[nanyaHgoc]

Ina couple minutes, your estemed president will be speaking opn TV (I hope he is at least smart enough to take of his shoes first ----- Otherwise he might mar ther top HE HE HE)

On the serious side. This is supposed to be the kick-off of a week long session of excuses for his blatant irgorance of the law (wll, he didn't follow it did he???? To me there is nothing he can say which will excuse him so----I WON'T BE WATCHING. My position is:-----

Unlike many of you, I am of the firm beleif that under the present threat and circumstances, It is perfectly necessary AND REASONABLE to be checking out both Foreign AND domestic calls If a threat of terrorism, or insurrective actions is suspected. THAT is for our protection. HOWEVER,

There are safeguards which have been legitimately installed. IE: a special court whose SOLE duty and purpose is to protect us and our rights against such Spying. The president ignored it, saying that the Congress had been briefed. [ OH YEH, (he might even have told them that it was raining outside). His sordid arguements, in veiw of the revelations of those supposedly briefed congresspersons. are litteral GARBAGE, and no excuse ----His arrogance has gotten a'hold of him.

I personally think he should be impeached (for this and OTHER reasons) but I also don't think there are yet enough votes to accomplish the job. Hopefully that will change.

[Gremlinn]

So basically - judging by your rhetoric - this is just another "I hate Bush" thread. The problem with these kinds of threads is the closed-mindedness that makes them easily ignored.

I don't think you're wanting to debate anything here. It seems that you just want to spread a little hatred around.

[pkopwqzsdcvbn]

So basically - judging by your rhetoric - this is just another "I hate Bush" thread. The problem with these kinds of threads is the closed-mindedness that makes them easily ignored.

I don't think you're wanting to debate anything here. It seems that you just want to spread a little hatred around.

Actually it is a "I recognize another of Bush's excuses"thread

Just spreadin a little "personal opinion" around.

Isn't that what "YOU" do????

[VQdeochratis]

Actually it is a "I recognize another of Bush's excuses"thread

Just spreadin a little "personal opinion" around.

Isn't that what "YOU" do????

No. That's not what I do.

I speak only the absolute truth - factual truth - ALL the time!

[Intockatt]

Ina couple minutes, your estemed president will be speaking opn TV (I hope he is at least smart enough to take of his shoes first ----- Otherwise he might mar ther top HE HE HE)

On the serious side. This is supposed to be the kick-off of a week long session of excuses for his blatant irgorance of the law (wll, he didn't follow it did he???? To me there is nothing he can say which will excuse him so----I WON'T BE WATCHING. My position is:-----

Unlike many of you, I am of the firm beleif that under the present threat and circumstances, It is perfectly necessary AND REASONABLE to be checking out both Foreign AND domestic calls If a threat of terrorism, or insurrective actions is suspected. THAT is for our protection. HOWEVER,

There are safeguards which have been legitimately installed. IE: a special court whose SOLE duty and purpose is to protect us and our rights against such Spying. The president ignored it, saying that the Congress had been briefed. [ OH YEH, (he might even have told them that it was raining outside). His sordid arguements, in veiw of the revelations of those supposedly briefed congresspersons. are litteral GARBAGE, and no excuse ----His arrogance has gotten a'hold of him.

I personally think he should be impeached (for this and OTHER reasons) but I also don't think there are yet enough votes to accomplish the job. Hopefully that will change.

I dont see any facts in here. On the opposite side, the President has gone a long way to make sure everything done was legal:

-judicial precedent of "inherent authority"
-congressional authority via the AUMF
-informing the senate intel comittee of the program
-informing the FISA court and using it for warrants where possible
-having the attorney general and the NSA attorneys consistently review the program for legality

Im assuming you havnt read the detailed legal argument byt the DOJ - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/n...nsa11906wp.pdf

or the Congress Review of justification
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf

Both of which go far to back up the Presidents claims.

[RerRibreLok]

QUOTE=jviehe]I dont see any facts in here. That's what is strange about opinions, they don't have to be supported by facts, either for or against. THEY ARE OPINIONS [On the opposite side, the President has gone a long way to make sure everything done was legal:NONSENSE

-judicial precedent of "inherent authority"
-congressional authority via the AUMF
-informing the senate intel comittee of the program
-informing the FISA court and using it for warrants where possible
-having the attorney general and the NSA attorneys consistently review the program for legality

Im assuming you havnt read the detailed legal argument byt the DOJ - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/n...nsa11906wp.pdf

or the Congress Review of justification
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdfYou may assume anything you wish

Both of which go far to back up the Presidents claims.[/QUOTE]First they have to be correct and therefore legal allowances of the contested actions. I don't beleive they are, and neither you nor I will make that decision.

[97dYA9L3]

QUOTE=jviehe]I dont see any facts in here. That's what is strange about opinions, they don't have to be supported by facts, either for or against. THEY ARE OPINIONS [On the opposite side, the President has gone a long way to make sure everything done was legal:NONSENSE

-judicial precedent of "inherent authority"
-congressional authority via the AUMF
-informing the senate intel comittee of the program
-informing the FISA court and using it for warrants where possible
-having the attorney general and the NSA attorneys consistently review the program for legality

Im assuming you havnt read the detailed legal argument byt the DOJ - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/n...nsa11906wp.pdf

or the Congress Review of justification
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdfYou may assume anything you wish

Both of which go far to back up the Presidents claims.COLOR="blue"]First they have to be correct and therefore legal allowances of the contested actions.[/COLOR] I don't beleive they are, and neither you nor I will make that decision.

Have you read the legal justifications and analysis? I bet youre just regurgitating what the media says. And please dont quote me that way.

[KacypeJeope]

two wrongs don't make a right - but why did it take 8 years to find out Clinton did the exact same thing? - Something you still don't hear the media report.
And so Did Carter, and reportedly Bush Sr.

Why is it only now a big deal - and at a time when it had the most important reason to do it?
I say - the media, in particular the NYT - hates Bush.
To me this is all laughable, this has been done for nearly 30 years.

[clomoll]

Have you read the legal justifications and analysis? YEP, but I'm not an attorney, are you???

I bet youre just regurgitating what the media says.beleive as you wish

\ And please dont quote me that way.

?????????????????????????????
Is there another way to quote you other than to put down on the post what you posted? HMM, something new here!!!!

[Attaniuri]

two wrongs don't make a right - but why did it take 8 years to find out Clinton did the exact same thing? - Something you still don't hear the media report.
And so Did Carter, and reportedly Bush Sr.

Why is it only now a big deal - and at a time when it had the most important reason to do it?
I say - the media, in particular the NYT - hates Bush.
To me this is all laughable, this has been done for nearly 30 years.

As I have said before. I don't disagree that the Pres thought it was necessary, But I doubt very seriously that he thought it necessary to break the law to do it. especially since there was no legitimate reason Not to follow the law. The incriminating word I would use is "arrogance".---(And quite honestly, I am perfectly willing to pull an Al Capone on him. he has done enough shady ladies that he can't be gotten for, so get him on what we can.

[Laqswrnm]

two wrongs don't make a right - but why did it take 8 years to find out Clinton did the exact same thing? - Something you still don't hear the media report.
And so Did Carter, and reportedly Bush Sr.

Why is it only now a big deal - and at a time when it had the most important reason to do it?
I say - the media, in particular the NYT - hates Bush.
To me this is all laughable, this has been done for nearly 30 years.

I thought this was a new technology, that allowed them to monitor 500 phone calls at a time, on a switch, and the only criteria for listening in was that the switch had a link outside the US. Some of the monitored calls originated and terminated in the US, they were just routed overseas. The vast majority of the calls were made by US citizens.
I don't think Clinton did that, or Bush Sr. or Carter.

[MattJargin]

?????????????????????????????
Is there another way to quote you other than to put down on the post what you posted? HMM, something new here!!!!

I would prefer that you put my stuff in quotes, and then follow in plain text with your comments, rather than including your thoughts in a different color inside of my quotes. It could be confusing as to who typed what.

As you said, we are both not attorneys, however Alberto Gonzales is and he lays out in great detail the legal backing for the Presidents moves. As did Gorreli when she argued the exact same thing when Clinton did the exact same thing. In addition the CRS report confirms much of what Gonzales wrote. Your opinion simply has no factual basis.

[legal-advicer]

It could be confusing as to who typed what.you post as you wish, and I will post as I wish so long as we follow the forum rules. Are you color-blind??? that would be the only reason for it to be confusing NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM.

As you said, we are both not attorneys, however Alberto Gonzales is and he lays out in great detail the legal backing for the Presidents moves. As did Gorreli when she argued the exact same thing when Clinton did the exact same thing.Are you sure he did the EXACT same thing??? I don't think so, and even if he did, "Two wrongs don't make a right"

In addition the CRS report confirms much of what Gonzales wrote. Your opinion simply has no factual basis.

You might note. that Gonzales is also the one who set the whole thing up. Do you beleive in having the Fox guard the hen hpuse.

If you don't like my OPINIONS (NOTE: "Opinions"--- not facts, not debate points but "opinions") then don't read them.

[b7RKli4l]

NO ONE ELSE SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM

Bemused giggles.

I think your process of replying to messages as such is hideous. I couldn't be bothered to complain about it. Much easier to just ignore the mess.

In other words, just because no one could be bothered to point out how hideous your 'quote-back' practice is, that doesn't mean every one likes it.

[HartOvara]

...(NOTE: "Opinions"--- not facts, not debate points but "opinions") .....

Don't let the damn facts get in your way man.

[chinesemedicine]

I thought this was a new technology, that allowed them to monitor 500 phone calls at a time, on a switch, and the only criteria for listening in was that the switch had a link outside the US. Some of the monitored calls originated and terminated in the US, they were just routed overseas. The vast majority of the calls were made by US citizens.
I don't think Clinton did that, or Bush Sr. or Carter.

ECHELON and similar systems that automatically search through traffic for keywords have existed since at least the 1970s.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ59GlobalSnoop.html

[chuecafresss]

You might note. that Gonzales is also the one who set the whole thing up. Do you beleive in having the Fox guard the hen hpuse.

If you don't like my OPINIONS (NOTE: "Opinions"--- not facts, not debate points but "opinions") then don't read them.

Lets break down your original argument:

-"his blatant irgorance of the law (wll, he didn't follow it did he)"
-"The president ignored [FISA]"
-"His sordid arguements... are litteral GARBAGE"
-"His arrogance has gotten a'hold of him."

Ive alreaday referenced the various legal arguments which lay out the legal basis for the presidents actions, thus showing no ignorance of the law. In addition there is evidence showing that the President did use the FISA process in many cases, thus showing he did not ignore FISA. Both of those together seem to indicate that his arguments are not garbage nor that he is being arrogant. Add on to that that past presidents have not used FISA for warrantless searches of Americans, and you have a strong case for legality.

So, unless you come up with something new and a factual basis for it, I dont we are going to learn anything here.

[vigraxtru]

Lets break down your original argument:

-"his blatant irgorance of the law (wll, he didn't follow it did he)"
-"The president ignored [FISA]"
-"His sordid arguements... are litteral GARBAGE"
-"His arrogance has gotten a'hold of him."

Ive alreaday referenced the various legal arguments which lay out the legal basis for the presidents actions, thus showing no ignorance of the law. In addition there is evidence showing that the President did use the FISA process in many cases, thus showing he did not ignore FISA. Both of those together seem to indicate that his arguments are not garbage nor that he is being arrogant. Add on to that that past presidents have not used FISA for warrantless searches of Americans, and you have a strong case for legality.

So, unless you come up with something new and a factual basis for it, I dont we are going to learn anything here.

Actually, all you've done is reiterate your opinion of what has happened. Thus I agree with your statement (quote)I dont we are going to learn anything here.

[risyGreeple]

I thought this was a new technology, that allowed them to monitor 500 phone calls at a time, on a switch, and the only criteria for listening in was that the switch had a link outside the US. Some of the monitored calls originated and terminated in the US, they were just routed overseas. The vast majority of the calls were made by US citizens.
I don't think Clinton did that, or Bush Sr. or Carter.

Sigh...so if one guy commits a "crime" more efficiently, another guy who commits the same crime, but had less resources to do it, couldn't do it as well is not guilty because someone later with better technology did it better?

So your only guilty until someone does the "crime" better - then you are no longer guilty?

Yeah.

[SantaGanstag]

.

As with most political issues, the devil is in the details. A Senate investigation is pending and I for one am looking forward to hearing what the specifics are about what "warrantless monitoring" actually occured. At this point no one knows. If Bush exceeded his authority he should be held accoutable. If the current law needs to be tightened to limit the Administration's power this is the time to address that also.

Seems reasonable to hold conclusions and wait for the facts to play out.

.