Unwarranted Outrage - The Times blew our cover.

National Review Online ^ | December 19, 2005, 8:59 a.m. | James S. Robbins

[Realism]

If it's legal then why doesn't Bush or some official just come out and say that this type of privacy was, is, nor ever will be a protection offered by the Constitution and it is perfectly legal. All I'm hearing is that someone blew their "covert operations", now they have to defend their actions. Why they did not say is "this is not news we've been doing this lawfully for years, where have you people been?".

[MEG33]

You are wrong..read the article.

[Holdek]

Bye!

[BushCountry]

The funny thing is that everyone going ballistic about their privacy are to stupid to realize they have none.

On my block alone there are six completely open wireless networks that a child could hack. There are at least a couple of million exposed computer network available to anyone with easily downloading tools found on the Internet. Most of these exposed business networks have tons and tons of info on other people. In addition, hackers, spyware, viruses, and adware ensure that there is no privacy on the Internet.

Heck, I could devise an antenna that can read your computer screen from a block away. The cord to the monitor emits a nice strong signal that can be translated.

Most cordless phones are easy to listen in on with a cheap scanner. Cell phones conversations are easy too, the equipment just costs a little bit more. Millions upon millions of cameras spying on us. It is myth to believe that there is privacy in the United States. Might as well believe in Santa Clause.

[sportutegrl]

That is as logical as saying that criminal defense attorneys love crime. An Iraqi citizen, on trial in Iraq, represented by Iraqi attorneys. It would look very bad if the US brought an attorney to prosecute or a judge. It would look like we were trying to fix the trial. It is an Iraqi trial. Clark was pulling an attention getting stunt by jumping in this which he had absolutely no business doing. The world is watching this trial, and if the US is overly involved and Saddam is sentenced to death, some could alledge that the US sent Clark to trip up the defense. Not everyone is familiar with Clark and his anti-american stunts.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Do tell, how do his efforts hurt the Administration's efforts in Iraq?"

Wow. Climb out of your spider hole and read the reports of his strategy. Clark's defense strategy it to attack the Iraqi invasion as illegal and unjustified. He'll lie, the media will drop to its collective needs and do a Lewinski, and useful idiots like you will repeat it as the Gospel, thereby giving him the necessary 20-30% of the population needed to continue the insurgency.

[been_lurking]

That is basic knowledge.

What a crock! You might as well have said "Because I say so.."

[traderrob6]

Terrific post.

[Holdek]

Your rudeness aside...

Clark's defense strategy is the business of himself, the rest of his legal team, and his client. A judge will make decisions on what is allowable in court. It's called due process of law. It's not always popular, but their is a reason why we're doing it instead of taking him out back and putting two in his head.

[Holdek]

Yes, well, my patience does have limits.

[Logical me]

"It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric. "

Could it possible be that the information learned is still ongoing and is classified because of its nature? Perhaps the very nature of the mechanism of obtaining information has already jeopardize this important tool to keep us safe. The NYT and the leaker/leaker's should be drawn and quartered for disclosing something that might have prevented an attack in the future. Do I feel safe, not with these Bush haters doing everything they can without regard of the damage they have caused.

[EricT.]

Holdek
Since Dec 3, 2005

Welcome to FR.

[Jaxter]

Let me see now..you respect Ramsey Clark and read and believe the New York Times. Are you sure you are on the right web site?

[DJ MacWoW]

Yes, well, my patience does have limits.

Apparently matches your comprehension.

[traderrob6]

You can't have a reasoned discussion with someone who is being obtuse.

[gondramB]

"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."

Because he is like 90% of people that post on the net? :) BTW, I thought this was funny even I don't agree with it.

[Minnesoootan]

First thing checked before posting to it.

[JNL]

What if and this is a big the list of people that have been spyed on comes out and some of them are questionable (ie: political enemies etc....) what do the supporters of these actions say then?

I don't have a really big problem with the action of the POTUS, if and only if these actions were directly related to terrorists.

[Minnesoootan]

That IS funny!!!