in contact with both Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity fans.

No, Jay, not too dangerous--too stupid to keep up, and a waste of bandwidth with the tripe you post.

btw, who's "Anne" Coulter? Dumb*$$...

It's interesting that I get called paranoid on a website where two weeks ago it was stated that a cgi'ed Osama Bin Laden that talks in a voice able to fool experts is releasing videos on current events. The offered proof is Mark Noonan's "gut feeling."

Look, if you had told me four years ago that the war in Iraq would still be going on I'd have called you crazy. If you told me President Bush would have tried to sell our ports to an Arab country that sponsored 9/11 I would have called you crazy. If you told me six states would be allowing civil unions for gays I'd have called you crazy. If you told me that more Americans would believe that 9/11 was an inside job than believed President Bush I'd have called you crazy. If you told me some creepy ritual called a "purity ball" would be practiced in place of teaching sex education I'd have called you crazy. And if you told me that a string of Republicans would turn out to be closeted queers I'd have called you crazy.

But here we are.

So you all will just have to accept that far right talking heads share a blacklist includes my Internet connection.

So you all will just have to accept that far right talking heads share a blacklist includes my Internet connection.

This is a very poorly-written sentence, Gutless; however, a man of my intellect understands your intended meaning. You will, however have confused libtardT beyond imagination.

However, the only thing we all will just have to accept is that you're a first-class nutjob. Now go shine yur hat...