[detskpit]

Today the Justice Deptartment has decided to prob the NSA Spy leaks. I think they should, BUT First let me say that I beleive that under special circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to eavedrop on ANY conversation if it seems to be a threat to this government and it's people.

BUT(again) BUT It need to be done in accordance with existing laws--- in this case "with the knowlege of the court specifically set up for that purpose. This was not done, so THE ACTION WAS WRONG What was the damage??? I'll get back to that in a minute.

SECRETS--- the administration dod-done it.
SNEAKRETS -- The government did so without the proper safegauards.
LEAKRETS- Yup, that was the person who told. (They're looking for him)
SPEAKRETS- The New York Times. were they correct in doing so???

Well, now, BUSH WAS WRONG. That in itself makes it right if no damage was done. As to that point, I don't beleive there was (unless you beleive showing Bush up for what he is was wrong.)

Look at it this way. The terrorists aren't exactly dumb. There is no doubt in my mind that they knew, or should have known that this survalence would occur. There have been
many claims that we were under watch, and those speaking out against the governement were on "THE" list, also, and especially recently That there were spybots all over the internet checking whether a person was surfing porn sites, or the NAACP or KKK or NAMBA, or??? and a whole industry has popped up to prrotect us users.. (I simply don't beleive that Osama stopped using his cell phone because someone said we were monitoring his calls. I'm sure he already knew)

I remember during the Korean War, an airman defected and landed a MIG in South Korea. The US immediately slapped a Top Secret Tag on it" Do you suppose they thought the North didn't Know about it?

There has been an airbase at Groom Lake Nevada (also known as Area 51) since the late fourties. The US refused to admit it's existance until ten years ago, even tho it was under constant survelience. Then they said it was deactivated. Yet in these same last ten years It has grown a longer runway, and buses and planes still transport personell to and from the base.

Likewise, I have never doubted that the governmenmt was spying on our conversations, and that there are secret goulogs that our country is running , and that prisioners in Guantonimo were likely being tortured. The part that I find appauling is that in most cases, the only ones from whom the secrets are kept, is our own citizens.

[johnteriz]

There is a Poll here: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=24659

The NYT was told by the Homeland Security Department that this was classified information..they ignored that statement and published it anyway, this is treason. The NYT catagorically broke the law.

[Hrennilasi]

There is a Poll here: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=24659

The NYT was told by the Homeland Security Department that this was classified information..they ignored that statement and published it anyway, this is treason. The NYT catagorically broke the law.

Hmm, I have never heard that homeland security was mixed in this situation. Source???? In fact, accoridng to the links I have read, the US said only that publishing the info "MIGHT" help the terrorists. Not that it was secret

[stastony]

There is a Poll here: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...ad.php?t=24659

The NYT was told by the Homeland Security Department that this was classified information..they ignored that statement and published it anyway, this is treason. The NYT catagorically broke the law.

iamwhatiseem, did you write this before you understood what is actually going on? You do know that the only classified information is that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, right? This is not something that damages our national security, only something that puts Bush in hot water with Americans who would like to have an honest law abiding President.

[fluistulkn]

Just like the actual surveilance, we don't know enough about the background events ofthe NYT stories to determine if there has been a crime or not.

Just for instance, let us say the leaker revealed who was being target and how, but the NYT did not publish it.

The NYT might not have done anything wrong in that instance, but the leaker sure did.

Why are you so opposed to having an investigation, Samantha?

You seem to have concluded that there is no need to investigate the surveilance - you have already concluded the administration is guilty.

You also seem to have concluded that there is no need to investigate the leaks about the program - you have concluded that there was no classified material compromised.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable, in both cases, to wait for the facts, rather than pick the outcome you want to believe?

Matt

[Abaronos]

[QUOTE=Samantha]
You do know that the only classified information is that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, right?
QUOTE]

I for one am not positive that this is true. I don't think it has been determined. (Even tho I think you are right)