The only reason traditional conservatives arent up in arms over this whole issue is because of the current moron we have in the white house. Conservatives have always championed the rights of the individual over the government; to sell out their beliefs because of the imbecile we got in there who's running the government into the ground is just irresponsible and stupid. It's just a testament to how r****ded the political polarization has been recently, where people are willing to give up long held religious convictions and moral principles just becaus eof political loyalty to wolves in sheep clothign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Post-9/11 Order Bypassed Special Court By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01 President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying
Let me try to make this clear for Batman: 1) International spying cases: No warrant needed 2) Domestic cases: Warrant needed and is being issued 3) Al Qaeda calling the US: No warrant needed Batman, the question you dodged in the other thread, was 'why would the NSA not get warrants'? Please answer. I'd love to hear it. Are they simply out to trample our civil liberties on purpose? Is that the reason for the NSA's existence? Or could it be that the warrant process is such a rubber stamp that it isn't worth pursuing and taking their eye off the ball to process paperwork?
From that same article: The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities International phone calls. No warrant needed.
As an aside, what number of liberals are needed to even out this argument? 10 on 1? 20 on 1? The_Conquistador HAS THE STRENGTH OF 10 MEN
Trader_Jorge, are you saying that FISA only issues warrants on communications within the United States? It is my understanding that FISA also issues warrants for communications between people in the United States and other countries. If I am wrong, please let me know. If you read the entire WP article I posted, clearly the "international" distinction is not used as the justification for avoiding FISA. The justification from Bush seems to be that they have to move quickly: Moreover, if FISA truly have no jurisdiction over the issue, why did one FISA judge resign in protest?
Jorge, which is it? Are the warrants too tough to get or too easy? First they were too tough and would blow the ops by serving warrants and then they were too easy and not worth the bother. You need to figure out what you're arguing here. I answered in the other thread that I wouldn't guess at NSA's motives but that I'd love to hear them answer that question under oath. Would you? I also said in that post that our system of checks and balances provides court oversight such that NSA and the executive branch don't overreach. I know you said in that historic thread that NSA's word was good enough for you (what in God's name has happened to the small government advocacy party that used to be the GOP?), but it's not good enough for the vast majority of Americans. In fact, Americans are so freaked out by this that only 64% approved of a wholly legal, wholly advisable form of wiretapping. Without this check on executive power, how are we to know NSA isn't spying on anti-war demonstrators or other critics of the administration? Oh, right. We're just supposed to trust them. The only reason I can think of not to get court orders in every case, since Jorge has already told us how easy they are to get, is if they would like to spy on people they would not be granted permission to spy on. But that's just a guess. We can't know because Bush has declared himself above checks and balances, decided he can spy on any American citizen he wants, free from oversight. I think it's amazing that any US president would admit to that (even after trying he could to cover it up) and even more amazing that even one single US citizen would think that was okay.
Batman, you did not answer the question. I pose it again: Why would the NSA not pursue a warrant? Can we assume, by your outrage, that the reason is that the NSA is evil and is out to falsely imprison the innocent? Isn't that why you are angry? Or can we take the more reasonable approach that the reason the warrants aren't pursued is that they aren't needed under the Constitution? Or that the Administration is doing their best to fight terror? This is yet another example of people like Batman Jones assuming the worst out of our Administration. I guess they are frustrated since Bush keeps beating them in elections.... I mean, HOW COULD IT HAPPEN?!???!?!
SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 1994: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." HAW HAW HAW! AW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Thassa good one! Yee-haaa! SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 2005: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to spy on you and perhaps indefinitely detain you without charges." That sounds reasonable. http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_alicublog_archive.html#113578183314115316
The NSA did not pursue warrants because the Bush order meant they didn't have to. Per VW's post, they didn't want to because they were fishing for information and wouldn't be granted those warrants. Land of the free indeed.
I've answered that question, speculatively as is necessary, a couple times now. Now, you're either r****ded or you're just joking when you say I haven't. And... Wait. Oh, ****. Would you believe it? I got OWNED again. Dammit. Turns out Bush won the election. Dammit! How does he do it? Oh, well. While I'm here... Let's try and make some lemonade. Here's an idea that will save billions of dollars for the USA. Since we can trust Bush and the NSA to do whatever they want, in the name of protecting us, with no checks or balances or oversight, next time around let's get rid of those pesky, expensive elections. Bush can just tell us who won.
In other news, 64% of republicans prefer cleverly-worded polls to actually addressing blatant violations of the constitution. Yeah, that's patriotism.
Well said. You could have added reprehensible, however. I don't know how Republicans who have their noses up George W. Bush's pants can sleep at night, after this enormous dump the President took on our Constitution. It truly disgusts me. People I would otherwise admire apparently know no bounds of decency. How can they call themselves patriots when the President has ravaged the most important document of this great country, the very foundation of the United States of America, and the one thing that has made us the envy of the world for well over two centuries? Have they no shame? Have they no shame? Keep D&D Civil.
