Breaking News. Hezbollah says they've activated sleeper cells.

[nightowlky]

It certainly is, but lets remember, the Brits weren't terrorists and didn't target civilians. Big difference between King George's soldiers and Hezbollah.

I wasn't aware the US was under attack by Hizb'allah.

News to me.

 

[DawnCt1]

I wasn't aware the US was under attack by Hizb'allah.

News to me.

Hezbollah targets civilians and hides behind women and children. Does it matter where. Did I say that the US was under attack? Apparently the news is, Hezbollah and awakened sleeper cells. Did you notice that?

 

[nightowlky]

If you'd been following the discussion it had digressed into the taking of civil liberties here in the US in order to fight the "war on terror".

If we're fighting to protect freedom, why are so many Americans so willing to give up that freedom?

 

[nightowlky]

I understand what you are trying to say but, just for the sake of accuracy, the NSA wasn't listening to conversations, they were tracking calls from known terrorists outside of the country to those within.

Evidence that all phone calls were from known terrorists? Links, please.

 

[DawnCt1]

Evidence that all phone calls were from known terrorists? Links, please.

Clearly, that is what the program was about. That was well publicized. Surely you don't need a link to recall that but if you do, you can search as well as I can.

 

[dcentity2000]

It certainly is, but lets remember, the Brits weren't terrorists and didn't target civilians. Big difference between King George's soldiers and Hezbollah.

We weren't terrorists but we were rude - I think I'm right in saying that we tossed a match into the Whitehouse on the way out! Talk about sore losers...



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

We weren't terrorists but we were rude - I think I'm right in saying that we tossed a match into the Whitehouse on the way out! Talk about sore losers...



Rich::

Ah...but all is forgiven !

 

[Papa Deuce]

No long explanation from me..... Stay way from my phone calls w/o a warrant. No Trading Away My Liberty...... Liberty / Freedom is what makes this country SPECIAL!

 

[Missy1961]

No long explanation from me..... Stay way from my phone calls w/o a warrant. No Trading Away My Liberty...... Liberty / Freedom is what makes this country SPECIAL!

I agree with you.

 

[nightowlky]

Clearly, that is what the program was about. That was well publicized. Surely you don't need a link to recall that but if you do, you can search as well as I can.

That was the claim from the Propagandist masquerading as the president of the United States.

If it's so readily apparent and well-publicized, please, provide a link for all of us to see that shows that the illegal domestic wiretaps were of known terrorists only.

Here's one I doubt you'd use as it wouldn't fit with your agenda of spreading disinformation and party-line rhetoric:
Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying scandal

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002


or this one:

LISTENING IN
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060529ta_talk_hersh

the N.S.A. began, in some cases, to eavesdrop on callers (often using computers to listen for key words) or to investigate them using traditional police methods. A government consultant told me that tens of thousands of Americans had had their calls monitored in one way or the other. “In the old days, you needed probable cause to listen in,” the consultant explained. “But you could not listen in to generate probable cause. What they’re doing is a violation of the spirit of the law.” One C.I.A. officer told me that the Administration, by not approaching the FISA court early on, had made it much harder to go to the court later.

​

If we're fighting to protect freedom, why are so many Americans so willing to give up that freedom?

 

[Missy1961]

We weren't terrorists but we were rude - I think I'm right in saying that we tossed a match into the Whitehouse on the way out! Talk about sore losers...



Rich::

You tossed the match during the War of 1812, not the Revolutionary War. But you've more than made up for it since.

 

[MrsNick]

To those people who are so eager to give up their freedoms, they are welcome to send a letter to that effect to their elected representatives. Please do NOT, however, make that choice for me. I much prefer to keep the rights and freedoms that are mine by law. I have nothing to hide, but that isn't the point.

 

[DawnCt1]

That was the claim from the Propagandist masquerading as the president of the United States.

If it's so readily apparent and well-publicized, please, provide a link for all of us to see that shows that the illegal domestic wiretaps were of known terrorists only.

Here's one I doubt you'd use as it wouldn't fit with your agenda of spreading disinformation and party-line rhetoric:
Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying scandal

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002


?

Media Matters? funded by George Soros? That is propaganda.

 

[nightowlky]

Media Matters was founded by conservative David Brock who used to write for the conservative American Spectator. But, go ahead and do the typical Freeper thing and attack the source and avoid the content of the message.

BTW, I note you're ignoring the Hersh article, too. We get a twofer!

It's a hat trick when we consider you have yet again failed to provide a link backing up your proposition that the illegal domestic wiretap program only involved known terrorists. Speaking of which, where are the arrests, indictments, convictions of these thousands of terrorists here in the US?

 

[Jeanny]

Reported by the Jerusalem news.

Hezbollah sleeper cells suspected in NYC.

well, that's just great! Ya know (and I'll probably get flamed), why can't they just keep it over there and bomb each other! Why do they have to come here????? If they would just stay over there and take care of each other, then we can get our troops back home and stay out of it!

I'm tired of this crap!!!!

 

[nightowlky]

well, that's just great! Ya know (and I'll probably get flamed), why can't they just keep it over there and bomb each other! Why do they have to come here????? If they would just stay over there and take care of each other, then we can get our troops back home and stay out of it!

I'm tired of this crap!!!!

Because they're NOT bringing it here. There's nothing in any article substantiating the claims in the OP.

 

[FSUMARCHIEF]

Media Matters was founded by conservative David Brock who used to write for the conservative American Spectator. But, go ahead and do the typical Freeper thing and attack the source and avoid the content of the message.

BTW, I note you're ignoring the Hersh article, too. We get a twofer!

It's a hat trick when we consider you have yet again failed to provide a link backing up your proposition that the illegal domestic wiretap program only involved known terrorists. Speaking of which, where are the arrests, indictments, convictions of these thousands of terrorists here in the US?

Sorry, but I gotta call you on this one nightowl. David Brock might have BEEN a Conservative - but he ain't no more! Since you like quoting articles so much - check this one out.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200503\SPE20050303a.html

The poster said FUNDED not FOUNDED.

Blessings!
MarkyMark

 

[nightowlky]

So, Brent Bozell is now an expert? oof

 

[Charade]

Because they're NOT bringing it here. There's nothing in any article substantiating the claims in the OP.

The OP (me) made no claims at all. I was only passing on what I saw (and read) in the news.

 

[Geoff_M]

Dawn, I think the Angry Left might be in for a bit of a shock when it comes to the final judical say in the legality of the NSA program in question. Back in March 5 judges (including 4 former FISA judges) testified before Arlen Spectors Senate Committee on the issue of the legality of the NSA evesdropping program. The NYT's Eric Lichtblau (btw, one of the main reporters that blew the SWIFT data mining program) reported that the judges were "skeptical" about the Bush Administration's program. But people that actually bothered to listen to what the jurists actually said (including the former FISA judges that would seem to know best), noticed that the judges weren't exactly ready to lower the boom on Bush... quite the contrary. Here are several exchanges and comments from the hearing transcript:

Judge Kornblum: Presidential authority to conduct wireless [Sic. Presumably Judge Kornblum meant "warrantless."] surveillance in the United States I believe exists, but it is not the President's job to determine what that authority is. It is the job of the judiciary. *** The President's intelligence authorities come from three brief elements in Article II....As you know, in Article I, Section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans. ***

Senator Feinstein: Now I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress's power to pass laws to allow the President to carry out domestic electronic surveillance, and we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority, are those rules then binding on the President?

Judge Kornblum: No President has ever agreed to that. ***

Senator Feinstein: What do you think as a Judge?

Judge Kornblum: I think--as a Magistrate Judge, not a District Judge, that a President would be remiss in exercising his Constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute," and, frankly, I doubt that Congress, in a statute, can take away the President's authority, not his inherent authority, but his necessary and proper authority.

Senator Feinstein: I would like to go down the line if I could. *** Judge Baker?

Judge Baker: No, I do not believe that a President would say that.

Senator Feinstein: No. I am talking about FISA, and is a President bound by the rules and regulations of FISA?

Judge Baker: If it is held constitutional and it is passed, I suppose, just like everyone else, he is under the law too.

***

Senator Feinstein: Judge?

Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.

***

Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.

Link

Senator Durbin: *** My question is very straightforward. Is there anyone on the panel here who believes that the President did not violate the FISA law with the new wiretap program as he has described it?

Judge Keenan. I don't know what the new program is, Senator, and that is the reason--

Senator Durbin: If you could lean over a little closer to the mike.

Judge Keenan: Sure, I'm sorry. I don't know what the new program is, Senator, and that's why I, in my prepared remarks and in my answers to other questions, I'm not in a position to offer any opinion about that. My understanding--and this is from what I have read in the lay press now--I understand, having read this, I believe, in the Wall Street Journal, that some judges of the Foreign Intelligence Court, present judges--not any of us because we are not on it anymore, and certainly not me because I have been off it since 2001--some of the judges have been briefed on the program. I also understand, from what I have read in the lay press and what I heard from Senator Feinstein a few moments ago, that some Senators have been briefed. But I do now know what the program is, so I am not in a position to offer any comment at all about what the President's doing.

Senator Durbin: Well, as we have heard it described--and I have not been briefed either, there are only a few Senators who have--it is the interception of domestic communications between people in the United States and those in foreign lands, and that strikes me as falling within the four corners of the FISA law as written.

Judge Keenan: But you use the word in your introductory question and in that question, "domestic," and as I understand from the lay press, again, this is international, it is not domestic. So that's why I'm not in a position to answer, sir.

Judge Baker: Senator, did the statute limit the President? You created a balance between them [in the FISA statute], and I don't think it took away the inherent authority that Judge Kornblum talked about. He didn't call it "inherent," he doesn't like that. But the whole thing is that if in the course of collecting the foreign stuff, you are also picking up domestic stuff, which apparently is happening, I don't know that that's--it becomes a real question, you know, is he under his inherent power? Is he running around the statute?

Link

To a hypothetical question asked by a Senator about if evidence collected in the NSA program could be used in a criminal case, there was this reply:

Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey.

(same link)

Troung-Humphrey was one of the federal cases that has upheld that the President has a Constitutional right to order warrantless eavesdropping of foreign powers or agents. This case from 1980 envolved someone spying in the US for Vietnam. The defense challenged the evidence against Troung based on the absence of a warrant. The Federal government asserted that the evidence was collection under a foreign intelligence exception to the Four Amendment's warrant requirement. The federal courts, agreed (as they repeatly have) that the President does have such Constitutional authority. If this still holds, Congress cannot remove that authority legislatively.

It ain't over till it's over. Bush could certainly lose this one as it works its way through the current courts. But likewise, I think it's a bit premature to be running around pronouncing the illegality and un-Constitutionality of the program as a certainty at this point in the game. Particularly when you hear comments like the ones above from judges how should have a pretty good clue about what FISA is, and isn't. Sure, I bet there are similarly trained judges that may have differing opinions, but what this isn't is a slam dunk.