Sweet baby.
Posted on 02/07/2006 8:15:53 AM PST by CyberAnt
Democrats Praise President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program One Minute; Outraged The Next
Dems Try To Have It Every Way On President Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program:
"[Democrats] Could Pay A Large Price - Though A Political One - If They Do Not Strike The Right Tone In The Debate Over The National Security Agency's Domestic Eavesdropping Program." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Balancing Act By Democrats At Hearing," The New York Times, 2/7/06)
"As They Head Into The 2006 Midterm Elections, Democrats, Eager To Pick Up Congressional Seats, Know They Must Look Tough On National Security Issues." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Balancing Act By Democrats At Hearing," The New York Times, 2/7/06)
"Democrats Are Both Outraged By President Bush's National Security Agency Surveillance Program And Content To See It Continue. They Are At This Incoherent Pass Because Their Reflexive Hostility To The Program Is Tempered By The Dawning Suspicion That They Might Be On The Wrong Side Politically Of Yet Another National-Security Issue - Thus, "The NSA Straddle". (Rich Lowry, Op-Ed, "The NSA Straddle," National Review Online, 1/31/06)
Dems Praise President Bush And His Terrorist Surveillance Program:
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "Now, You [Attorney General Gonzales] Make A Very Strong Case In Your Presentation Here About The Authority In Which You Are Acting On. You Talk About The Authorization By The Congress, You Talk About Inherent Power, You Talk About The President Having The Authority And The Power To Do This." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[I] Just Want To Read Again What You [Attorney General Alberto Gonzales] Said. 'As The President Has Said, If You Are Talking With Al Qaida, We Want To Know What You're Saying.' Absolutely Right. No One On This Committee, I Think No One In This Body, Believes Anything Other Than That, And I Want To State It As Firmly As I Can." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Feingold: "All Of Us Are Committed To Defeating The Terrorists Who Threaten Our Country, Mr. Attorney General. It Is, Without A Doubt, Our Top Priority." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "Every Single Member Of Congress Agrees [The Bush Administration] Should Have The Tools Necessary To Protect The American People." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Leahy: "We All Agree That If You Have Al Qaida Terrorists Calling We Should Be Wiretapping Them." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): "[I] Want The President To Have All The Legal Tools He Needs As We Work Together To Keep Our Nation Safe And Free, Including Wiretapping." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Dems Criticize Terrorist Surveillance Program, Launch Partisan Attacks Against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "This Whole Program Has Been Questioned In Terms Of Its Legality ..." (Sen. Kennedy, Press Conference, 2/6/06)
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[I] Do Believe [Your 2005 Confirmation Testimony] Was Materially Misleading. But I Am Even More Concerned About The Credibility Of Your Administration." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Feingold: "You Wanted This Committee And The American People To Think That This Kind Of Program Was Not Going On. But It Was And You Knew That. And I Think That's Unacceptable." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "[T]he Bush Administration [Did] Not Seek Broader Legal Authority, It Kept Its Very Existence Of This Illegal Wiretapping Program Completely Secret ..." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Leahy: "[T]he Press Caught You Violating The Statute With This Secret Wiretapping Of Americans Without Warrants." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Some Dems Even Want Bush Administration To Expand Terrorist Surveillance Program:
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): "[I] Don't Understand Why You Would Limit Your Eavesdropping Only To Foreign Conversations ... It's Only Emanating From A Foreign Country, Correct? ... Why Limit It To That?" (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Biden: "Well, The President Said He'd Do Everything Under The Law To Prevent Another 9/11. The Communications That Occurred Within This Country, Not Outside This Country, Which, In Fact, Brought About 9/11 Would Not Be Captured By The President's Efforts Here." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): "Just To Go Back To What Senator Biden ... Referred To About Al Qaida-To-Al Qaida Within The Country, You're Saying We Do Not Get Involved In Those Calls ... To Those Of Us Who Are Listening, That's Incomprehensible." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
Sen. Kohl: "If You Would Go Al Qaida-To-Al Qaida Outside The Country ... But You Would Not Intrude Into Al Qaida-To-Al Qaida Within The Country ... There's Something That Unfathomable About That Remark." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/6/06)
How can the Rats say they support the troops when they don't even want calls monitored from Iraq AQ to America that may show where the next attacks on our soldiers will occur? Or calls from Iran, where a lot of the planning is going on.
No one is saying that we should not be listening in on suspected Al-Queda conversations.
Some people - including many conservatives and Republicans - are saying that we should be getting warrants to do so as the FISA law requires.
No one has said that.
We have the technology to do it and would be foolish not to do so.
They probably know the ip address of EVERY Freeper since we're kind of on the far right fring.
They hate Bush more than they love America or her military.
Sweet baby.
How dare the President act using his Constitutional authority as commander in chief?!?! The AG laid out in his testimony why FISA does not work in all circumstances and where the President is following the law in his approach. The Dems are pushing terrorist rights ahead of our national security.
Man that creeps me out!
The key is = TIME
You cannot waste 72 hours dealing with a court and a judge who may possibly tell you NO! (because politically he doesn't agree with you). You have found a cell phone on the battlefield - it contains phone numbers in the USA - the moment those number are triggered - BY A COMPUTER - the computer starts listening for key words (we don't know what those words are - and neither does the enemy). When those words are triggered - the wire tapping begins.
At the time those words have triggered the computer to start wire tapping - you cannot WAIT 72 HOURS for some court to tell you - Yes, you can listen to the enemy who is calling here to set up attacks aginst your country. If you wait 72 hours - THE CONVERSATION IS OVER AND ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET ABOUT AN ATTACK IS LOST.
You're naive or just plain ignorant if you cannot see the difference between this NSA program and the FISA court.
THIS IS NOT DOMESTIC SPYING. The dems know that - but they hate Bush more than they hate the terrorists.
LOL - I remember that 'touchy-feely' show when sKerry named Edwards. Apparently F'n is a major ass-grabber.
Bull puckey...it's been questioned ONLY by those that have an agenda.
YOU ARE WRONG - it is not EVERY - it's only those phones where there is a suspected TERRORIST CONNECTION.
NSA cannot be bothered to listen to you calling your Aunt Mable - unless she belongs to a terrorist group!
Grow up!!
No one has said what?
The rats don't want calls monitored from AQ overseas to Americans. Have you not heard them say that?
And I'd bet money some of those calls from Iraq or Iran AQ to America detail the next level of attacks against our troops.
So how can the leftists say they support the troops but aren't willing to do everything possible to find out what the enemy is planning to do to our troops?
What crap....... Warrantless searches are necessary because of time restraints under FISA.
Given your ignorance (the existing legal system allows monitoring to begin immediately and be authorized retroactively for precisely that reason), no one should pay any attention to your blitherings on the subject.
Not true. The law requires that you get a warrant up to 72 hours after you started the wiretap. So there is really no excuse.
Because I just tranmitted the words "W88 Thermonuclear Device Active" they will pick up this email transmission.
You can start listening in on conversations and you have 72 hours AFTER you have started listening in to get the warrant.
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.