Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
Precisely. I have no idea why Holdek would make a statement in vaccum about citizens being targeted and their rights being violated without fully reading and understanding the article.
"For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end? "
Who indeed.
I would hope the leakers and publishers also pay.A very tiny glimmer of hope is all I have.
As long as it pays monetarily OR ideologically.
I think you need to do some more research.
Oh boy. You just don't want to read the article still, do you?
He deserves to be spit on THEN hung for aiding and abetting an enemy AND as a traitor to the United States of America....
And that's just for his past "work."
I've read the article.
You can't dance around the fact that spying on U.S. citizens private communications is ILLEGAL and because it goes against the Constitution. No amount wiggling will get you out of it.
source?
How does one prove a negative?
source?
"I've read the article."
Happy you read the article. But you just have not understood what you have read. No hope.
You are stating it as fact,I want your source.
Read the New York Times article on this. It's what blew the whole thing up.
I have read what Clark says..Try it.
Of course Saddam must have defense attorneys for a fair trial..Clark is still anti American. He has been for years.
http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm
THE MYSTERIOUS RAMSEY CLARK:
STALINIST DUPE OR RULING-CLASS SPOOK?
Then your comprehension skills are lacking.
Actually, any US citizen working in concert with a foreign power is not longer protected.
Go read the law:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/toc.html
Can't get there from here,how about you explain it to me? the New York Times has proof that US citizens are being tapped? where did they get the info? and did the Times say that tapping is illegal because of the Bill Of Rights?
That is basic knowledge. If I have to explain it to you further, it's not likely you'll understand any other points made regarding this topic (or many others for that matter, lol!).
OK,g'bye!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.