Redstate

It is time for some people to start going to prison for these leaks.

The CINC has spoken!

Let They-Who-Crave-The-Approval-Of-Harold-Pinter-&-The-French at the NYT respond!

I agree completely. They can go to jail right behind Bush for violating the Constitution.

Ok I know whoever is leaking this is clearly anti Bush but is it CIA peopl or FBI people?

At claims of "violating the constitution" from people who have manifestly never read the Constitution. Thanks for the laughs.

Blam.

This time they've alerted the Bad Guys to a secret NSA program that spies on their phone calls.

The NSA has been monitoring bad guys' phone calls since their inception. And the bad guys know it.

What the bad guys now know is that the monitoring can be done without a warrant. I don't see how the bad guys knowing this impacts the War on Terror one way or the other.

Six spades as an opening bid? Bad move.

Blam.

. . .reading over twenty years ago that the NSA monitored all overseas phone calls for threats to national security--this is as much of a "secret" as the fact that the little things on the ends of shoelaces are called "aglets'; in other words, not everyone knows it, but anyone who was curious could find it out with minimal effort.  Of course, the "minimal effort" part would explain why the Democrats in Congress might not have been aware of it.

The MSM has been running stories on NSA intercepts all along. Now the MSM is running stories on warrantless NSA intercepts. The only piece of knowledge the terrorists have gained is that the intercepts are obtained without a warrant.

Also, the law says that warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the monitoring starts. So I don't see this law impedes rapidly developing investigations.

Back in th 80's when I had a security clearance, we had to take a polygraph on a random basis to be sure we had not divulged any classified information.  Have we gotten so politically correct since than, that we don't check up on those with knowledge of our most Secret secrets?  No wonder the likes of Ames and Hansen can go so long undetected.

Heads need to roll over all these recent security leaks, and I don't mean Bush's.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

If this isnt treason by the leakers, what is???  If even the NYT can see the damage able to be cused by it, it has to be really, really harmful to national security.

on the heels of "joking" about impeaching GW?

and let's posthumously impeach Lincoln and FDR, too.

The Far Left has been so blinded with rage the past five years that they stopped looking at the facts a long time ago.  Calling the United States a fascist nation, George W. Bush a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, seemingly calling for armed rebellion against the government, massive daily protests, impeaching Bush/Cheney, wondering if Bush will peacefully leave power in 2009...but there are the posters there prepared to say the American public is too stupid/doesnt care so all of these will come to nothing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/113212/10

If you're infantile hapeus corpus rule had any relation to reality, Bush can cite those aspotential acts of rebellion with more authority than you can say acts specifically authorized as legal in the US Code are not legal.  You LLL's give me much good cheer for your buffonery.  Like going to a monkey cage, never know what they're gonna do.

The only piece of knowledge the terrorists have gained is that the intercepts are obtained without a warrant.

Not strictly true. By watching the sparks fly in the vicinity of the revelation, they can estimate the strength of the political opposition to Bush and his policies. These are acts which, in their own countries, would get somebody's head chopped off. Here, major newspapers and political figures rejoice in the leader's embarassment. There is a good lesson they might take away from that, but that's probably not the one they do take away.

The other thing that just happened is that another 73,500 Americans who were on the margin as to just whose side the press and the Democrats are on, made their decision. This was a bad day for the press, and a good day for us.

Ames passed his polygraph tests with flying colors, and ruins perfectly good officers:

Officers will never forget their first post-Ames polygraph. One of the findings of a post-Ames polygraph study was that Ames was able to pass two polygraph exams after he started spying for the Russians, because the polygraph examiners failed to establish the required psychological atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Polygraph examiners overcompensated, making examinations hostile polygraphs, intimidating, threatening, and accusing loyal officers of all kinds of misdeeds and crimes. Gone was the collegial relationship between examiner and examinee where "concerns" were discussed, with the examiner saying, "Gee, you are showing discomfort on that question...can you tell me why?" The post-Ames approach was, "You are lying. I know you are lying. The machine shows you are lying. Admit your guilt now or your career is over." One colleague of mine was so traumatized by the experience that she became completely incapable of undergoing future tests.

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display
;num=1122195854

By watching the sparks fly in the vicinity of the revelation, they can estimate the strength of the political opposition to Bush and his policies.

So, we should somehow conceal the strength/weakness of the Bush's political opposition? How do we do that?

These are acts which, in their own countries, would get somebody's head chopped off.

What's your point? Are the terrorists are just finding out now that we have freedom of the press?

an e-mail today telling him that before he holds any hearings on this NSA international communications intercepts matter, he had better hold hearings on those responsible for leaking classified info to the NY times.  I informed him ,as if he didn't know, that these intercepts were perfectly legal, and in fact, were included as part of the NSA's charter.  Further, I informed him that the Congress had been informed of these intercepts on many occasions and had no complaints at the time- only after the information was published in the NY Times.  Finally, I told him that it is quite possible that one or more of his Senate colleagues is responsible for leaking this classified info and that that is where the focus should be first.  Otherwise, any hearings will be pre-judged, and rightly, as a whitewash.

And I think the Directors of RedState should be working to assemble a statement on this matter and include some boilerplate so that we can all email Spector and our other Senators.  Gentlemen, this is a high-priority item for me, and I'd really appreciate if the Directors would get together and make a statement.

SusanG over at Daily Kos is absolutely right, but for all the wrong reasons, as usual:  This is a line in the sand.  

Here's an idea: Why don't you publish the codes used by our forces in Iraq? Hey, freedom of speech, man. That would be the highest form of patriotism.

Except for Nick's motto, but I saw it put this way somewhere the other day:

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

With a Dem president and a GOP majority in congress so we can see just how phoney these guys are with their staged outrage.  

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically bans federal agents from conducting domestic surveillance without a warrant.  Under the Patriot Act, the feds have almost unlimited ability to conduct surveillance, however, needing only a secret warrant from the notoriously deferential FISA court.  Yet Bush has bypassed even this cursory level of process  based on John Yoo's notion that the president has virtually unlimited powers during wartime.  

And you all are okay with this?

If the President (any president) is allowed to bypass federal law by executive order, that means the activities of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DOD are limited only by his discretion.  You get this, right?

Would you be okay with it if John Kerry claimed he could overrule federal statutes with the stroke of a pen?  How about Bill Clinton?  I know Red State is not exactly a hotbed for libertarians, but I'm somewhat stunned by the blanket approval for unfettered federal power I'm seeing here.  

I know you want to focus on the leak and the NY Times, but what about the program itself?  Are you all really ready to adopt the Yoo constitutional view for the rest of history?  

After you jump, how much time do you have before you pull the cord?

The rest of your life.

 Regarding the President having virtually unlimited powers during wartime, and given the hyperbole of that statement, my answer would be yes. The enemy we face will do whatever is in his power to destroy as many American lives as he can. If this program even came close to averting another attack on Americans, then it's worth it. Do you agree with that statement?

 Your assertion that the President's power is limited only by his discretion doesn't gibe with President Bush's comments that members of Congress were also aware of this program; their silence is tacit support.

 It wouldn't matter to me who was President. The difference is that this President has repeatedly shown the moral and political courage to do what has to be done to protect American citizens - something that, IMO, very few politicians of either party have shown.

Well after reading all the posts here on RS and in the MSM, I come away with a bunch of questions; was what the President ordered legal, did he go about expanding collection of intelligence in the correct manner, with the correct notification of Congressional oversight?

While the Dems want to make a big deal about this whole thing, ignoring that Civil rights are one of the most important of our liberties, but being alive is the ultimate Civil right, you gotta ask "Where's the Beef"?

Is this more of the Lefties, including fellow travelers from the Republican party, are looking to pick a fight? Bring it on!

President Bush threw down the gauntlet today and good for him. I'm all in favor of oversight, and there is a time and place for review of how our intelligence agencies operate. The Senate and Congressional Intelligence Committees are set up to review what the Executive has done in intelligence matters. These committees are known to be thorough, fair and bi-partisan, unlike Dennis the Menace or Allen Specter. If there are to be hearings, fine, by all means do so and let the Intelligence  committee do it's job and report back to full Congress. President Bush has made the tough choices needed to protect this country, and I'm confident he has done so according to the law.

If the "White Flag" Democrats don't like the answer that comes back from those in Congress who are empowered to review the actions of the President in these matters, tough cookies. If a few NSA or CIA employees or any elected official and or staff are found to be divulging classified information, there is a room reserved for them in Marion Ill.

The instructor told me that, if I did't jump, he was going to __  __ me!

Dad: Well, I assume you jumped.

Son: Yeah, quite a lot at first.

This. Was. Not. Domestic. Surveillance.

This was of calls from inside the US to outside, or vice-versa.

Feel free to retract your ignorant statements any time now.

Why does the President need to spy on American citizens without a judicial warrant?  We don't live in East Germany folks.  Do you want the government listening in on your phone calls and reading your emails without a warrant? If the government has the power to do it to terrorist suspects, it also has the power to do it to anybody.  A frightening thought.

is the idea that someone can think

If the government has the power to do it to terrorist suspects, it also has the power to do it to anybody. A frightening thought.

So your position seems to be that given the choice between terrorist attacks because we didn't do communications intercepts and no terror attacks because we did, you prefer to have American men, women, and children stacked up like cordwood.

I'm assuming that in the aftermath you'd be one of the first to say, "I'm really glad we got attacked because that means my civil liberties are safe."

Thankfully, our government doesn't hold that view.

Lincoln was dealing with a rebellion. I think FDR stepped over the line, however.

let me get this straight. You are unable to make a distinction difference between terrorists and your fellow Americans?

The government is allowed to wiretap suspects immediately but must get a court warrant within 72 hours.  There exists a current secret court that grants warrants on the spot.  Therefore, there is no problem getting an immediate wiretap.  That's not the issue - the issue is whether the government should tap the phones of American citizens without a warrant.  Do you want the government to listen into your conversations without judicial approval?

You seem concerned about your rights, fine so I am I. But the highest right is my book is:

"Life, Liberty...."

The Judicial branch of our government is not the Penultimate Branch of our government; it shares power over the application of the Constitution and protection of your rights with the Legislative and the Executive Branches.

Read what the actual 4th says, the key word is "Unreasonable" searches and seizures. In this case the Executive branch has made a determination of what is reasonable, it has gone to the other two legs of Constitutional power for review of how reasonable the action taken is in light of the overriding objective of preservation of "Life, Liberty". If you don't like who is exercising the Executive side of this decision, elect someone from the "White Flag" Democratic party who does.

4th admendment of the Bill of Rights establishes:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to

be seized

Yeah right - how do you know who is a terrorist and who isn't.  The government has clearly made mistakes in imprisoning innocent individuals before.  What happens if they make a mistake with you?

It never ceases to amaze me at how the Liberal mind works, they are so anti Bush that they use any method to bring him down or to devert away from good news.

We now have Kerry in two weeks saying our troops are "terrorizing" the Iraq people, then following that with the "President should be impeached", yet the Libs will continue to excuse his comments.

I am proud that we have a President that will Protect us from Terrorist and to live a life of Integrity.

the US would have lost WWII.

The media learned from the last two elections in Iraq. It was pretty much known this election would be more successful than the first two, so the media had something (NSA story) ready to divert attention and to make sure Bush got no credit or accolades for the Iraqi election.

It is going to take a few more 9/11s or a nuke going off in the US before these fools realize American lives are more important than their hatred of Bush.

Does anyone doubt that seventy percent of the media wants us to lose in Iraq so that GWBush looks bad?

They would rather see Americans die than to see Bush get credit for anything. When we get hit again there will be a backlash against liberals, it is just a shame that we will have to get hit again.

Liberals are scum.

The Congressional approval Bush cites is a political ploy, not a legal argument.  According to John Yoo's legal theory, Congressional authority is not necessary.  The President is free to act without any contraints in times of war, which only he is fit to define.  Moreover, telling a few select members of Congress is quite different from giving Congress oversight.

You ask: If this program even came close to averting another attack on Americans, then it's worth it?

Without knowing what the program was, it's impossible to say.  If it means replacing our President with a monarch, well, I'd simply answer that many, many soldiers gave their lives during the American Revolution to avoid that fate.

to the DU to read what the masters of intellect were having to say. As usual, once past the four-letter words, expletives, paranoia, and mis-stated facts, all that is left (pun intended) is more four-letter words, expletives, paranoia, and mis-stated facts.

It's fun to go down there as stories like this break. Reminds me of watching chickens at feeding time. Thought you might enjoy a few of their deep thoughts. I tried to leave the fisking on these to the experts like our friend at DUmmies FUnnies. But boy is it hard:

I think Bolton did most of it at the direction of Cheney or Rice or Hadley. Bush might have been sent out to cover for the mess by using his elevated authority as a shield against congressional judgement. It seems to have backfired. We'll have to wait and see how much will Democrats have to collectively force an investigation or rebuke.

I have my "Surveillance Undermines Liberty" button on and will wear it everywhere. I'm going to an anti-war vigil tomorrow but my sign is going to be about our fascist regime. Have to call the senators and reps TODAY. Leave a strong message. If we let this go by like we did everything else, we deserve to live under a dictator

and the concequences of his illegal immoral  war on Iraq- are???? First Degree Murder on how many counts????-

And here's a fella havin' a wonderful joyous Christmas with the family he loves and respects:

Unfortunately, I'm now hosting a family gathering that includes a bunch of Repugs. They are totally supportive of what Bush is doing. They are saying that anything he wants to do to protect the country is fine with them. I can't stand it. Had to leave the room before I created a major family rift. Also drug my daughter with me. We can't understand where these peoples' logic and patriotism actually is.

But I'm sure he didn't mean that he drugged his daughter. Not a Christmas time.

My personal favorite for today:

This has to be the sorriest no goodest low lifest poorest pResident ever.

Several comments above note that the issue here is warrant-less searches.  

The responses I see suggest that it is fine for the President to break the law if he a) tells some members of Congress or b) says he is doing so in the interest of preventing a terrorist attack.  I have yet to see any comment explaining why he needs this power.

Listening phone calls does not bother me that much frankly, but where do we draw the lines here.  Are there any laws too important for the President to break in the name of national security?  

I had thought conservatives were concerned abut government power.

Tom

The NSA would define it as domestic surveillance because they are monitoring the conversations of American citizens inside the U.S.  Christ, even President Bush acknowledges that.

Who do you think you are, Bill Clinton?

Invasion of the Public Safety -- good enough for me!  Terrorists declared war on us.  Attacked the WTC twice (a friend killed there).  Do we want to know what and who their next targets are, or not?

A school bus load of kids, a bridge, a restaurant, a mall?  Do you want a bomb with that Starbucks?  No worry here that agents are  monitoring my calls. Terrorists aren't likely to call me. They'll will call their buddies who plan 24/7 against us.    

Bush is man enough to say "The Buck stops here.  Yeah I did it and I'm glad."

There was oversight every 45 days and Congressmen have been briefed more than a dozen times and are now feigning "shock."  This was classified.  I hope Bush names them and shines a bright light on these "honorable" politicians and what they have been doing in the shadows.

Tom - most of the people are cheerleaders, not conservatives.  If this were President Clinton, they'd be in attack dog mode.

You are comparing publishing the information that government is now executing phone taps without warrants to an act of treason?

Do you believe the press should not report when the government breaks the law?

Tom

conservatives have no fear of gov't power if they think it helps them; gov't power helping others, now that is a high crime.

conservatives have a faith in government that rivals the most ardent liberal.

"You are unable to make a distinction difference between terrorists and your fellow Americans?"

The question more appropriately is whether the government can make that distinction and whether the government will continue to make that distinction if it is politically expedient not to.

Did the government break the law? I can guarantee you that whoever leaked the program to the New York Times broke the law.

http://jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow120905.php3

It is only very rarely that the use of the word "Christ" as an expletive is appropriate. That was not one of them. Don't do that anymore.

The same ones that thought the Plame leak was so bad, need to stand and be counted. This truly is a national security leak that needs prosecuting, followed by lengthy jail time.

It's funnier than all hell to watch those that thought Clinton's secret files on gun owners was OK talk about how bad this is for civil liberties.

It's about the R's playing "nicey-nice" while the D's torture DeLay, Libby, Rove, etc.

Your value added is low. Please correct this. With thanks,

The Management.

Citizenship in the United States of America should not shield a person from scrutiny if they are acting in ways that the goverment believes are hostile to the United States.  

Terrorism is not a crime like rape or murder; these crimes harm the social but not the political fabric of a country. Without the political framework, the country cannot stand, and so acts of war like terrorism must be dealt with differently than domestic crimes.  

Those suspected of terrorism cannot and should not be afforded the same rights as ordinary citizens, because their alleged acts seek to destroy the very nation from which they seek protection.  To allow the laws of a country to protect those who would seek to destroy it is stupidity at its most extreme.

Do you believe that the argument that the President has the right to break laws during the war?

Or do you believe the taps were within existing law?

Do you feel that reporting on such issues is comparable to treason?

Tom

the correct definition of the words:  'surveillance' and 'intercept'; and their respective application to this latest farse.

Observe MSM and Democrat shock and horror at the ostensible 'outing' of the non-agent Valerie Plame(sp?); and the smug ease with which they actually compromise an ongoing highly classified intelligence operation.

Someone needs to go to jail on this one. And sanctions need be taken against the New York Times.

there would be no global war on terror.  Clinton would not have recognized that the Sept. 11th attacks signaled a dramatic escalation in the Islamo-fascists attempts to establish a world-wide caliphate.  He would have asked the U.N. permission to bomb Afghanistan and upped the bounty on Bin Laden's head, and maybe sent a few secret teams into Afghanistan to see if they couldn't find and/or kill Bin Laden......and then continued on again as if nothing happened.

Clinton would not have had sufficient vision to see our enemies for who they are, and so would not have dreamt of taking a few percentage points hit in his popularity in order to keep the country under his care safe.

It would be nice to think that Clinton would have done the right thing (authorize the wiretaps) instead of the popular thing (make a speech at the U.N. agreeing with France that we are the cause of the terror attacks).  But we will all have to deal with what history gave us, not with what we think it ought to have been.

means that a court reviews and agrees that the there is a resonable basis for the search - in the case the monitoring of phone calls.  

You presume that everyone monitored is in fact a terrorist.  That can be very broadly defined.  Its like presuming that anyone arrested is in fact guilty.

If we throw away constitutional protections we have destroyed the very thing we seek to protect.

The wiretapping isn't illegal.

Of course there's no reason for the power. The NSA just wants to find out what kind of bread your wife wants you to bring home and how much you hate your boss. It's all in the file they keep on you.

by that definition - war is a perpetual state of affairs.  No beggining - no end, and it follows from that if constitutional protections can be arbirtarily suspended in this circumstance then they mean nothing.  Guess it is "just a piece of paper" after all?

think you are in the position to decide who or what is conservative.

Consider this a warning. If the best you can do is slinging mud at the other people here then you don't belong here.

If you know you could be wrong, then why believe it? Why not just wait to find out? That's what I'm doing. The one I'm real sure about though, is that the leaker broke the law.

No, I don't like the idea of presidents breaking the law. I have no idea whether the taps were within existing law. He says yes, they say no, it's the usual hoo-hah. Most people will eventually decide this by throwing up their hands on the law part, and decide it based on whether they think spying on terrorists is a good idea. This would be a good issue for Democrats to slink away from.

Treason? Not this one. Outing the CIA's airline might have been.

close to content-free as I've seen.

I can only conclude from reading this that you are trolling because I can't believe you're enough of an idiot to believe this. That said, I examine your sordid posting history and lo and behold I find you have been warned for trolling. Imagine my shock.

So you've worn out your welcome. Go bother someone else.

No, that is not conservatism.  That is libertarianism.

wasted, of course, on anyone who thinks conservatives are monolith who all believe the same things.

in a variety of settings. With probable cause, the police do not need a warrant to search your car or draw your blood (in a serious auto accident.) They can also search the passenger compartment of your car if they have probable cause to arrest ANYONE riding in your car. Various agencies can seize your bank and phone records via their own subpoena power. No judicial action is required.

They can also search your HOME without a warrant if exigent circumstances exist. Immediate threat of death or great bodily harm is an exigency per se, so sayeth the Supreme Court. In each of these situations, you will likely be inconvenienced and complain vociferously.

The interception of a conversation in time of war, in which you are all but anonymous until you mention terrorist activity, does not offend the Constitution. Bear in mind, internment camps were held Constitutional. Unless there is evidence that the practice has been intentionally abused, I expect the conduct to be upheld.

I admit I am tired of the leaks to the press.

If we are going to spend millions investigating the Plame matter, then we should be spending some money investigating these links, and putting people in jail.  But right now, it doesn't even look like we are trying to fire them, much less prosecute them.

makes it perfectly legal

But like most Dim-ocrats, u either dont know the law or are purposely mis-stating it.

When the majority of people find out your lies, they immed move to our side.  You think the "BushLied" BS worked?  It did until Bush started taking it seriously.  Without another side being presented you guys had it all tour way.  But now the Varisty is coming on the field and you lightweights are being ejected.

I am a liberal who reads the arguments here because I learn a lot from the back and forth.  This site usually avoids the hyperbole of the last post.  

"Does anyone doubt that seventy percent of the media  wants us to lose in Iraq so that GWBush looks bad?"

- Losing in Iraq destabilizes the region and makes the entire world less safe, not just Americans.  I have trouble accepting that 70% (Who is the other 30%?  Fox News?) would value upheaval over peace.

"They would rather see Americans die than to see Bush get credit for anything. When we get hit again there will be a backlash against liberals, it is just a shame that we will have to get hit again."

- This is simply ludicrous.  Is this poster claiming that journalists revel in American deaths?  Does the poster picture journalists cheering during 9/11 and drinking shots at the bar during Hurricane Katrina?  All the reports I saw during these events looked really shaken up.

"Liberals are scum."

These types of sweeping generalities weaken your entire argument.  Sure, every single liberal will  be scum if they subscribe to the words that you put in their mouths.

Buffalo wing or hunk of cheese or something stuck in Michael Moore's beard right now that he doesn't even know about.

Because he is so big, fat and nasty and disgusting.

1-- I don't know about 70% but I think you would be very safe in saying that a clear majority of the media, not to mention academics, would see a loss in Iraq and subsequent upheaval as a small price to pay to ensure Bush's legacy was negative. They have invested a lot of credibility in predicting a loss and it is hard to believe that they want to be wrong.

2-- Have you missed the breathless countdowns to 1000, 1500, and 2000 deaths in Iraq? There's no tactical or strategic significance to those numbers. It's pretty hard to draw any otber conclusion from this other than dead troops are a small price to pay to make Bush look bad.

3-- Maybe you're right. All liberals aren't scum.

Do you feel that reporting on such issues is comparable to treason?

I serious doubt that the NSA program broke any laws but I am willing to be convinced.

I know that the b*stards that leaked it and the b*astards that printed it broke the law and quite possibly committed treason. The leaker, the reporter and the editors and publisher of the New York Times should be charged and tried.

We are at war and someone needs to grab these clowns by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into them.

-----------

* Pardon my French, but I am up to my eyeballs with people who don't, or won't, understand what is going on or put their own opinions, political views and hatreds over the safety and security of my country and my family.

He knew how to beat a poly.  Not everyone does.  And, polygraphers are trained to spot attempts at beating the machine.

Not all leakers are counter intel agents.  Do you think that egotists like Joe Wilson could beat one?  I'd love to find out.

So... let's find out!

If the government has the power to do it to terrorist suspects, it also has the power to do it to anybody. In your contect I asked whether you are unable to make a dictinction between the treatment we should accord terrorists and citizens. I fully expect the government to hunt down and kill terrorists, I doubt that my fellow citizens working for this government intend to do the same to me.

Do you want the government to listen into your conversations without judicial approval?

I asked this question yesterday, and the fact of the matter is, they simply don't care if the government tapes every word they say.

So arguing it is kind of pointless.  It's like arguing the point of quality coffee to someone who doesn't like coffee.

Which is partially why I think that the Democratic party is the best party for both conservatives and liberals at the moment.

Oh...so Joe Lieberman is a welcome member of the "White Flag" Democrats?

Yea...right.

Are we referring to the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-union, pro-environment Lieberman or another one?

I'm surprised this isn't getting more play.  Well, maybe I'm not. The libs will do anything to try and save whatever weak legacy Clinton has managed to scrape together since he left office.

read a lot of interesting things on this blog. I've read a lot of educational things on this blog. I've read a lot of fatuous things on this blog. I've read a lot of dumb things on this blog (and perhaps written a few); But I've got to that this one transcends everything else; it reaches new heights.

You are to be congratulated for this accomplishment.

Thanks!

Look, I have absolutely no problem, none, with wiretapping everyone who might have terrorist links.  Indeed, the government can already pretty much do that in lickety-split time using a FISA warrant.  But the fact that it's so easy (and quick) to get a FISA warrant makes the current explanation a bit strange.  There's got to be more to this story.

In addition, I think that we all need to step back and decide whether the justification laid out in Professor Yoo's memorandum is a justification that we can live with.  If a Hillary Clinton takes office in '08 (which is not inconceivable), are we comfortable with the notion that she gets to break the law if she thinks, in her sole opinion, that the law conflicts with her duties as CIC?  

Yoo's rationale for this newly-discovered presidential power should concern everyone -- particularly given that we're in a war that may last as long as the Cold War (if not longer).  How many presidents will come and go in that time?  Will they all be decent men (and women)?  Will they all be decent all the time?  The whole point of requiring checks and balances is because men can't be trusted.  (He has a sinful nature, some might say.)  Even decent men can't always be trusted.  Even good men do evil.  The old saw about the road to hell being paved with good intentions is an old saw for a reason.

I'm concerned about the leak, yes.  But I'm more concerned about the policy.  Unless there's some explanation about why a FISA warrant won't fill this particular niche, these kind of searches should stop as a matter of policy.  (Whether it's legal or illegal as a matter of law is another matter, and one I'm not qualified to answer.)

...of defending the United States.

For the Democrats this seems to be a crime.

When will the Democrats learn that this is a losing strategy. The only way they'll see a Democrat in the White House is if they watch "The West Wing."

The one who does not belong to the "White Flag" wing of the Democratic party, which seems to be all there is now days, including Howard "Hear me Scream" Dean.

The one that back this President, our troops, and a strong national defense.

The one that the "White Flag", blame America First crowd hates.

Is that clearer?

But, honestly, I have never met any of these white flag people and I am out and about extensively talking to folks.

Despite the "King George" meme-in-the-making, and without knowing the specifics, which doesn't inhibit any Royalist assertions on your part, the President has acted in the best interests of the country. He has done so repeatedly and, G-d willing, will continue to do so, whatever the political costs to himself and, frankly, the Republican party as a whole. To me, that's leadership. and against an enemy that does not, and will never, discriminate among men, women and children, I much a prefer a man willing to make an error of commission than one of omission, especially if the latter was motivated by a need to satisfy the self-appointed arbiters of social, moral and legal conscience who populate the hand-wringing left.

 Speaking for myself, I would not hesitate to shoot anybody who threatened me or my family, nor would I wait for permission from anybody this side of heaven to do so. President Bush is a singularity - a man who will do whatever it takes to protect the citizens of the United States. These days, anything less than that is academic.  

. . .is being read out of the party by Dr. Howie and his minions in spite of all those positions, because of his refusal to join the Senate Surrender Caucus.

I should have been a headline writer.  Lead sentence; Experts agree Bush assails Free Speech, warn of threat to civil liberties".  It must be nice to have a bifurcated brain, no corpus callosum, think of all the embarressment you avoid.  Better than that you're spared the trouble of thinking. Yes there are people with unicameral brains who act the same way but they're usually found in remote areas of New Guinea hunting other humans for their dinner. Outrage over Plame, auto-heroism for the NSA exposure.  Both packed into the same sinistrorse labyrinth of a mind.  People are fond of quoting Jefferson's remark about preferring a free press over government.  Less often do you hear that he said the greatest threat to a republic is a licentious press.

some things here that aren't.

There is no requirement for the NSA to get a warrant listen in on international communications, even those which originate in the US. It simply is not a requirement.

What are the technical limititations that make  prohibitive keeping a complete record of every communication you send?  Of keeping security camera records for every room of your house?

Because I guarantee you, as technology progresses, this becomes more and more feasible.

For the cost of the Iraq war, we could have purchased over one trillion gigabytes of disk storage.  You think the government doesn't have this kind of buying power?  That's 6000 GB of storage per household.

Getting the storage is in reach.  What's missing?  

Where are they going to get the manpower to watch all these feeds?  Obviously, they're not.  But we have software that (albeit not completely well) determines if songs or movies are going to be a hit.  Software can tell if there's motion or nudity in shot.  Software can tell if a plane passenger represents a risk.  In short, the software will tell the people who is interesting based on their data feed, and then a human will further analyze the feed.  

So, technically, I ask you, what is wrong with my above proposal?  What part can't we currently afford?  What part is beyond our technical reach?  More importantly, I want to know what we have to do to get it in reach.

Thoughts?

The level of Bush hating in this discussion is amazing. Those claiming Bush has broken the law in this thread and elsewhere (CNN for example) didn't read the entire NY Times article. Towards the end of the article, it is clearly stated that only domestic to domestic conversations require a warrant for the NSA. Domestic to non-domestic conversations, such as the ones discussed here do not, and never have required warrants. If you don't like the idea of the government attempting to prevent terrorism by this technique, say so. Don't pretend it is some new, evil civil rights violation by King Bush.

Some of the posters here have touched on the real story. How can we effectively conduct this or any war when our intelligence agencies feel free to divulge confidential information to politically damage the Commander-in-Chief?

the time, effort, and inclination to listen to the communications, transcribe and in a lot of cases translate, and analyze the communications. The funding for the project.

And, of course, who is going to do this for the communications of the NSA employees? The NSA?

utimately won't matter if the Libs are successful in ending the monitoring of suspicious communications.

Once we lose track of what they are doing, the terrorists will commit another atrocity - even more spectacular that 9-11 if possible.  At some point, after the next or the third outrage, American will begin to hold all Muslims and their enablers responsible.  A true culture war.  

I believe that this great concern for civil rights is only a stick to beat W.  Anything to regain power for the Dhims.

I have not seen the article you are refering to.  In the NYT article I did read: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html?hp&ex=1134882000
&en=5b0fa310edb6186f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I saw that the administration suspended the program in 2004 because of concerns about its legality.

The bashing here that I can't figure out is all the attacks on the media.  The terrorists surely knew they were at risk of wiretaps before all this.  What exactly have the terrorists learned from all this?  How are they helped?

Tom

I'm a new poster here, but I have been amazed at the level of blatant stupidity, deliberate blindness and all-out hypocrisy demonstrated by the Russ Feingold's, Chuck Schummer's and media hacks over this story.

Those hurling charges of law breaking need to learn how to read. Even the NYT(that treasonous bunch who reveal covert secrets), at least have the splinter of an ethical bone left in their body to point out that actions taken by the President were legal and reviewed by a court as well as the AG and members of both parties in Congress.

This was no coincidence that the Times runs this story in conjunction with Feingold and company on the day the Patriot Act provisions came up for renewel. This is so reminiscient of what they pulled the week before the 2004 election, when they ran that year old story about ammo dumps not being secured(a story that turned out to be proven false), that sheer chance of timing can't be used as an excuse.

The NYT and their editors should be fully prosecuted to the full extent of the law for revealing state secrets.

I am sick of this partisan press who can't deal with the fact that their beloved libs aren't in power anymore. They didn't win in 2004, so now they will go to any lengths to so weaken the administration they despise, even at the risk of hurting innocent Americans and the country as a whole.

The only lawbreakers in this whole affair are A)the person or persons who revealed sensitive information to the Times and B)the Times themselves for publishing it.

How about we start with the publishing of classified information in time of war....sounds like treason to me.

to be outraged over this but I'm not sure why. You are going to base a policy on an N=1 situation of Ames? Carried to its logical conclusion we shouldn't even ask for birth certificates since I'm sure they have been forged in the past.

It also seems to me that if this chick became mentally incapacitated after a poly-freakin-graph we should be thankful we discovered that now before she was in a real stressful situation.

It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.

Apparently the fundamental skill known as 'reading' is now defined by the Left to be 'word games'.

Go read comment #94, you ignorant fool.

Apparently, my math skills are more deteriorated than I thought.

As detailed by the President was that these numbers that were tapped were the result of captured material in Afghanistan (and presumably, Iraq and Pakistan and other foreign countries) leading to US sources (cell phones, IM, e-mail, whatever).

FISA court approval is swift; but Justice is unable to get to FISA in less than SIX MONTHS. Unacceptable.

This was NOT:

A. Widespread sweeping surveillance of non-threats of domestic political activity ala COINTELPRO.

B. Unsupervised and without feedback; Jay Rockefeller and others had concerns which led to a temporary suspension and modifications of the program.

C. Domestic only wiretaps; they were limited to communication with known Al Qaeda terrorist contact channels.

The results of this led to the stopping of a bombing plot aimed at destroying the Brooklyn Bridge and killing thousands. The PATRIOT ACT allowed the passing of info gathered from the wiretaps to investigators in the FBI which led to an arrest and conviction.

What we are going back to by DEMAND of Dems, the Media, and McCain is the pre-9/11 status, where info from the CIA and other foreign intelligence services could not be passed to the CIA (Al Qaeda plotting to fly airplanes into buildings) due to the concerns of civil liberties.

PEOPLE WILL DIE. It will be entirely preventable. And ALL DEMS fault. They would rather have absolutist civil liberties than protect the greatest civil liberty -- the right not to be murdered. But what can you say from the Party that celebrates Tookie and believes the 9/11 Victims were "Little Eichmans?"

Of course, if the DEMS and MEDIA complete their tying of the President's hands, you'll get people deciding to make themselves safe by themselves. Which is ugly, brutal, and all too predictable.

GWB is ironically the greatest protector of civil liberties seen in a generation, by taking moderate, measured, and limited common-sense steps to avoid either a police state or the mob.

What makes the people who run the NYT think that they have to right to place their views over the elected government of the country. Please do not respond 'The Constitution' because that is not what the First Amendment means.

n/t

#68 as well.

Certain congressman and posters here seem to find high fault, in the abstract, that the NSA program didn't seek warrants within 72 hours after the tap. Following the prima facia assumption that the taps would have been approved as for good cause, the complaint seems rather technical in light of the high stakes GWOT. And even as regards the technical side, a definitive conclusion of fault is not yet warranted. At this stage, the uproar seems clearly to be a game of torpedo politics, security be damned.  

I am with commentor van and will be looking to understand why the NSA program did not seek subsequent warrants if that is all that was necessary to stem this kind of criticism. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't for some valid reason. Perhaps something else...

I don't know whether to legally fault the NYT. But when Congressmen defend the leakers as whislte-blowers I want to ask: Did you already investigate whether the leakers tried to blow the whistle through the proper official governmental channels, namely the courts and congress, especially since they were already aware of and to some extent monitoring this program? Why did they just have to go to a major donkey MSM outlet whose only power and greatest temptation was to expose it, even if it was perfectly legal and in the greatest national interest? Answer me that congressman, or else we am compelled to conclude the claims you are making are politically self-serving at the expense of national security.

The Left never seems to address that part of the Constitution.

Actually as you can see above, I have had some more fun with your formulation.

Or more generally

Where...

F is the set of all possible valid formulas and,

M is the set of conclusions from arguments in all moonbat minds

M = {f/0) where f element F.

Keep close watch for the divide by zero exception.

but the gop ain't so principled in opposition, either.  the gop is certainly better than the dems when it comes to security issues, even when the gop is in opposition.  but i recall a lot of opportunistic and unprincipled moves by the gop in the 90's.

Don't feel obliged if it would be much time to find out.

Thanks.

Or kos himself?

Or any number of the many, many folks who post on DailyKos?

only computers are so dumb they can't divide by zero. People can do lots of things wrong without a problem :-)

A computer can make a mistake in a fraction of a second that it would take a hundred humans years to make.

-----------------