Americans overwhelming support President Bush in wiretapping.

[danarhea]

Have to make the choice which is more valuable, life or liberty.
The traditional American choice is sacrifice lives for liberty.
Sad to see some so ready and willing to throw away the hard won and costly American freedoms when faced with a threat that isn't even as dangerous as riding down the freeway in an automobile.
Frredom isn't free, you know.

Freedom isnt free. You have damn well hit the nail on the head. I like your writings. You seem to be a Paleocon after my own heart. The Republican Party needs more like you. Oops, didnt the GOP have a whole lot of people like you at one time? Damn, how I miss that 1994 Freshman Republican Congress. They were going to set the world on fire. Where did they all go?

Note: The Bushneviks want to set the world on fire too, but unfortunately, not figuratively.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Me either they can check my library card all they want if it keeps me alive.......

No guarantee it helps or that doing it w/o a warrant makes it more effective.

 

[Navy Pride]

Have to make the choice which is more valuable, life or liberty.
The traditional American choice is sacrifice lives for liberty.
Sad to see some so ready and willing to throw away the hard won and costly American freedoms when faced with a threat that isn't even as dangerous as riding down the freeway in an automobile.
Frredom isn't free, you know.

Simon I will say it again...What good are those liberties if your not alive to enjoy them?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Simon I will say it again...What good are those liberties if your not alive to enjoy them?

Ask the folks who gave their lives to keep America free.
Was their sacrifice worth it? Or do you think that they all have wasted their lives?

What good is living if you're not free?
​

Just as I'm not afraid to get in my car and get out on the Beltway, I'm not afraid to have our public servants adhere to the Constitution.

Somethings are worth dying for, IMHO. America's freedom is one of them.
Obviously, YMMV.

 

[26 X World Champs]

There will be very little bypartisanship.

I'm looking forward to Navy's reply to my question:

When Navy have the Republicans done ANYTHING bipartisan since Herr Bush's Coup D'Etat? Specifics please (this should be good reading).

Oh by the way hips I love the dems new saying....."Culture of corruption".....Every time a dem opens his mouth that is the first words that come out.........

Versus your using the "Cut & Run" or "He's old enough to be her father" or "All we want is an Up or Down Vote" cliches? Oh yeah, whatever happened to Harriet Meiers Up or Down Vote that Republican's want for judicial nominees?

 

[Stace]

The problem is all those liberites don't mean squat if you not alive to enjoy them..............BF did not have to worry about dirty nukes killing millions...........

I've said this to you many times, NP....I'd rather enjoy them while I am alive. If I die, oh well, we're all gonna die anyway. Would you rather live a short, happy life, or a long, miserably scared one? I live in the second largest banking center in the country. I live within 25 miles of TWO nuclear plants. Yeah, I'd say my city is a bigger target than where most other people live. Am I scared? Nope. Should I be? Maybe, but I have more important things to worry about.

Oh, and do you have any other sources for this poll? I don't really trust newsmax.....

 

[danarhea]

I've said this to you many times, NP....I'd rather enjoy them while I am alive. If I die, oh well, we're all gonna die anyway. Would you rather live a short, happy life, or a long, miserably scared one? I live in the second largest banking center in the country. I live within 25 miles of TWO nuclear plants. Yeah, I'd say my city is a bigger target than where most other people live. Am I scared? Nope. Should I be? Maybe, but I have more important things to worry about.

Oh, and do you have any other sources for this poll? I don't really trust newsmax.....

You can read the Zogby poll I posted earlier in this thread, which says that 52% of Americans want Bush impeached if he broke the law.

 

[Stace]

You can read the Zogby poll I posted earlier in this thread, which says that 52% of Americans want Bush impeached if he broke the law.

Yeah, I've seen that one before.....funny how we have so many people that supposedly support warrantless wiretapping, yet we have a majority that would support impeachment if it's found he did it illegally......something just doesn't add up there, does it?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Simon I will say it again...What good are those liberties if your not alive to enjoy them?

Wow! You call yourself a patriot? Amazing! Nothing like dissing the millions of Americans who died for those liberties you have not respect for? Wow!

I guess for some their new battle cry is:

"Don't give Me Liberty, Take 'Em Away - I trust my President"

 

[danarhea]

Wow! You call yourself a patriot? Amazing! Nothing like dissing the millions of Americans who died for those liberties you have not respect for? Wow!

I guess for some their new battle cry is:

"Don't give Me Liberty, Take 'Em Away - I trust my President"

Give me Liberty, or give me more consumables just wouldnt quite ring a bell with Patrick Henry.

 

[cnredd]

You're a man after my own heart shuey!...:2wave: :rofl

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=204856&postcount=7

 

[Navy Pride]

No guarantee it helps or that doing it w/o a warrant makes it more effective.

All presidents in a time of war have done it and "Slick Willie" did it in peace time.............I guess its only a crime if GWB does it.....:roll:

 

[Paladin]

You need to read the poll on the subject..........

Why?
As far as I'm concerned, Bush and his cohort can wiretap terrorist suspects; you know, those city dwellers buying huge quantities of fertilizer, or folks making longdistance calls to Osama.
But it is wrong to spy on someone just because they called out of the country. Or because they have a different name.
ted

 

[Simon W. Moon]

All presidents in a time of war have done it and "Slick Willie" did it in peace time.............I guess its only a crime if GWB does it.....

And if Clinton cheated on his wife does that make it okay?

If something is wrong, it's still wrong even if Clinton does it too.

Clinton's not really the paragon of virtue that you try to make him out to be. Why you insist on using WJC as the ethical metric for GWB eludes me. One can "not be as bad as Clinton" and still be pretty rank. Saying that GWB did what Clinton did merely means that GWB's just as bad as Clinton. Hardly a defense, IMHO. Of course, YMMV.

Perhaps you think that everything Clinton did was just peachy or something?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Oh, and do you have any other sources for this poll? I don't really trust newsmax.....

Here's little more detail:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_011206.pdf

 

[Stace]

And if Clinton cheated on his wife does that make it okay?

If something is wrong, it's still wrong even if Clinton does it too.

Clinton's not really the paragon of virtue that you try to make him out to be. Why you insist on using WJC as the ethical metric for GWB eludes me. One can "not be as bad as Clinton" and still be pretty rank. Saying that GWB did what Clinton did merely means that GWB's just as bad as Clinton. Hardly a defense, IMHO. Of course, YMMV.

Perhaps you think that everything Clinton did was just peachy or something?

Umm....last time I checked, NP wasn't fond of Clinton at all.....

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Red Herrings Stink

All this about wanting terrorist suspects to have their communications monitored is a dodge.

The issue's not the wiretapping itself.

The issue is the refusal to get the easy to come-by warrants for wiretapping Americans.

When the warrants can be obtained easily and even retroactively, what benefit is gained by doing w/o the warrants that is more valuable than our Constituional rights?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Umm....last time I checked, NP wasn't fond of Clinton at all.....

Hang in there. It'll come to you.

 

[Navy Pride]

And if Clinton cheated on his wife does that make it okay?

If something is wrong, it's still wrong even if Clinton does it too.

Clinton's not really the paragon of virtue that you try to make him out to be. Why you insist on using WJC as the ethical metric for GWB eludes me. One can "not be as bad as Clinton" and still be pretty rank. Saying that GWB did what Clinton did merely means that GWB's just as bad as Clinton. Hardly a defense, IMHO. Of course, YMMV.

Perhaps you think that everything Clinton did was just peachy or something?

i was just trying to prove a point............I can tell you one thing though.....I think Clinton was a brilliant man but flawed in many ways........I think he disgraced the office of the presidency and that is what he weill be remembered for.........I don't hate him like you hate GWB though..........

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...I don't hate him like you hate GWB though...

You may want to recalibrate your insight into my mind.

 

[Navy Pride]

Umm....last time I checked, NP wasn't fond of Clinton at all.....

Like I told simon I don't hate him like you on the left hate GWB though...

Short of committing suicide there is nothing GWB could do to please people like you and simon.......

 

[Navy Pride]

You may want to recalibrate your insight into my mind.

All I have to go by is what you post and if I was GWB I would not turn my back on you..........

 

[oldreliable67]

When the warrants can be obtained easily and even retroactively, what benefit is gained by doing w/o the warrants that is more valuable than our Constituional rights?

There is nothing more valuable than our constitutional rights. But, I continue to get the impression that few posters realize the nuances (oh no, shades of John Kerry!) of FISA and the FISA warrant process, especially the time element involved, which goes a long way toward answering the "why not get a warrant using the 72 hour emergency provisions" question. In todays (01/19/2006) WSJ,
Victoria Toensing, who as chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1981 to 1984, participated in oversight of FISA in the first years after its passage. When she subsequently became deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, one of her responsibilities was the terrorism portfolio, which included working with FISA.

A couple of relevant points from her article:

"The NSA undoubtedly has identified many foreign phone numbers associated with al Qaeda. If these numbers are monitored only from outside the U.S., as consistent with FISA requirements, the agency cannot determine with certainty the location of the persons who are calling them, including whether they are in the U.S. New technology enables the president, via NSA, to establish an early-warning system to alert us immediately when any person located in the U.S. places a call to, or receives a call from, one of the al Qaeda numbers. Do Mr. Gore and congressional critics want the NSA to be unable to locate a secret al Qaeda operative in the U.S.?"
...
"And to correct an oft-cited misconception, there are no five-minute "emergency" taps. FISA still requires extensive time-consuming procedures. To prepare the two-to-three-inch thick applications for non-emergency warrants takes months. The so-called emergency procedure cannot be done in a few hours, let alone minutes. The attorney general is not going to approve even an emergency FISA intercept based on a breathless call from NSA.

For example, al Qaeda agent X, having a phone under FISA foreign surveillance, travels from Pakistan to New York. The FBI checks airline records and determines he is returning to Pakistan in three hours. Background information must be prepared and the document delivered to the attorney general. By that time, agent X has done his business and is back on the plane to Pakistan, where NSA can resume its warrantless foreign surveillance. Because of the antiquated requirements of FISA, the surveillance of agent X has to cease only during the critical hours he is on U.S. soil, presumably planning the next attack.

Even if time were not an issue, any emergency FISA application must still establish the required probable cause within 72 hours of placing the tap. So al Qaeda agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has agent B's number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to agent C, who flies to New York. That chain of facts, without further evidence, does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism. Yet, post 9/11, do the critics want NSA to cease monitoring agent C just because he landed on U.S. soil?"
...
"Why did the president not ask Congress in 2001 to amend FISA to address these problems? My experience is instructive. After the TWA incident, I suggested asking the Hill to change the law. A career Justice Department official responded, "Congress will make it a political issue and we may come away with less ability to monitor." The political posturing by Democrats who suddenly found problems with the NSA program after four years of supporting it during classified briefings only confirms that concern.

It took 9/11 for Congress to pass the amendment breaking down the "wall," which had been on the Justice Department's wish list for 16 years. And that was just the simple tweak of changing two words. The issues are vastly more complicated now, requiring an entirely new technical paradigm, which could itself become obsolete with the next communications innovation."

Toensing concludes that, "The courts may ultimately decide the legality of the NSA program. Meanwhile, the public should decide whether it wants NSA to monitor terrorists, or wait while congressional critics and Al Gore fiddle."

 

[George_Washington]

For all you fellows that claim that Bush is taking away our freedoms, well...

Nearly every administration, when faced with the threat of war, has instilled a strong, central government. Way back when we were faced the the threat of war with England in the War of 1812, our government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Abraham Lincoln, himself, passed martial law on the streets of Washington D.C. during the Civil War. During war time, some liberties must inevitably be suppressed. And believe me, we are at war. We are faced with a global terrorist force that wants to kill us all in the name of some fanatical religious machine.

Also, what is there more to fear? Tyranny or anarchy? I say anarchy is the darkest threat because it inevitably errupts into tyranny.

For all you people who say that our country was founded on a, "less centralized" government, well, that just wasn't the case. The Federalist Papers, the book that was the blueprint of the Constitution, was the basis for our government. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and John Adams, talked in detail about the value of a solid and central government. I'm not saying I disagree with certain freedoms that make our country unique but the reality of life is that war will always be with us. Alexander Hamilton once said that so long as nations exist, war will be the ultimate means of infuencing other nations. There will always be evil in the world and we, as good and God fearing people, must rise to fight the forces of darkness. As Edmund Burke once said: Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

 

[Stace]

Like I told simon I don't hate him like you on the left hate GWB though...

Short of committing suicide there is nothing GWB could do to please people like you and simon.......

Like I just got done telling someone else.....please don't make assumptions about me. You don't know anything about me outside of this forum; therefore, you do not know my true thoughts and feelings concerning every little detail of every issue. I've already told you, I don't hate anyone, not even Bush.