Skip to comments.
Fit to Print? The Bush admin. nor the NSA broke the law, so why did the NYT break the story?
Weekly Standard ^
| Dec. 21, 2005
| Edward Morrissey
Posted on 12/21/2005 6:20:39 AM PST by conservativecorner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: conservativecorner
NYT publishing what it did and how it did makes for treason in my book. It could demoralize the American people and in turn give aid and comfort to the enemy.
The NYT is a COPPERHEAD newspaper.
2
posted on
12/21/2005 6:22:38 AM PST
by
Bosco
(Remember how you felt on September 11?)
To: conservativecorner
We could do as Lincoln did, throw the miscreants in the slammer.
3
posted on
12/21/2005 6:22:43 AM PST
by
cynicom
To: conservativecorner
The core of the issue is this: the NSA and the administration defined international communications as including those where one end--and one end only--occurs in the United States. Anything else still requires a warrant, as the Times acknowledges.
4
posted on
12/21/2005 6:22:56 AM PST
by
beyond the sea
(If you want a really new idea ..................... read a really old book.)
To: conservativecorner
so why did the NYT break the story? Because they HATE GEORGE BUSH!
5
posted on
12/21/2005 6:24:17 AM PST
by
Old Sarge
(In a Hole in the Ground, there Lived a Fobbit...)
To: Old Sarge
Because they HATE GEORGE BUSH! Because they love Al-Qaeda and desire to help them.
6
posted on
12/21/2005 6:25:58 AM PST
by
Spiff
("They start yelling, 'Murderer!' 'Traitor!' They call me by name." - Gael Murphy, Code Pink leader)
To: conservativecorner
Why should the NYSlimes be any more informed about the law than any leading Democrat in Congress; who by the way are repeating the same "unlawful" innanities about the "spying"?
7
posted on
12/21/2005 6:26:23 AM PST
by
Wuli
To: conservativecorner
The reason they released it was because Fitzgerald failed in his mission to indict Karl Rove as step one toward impeaching Bush.
Nothing could be more obvious.
8
posted on
12/21/2005 6:27:24 AM PST
by
Raycpa
To: Spiff
Which would be sufficient grounds for the NSA to monitor all of their communications with their international offices, according to the Administration.
Jeez, when did self-described conservatism become so statist and paranoid?
9
posted on
12/21/2005 6:28:24 AM PST
by
lugsoul
("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
To: conservativecorner
THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agencyThis explains Pelosi's response
10
posted on
12/21/2005 6:30:32 AM PST
by
pfflier
To: conservativecorner
THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agencyThis explains Pelosi's response
11
posted on
12/21/2005 6:30:53 AM PST
by
pfflier
To: conservativecorner
"...why did the NYT break the story?"Must you ask?
12
posted on
12/21/2005 6:31:02 AM PST
by
Redbob
To: Spiff
if congress would declare war....things like this may continue to happen but those being made an example of would quickly cease and desist
13
posted on
12/21/2005 6:31:30 AM PST
by
From One - Many
(Able Danger - No Intelligence Failure - Media Lied Again)
To: conservativecorner; All
Some background:
--Has the DNC not been paying attention? Pelosi and Reid have ADMITTED publicly they were briefed. OMG
Not to mention, they ALL voted on the Amendment to the FISA:
This is getting too easy.
14
posted on
12/21/2005 6:32:03 AM PST
by
backhoe
(-30-)
To: beyond the sea
No my friend, the law, the very same law with provisions for a warrant also provides provisions for the NSA to be told to act without a warrant, and nothing in those provisions stipulates where either end of the conversation is located. Every President since Carter has invoked the "warrantless" provisions with Executive Orders of instructions to the Attorney General and the NSA. Prior court cases have upheld these types of actions.
15
posted on
12/21/2005 6:32:09 AM PST
by
Wuli
To: Wuli
That was just bait.
;-)
I hear you.
16
posted on
12/21/2005 6:34:34 AM PST
by
beyond the sea
(If you need a really new idea ..................... read a really old book.)
To: conservativecorner
The NYTimes hates Reublicans and hates our country's underlining conservative pinnings. They work to promote a radical societal change to embrace the Left Wing
17
posted on
12/21/2005 6:36:14 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: pfflier
"THE REVELATION by the New York Times of an NSA program to review international communications could only cause surprise among those unfamiliar with the history and mission of the agency"
It did not cause surprise during the Carter and Clinton Presidency.
18
posted on
12/21/2005 6:40:08 AM PST
by
cpdiii
(roughneck (oil field trash and proud of it), geologist, pilot, pharmacist, full time iconoclast)
To: 1Old Pro
Senators better be careful. If NSA is both legal and effective in preventing terrorist attacks inside the US, Senators WILL be held accountable if another attack DOES HAPPEN.
SENATORS: Be careful what you ask for.
19
posted on
12/21/2005 6:41:42 AM PST
by
Rapscallion
(They're no longer Americans; they're democrats.)
To: conservativecorner
There have been no violations of any US citizens' civil liberties under the Patriot Act. But, six attacks have been prevented.
20
posted on
12/21/2005 6:43:40 AM PST
by
Rapscallion
(They're no longer Americans; they're democrats.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson