Warrantless spying vital to U.S., Bush says

Associated Press ^ | Aug. 18, 2006 | DEB RIECHMANN

[sgtyork]

Based on the historical precedent and the precedent of In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html I am absolutely certain that the program will be upheld as constitutional.

What has been dismaying about this is very existence of and the nature of the arguement (such as www.namethedictatorship.com). These are dishonest and villainous arguements. They are made:
As if there aren't military officers and lawyers who love the constitution (defending it is in their commissioning oath) at the NSA. As if there weren't safeguards. As if senior members of Congress weren't briefed. As if there weren't islamofascists who want to blow up airliners. As if there weren't clear guidelines for resolving questions about program details secretly and internally in cooperation with Congress rather than telling our ENEMIES what we are doing.

The revelation of this secret program and the duplicitous and treasonous arguements made about it are what upset me. We all know that the Democrats planned and executed this effort to use intelligence against the administration. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html.

So for political power, the democrats weaken our national security and endanger me and my kids. "Hey Al-queda we are weak and fighting with our selves. The liberals here hate America and George Bush so much that they would like you to blow up part of New York! This is not the united America of World War II! We are vulnerable and have willing traitors!!!!"

Sure, the almighty and all knowing judges will be able to clean up the mess of two branches arguing about what Article 2 section 2 of the the Constitution means and whether the overreaction of Congress to Richard Nixon can overrule it.

But they won't be able to take away blood thirsty, murderous, al-queda's knowledge of how to better avoid being detected as they plan the next way to kill you, me and my kids.

[Smartass]

"I'm not even arguing I'm saying let it be judged by the courts.
Are you against that?"

I'm against that. War was declared on the United States by world wide terrorists. Do you honestly believe a federal judge with a gavel, can provide better protection for the United States, than the Commander in Chief with all his resources, including Constitutional powers, not given the same court. The courts were never given the powers to prosecute a war, or to provide protection for it’s citizens. Congress and the president have those powers, and not some liberal mealy mouse person in a black robe playing president. If you read Taylor's ruling, she spent more time criticizing the president then who was supposedly injured, of by the way, none in the lawsuit could claim being injured. The lawsuit would have been better brought against the New York Times for leaking the information that brought this dumb baseless ruling, then against our government...give me a break.

BTW, the U.S. was hit about five times by terrorists under the Clinton administration, and the most he did was mistakenly bomb an Aspirin factory, and some empty tents in the desert. Your argument is overwhelmingly senseless.

 

[Smartass]

FYI...

Britain’s Lord of the Admiralty Jackie Fisher said it best in WWI:

“The essence of war is violence.   Moderation in war is imbecility.  Hit first!  Hit hard!  Hit anywhere!”

It’s a military axiom that to win a war, you must attack. Contrary to those who want to wage this conflict as a “law enforcement” matter, the best outcome you can hope for by staying home and adopting a bunker mentality is simply not to be defeated.   Winning with such a mindset is out of the question.

The true American way of war has always held in contempt the ideas of “soft power,” “gradualism” or “proportionality.”  Our forebears understood that the way to win - and to bring the boys home as soon as possible - was to bring full power to bear upon the enemy and crush them.

You can be magnanimous after you’ve won.

“Gradualism and proportionatity” weren’t what Sherman had in mind in 1864 when he burnt a swath across Georgia and the Carolinas; nor what Grant was thinking when he ground Lee’s army to powder in 1865.

Those foolish words weren’t what motivated Curtis LeMay when he outfitted the B-29s with napalm and magnesium bombs and sent them in swarms, at night and at low altitude, over Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka. And they sure as hell weren’t on the Marines’ lips when they were blasting and incinerating Imperial Japanese Army dead-enders on Iwo, Peleliu or Okinawa. And BTW, the MSM WAS NOT embeded on those missions!

On the other hand, those terms were plain to see in our conduct in Korea and Vietnam. Korea was a standoff, and shamefully, a loss in Vietnam, not by our military, but by dumb Democrat politicians!

Anybody detect a couple of patterns there?

“Never give counsel to your fears. The enemy is more afraid than you are.  Don’t worry about what he’s going to do to you; think about what you’re going to do to him!”

- Gen. George S. Patton

 

 

[Dubya]

Thanks Dave.

[JNL]

"Your argument is overwhelmingly senseless"

All I'm stating is that are no issues if GEB actions are judged constitutional.

It would not be in anyones best interest to leave it up to the POTUS to interpret the Constitution as he (or she) may see fit.

[Smartass]

"It would not be in anyones best interest to leave it up to the POTUS to interpret the Constitution as he (or she) may see fit."

I disagree:
* During war, what part of the Constitution makes the
president impotent, to not defend the United States?

* During war, what part of the Constitution gives a court
power over the other two branches of government?

 

[Smartass]

One more question:

Name one American citizen that was injured by, or have
lost a civil liberty over the data mining wiretaps?

 

[JNL]

I think that's where we differ. The president swears to uphold the constitution not interpret it.

I'm just not prepared to accept that this President (GWB my mistake earlier) or future presidents can state that they believe something to be constitutional so it must be.

There lies a slippery slope.

I'm not arguing that what he has done is unconstitutional only that I see nothing wrong with the courts confirming this.

[JNL]

How could we know if any rights have been violated if the whole thing is hidden behind the cloak of National Security.

That's a non-starter.

[Smartass]

"I'm not arguing that what he has done is unconstitutional only that I see nothing wrong with the courts confirming this."

You didn't answer my questions?

I would have then take, that you're an ACLU apologizer
and would love to see the U.S. fight the war on terror
with both hands tied behind our back...right?
Also, did you know that CAIR was a party to that lawsuit?
Now come on, you can answer these simple questions?

[Smartass]

"How could we know if any rights have been violated if the whole thing is hidden behind the cloak of National Security."

Well now, I take it, you want to publish all of our
secrets to the enemy?

That's not a non-starter alright, but just plain stupid!

 

[Steel Wolf]

How could we know if any rights have been violated if the whole thing is hidden behind the cloak of National Security.

For one thing, we know that ever since every Tom, Dick and Harry with a secret to tell has been running to the press, we haven't heard a single word about abuses of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

That means that there are either

(A) No principled government employees willing to expose injustice (knowing that Congress would bail them out from any legal trouble they wound up in).

(B) No greedy government employees willing to sell out, in order to bask in fame and book deals.

(C) No partisan government employees in the U.S. government who would leak abuse stories to damage the opposition.

or

(D) No abuses to report, just a secret program that sounds kinda scary, but is actually just doing it's job.

[JNL]

I guess I don't understand your question. Amid all the insults I assume that you favour ultimate power in the hands of the executive. I don't.

This isn't to say that I don't support the WOT, I do. What worries me is that the republican will not hold both houses and the presidency forever.

Will you be so gung ho when the DEMS start to strip away our rights while asserting that (because we are at war) they alone can interpret the constitution.

[JNL]

Wait a minute you ask me if anyones rights have been violated by the wiretapping.

I state that you can't tell because it hidden behind National Security.

You then state that if one wanted to find out this would be giving secrets to the enemy.

So I assume that you have no idea, and or don't care if your / mine or anyone elses rights have been violated?

You're confusing me.

You make no sense.

[JNL]

Now that makes sense. I agree that the program IMHO is correct and is needed. I just feel that it must stay within the confines of the constitution.

If an American feels that it does not it is their right to take it to court . If the court finds in favour of the President then O.K.

I really don't see the big deal.

[Smartass]

"I guess I don't understand your question. Amid all the insults I assume that you favour ultimate power in the hands of the executive. I don't."

I ask simple questions which you apparently can't seem to comprehend. Yes, I trust our president to defend and protect the United States before your heros the ACLU, Council on American Islamic Relations and a Carter appointed liberal judge.

This isn't to say that I don't support the WOT, I do. What worries me is that the republican will not hold both houses and the presidency forever.

I support the war on terror 100%, and I support our elected official to prosecute that war it’s finality, and to the total destruction of Islamofacism hostile to United States in any way, shape or form possible. Including, in the interim, giving up a few puny civil liberties so as to win. That's the least any American can do. Due to NSA, you or I haven’t lost a single thing to whine or fret about, have we?

Will you be so gung ho when the DEMS start to strip away our rights while asserting that (because we are at war) they alone can interpret the constitution.

A war against the United States should never be politicized. The problem with this president, is that he has been to tolerant with his detractors. There are laws are on the books to deal with traitors. Clinton went to Bosnia and Kosovo without much criticism, yet the jury is still out on the outcome of his blunders there, or don't you know that? Yes, our system is such, that the party in the White House is entitled to run the country. I'll support any administration that will the take the fight to our enemies that have attacked America to win.

If you can’t sensibly answer the questions presented, then there’s no point to continue?

[Smartass]

FRANKLY JNL, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN, AND UNLESS YOU'RE
TRYING TO UNDERMINE THIS COUNTRY, YOU SHOULDN'T CARE
EITHER.

 

[KillTime]

...on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs (speaking with) people the government suspects have terrorist links.

Hmmm interesting... Just who are these slimes that are cavorting with the over seas slimes? Glad someone is taking notes...

[JNL]

O.K. You need to calm down. Questioning our leaders at any time is our right and responsibility.

[I_Like_Spam]

Name one American citizen that was injured by, or have
lost a civil liberty over the data mining wiretaps?

---

That's exactly why this case will be dismissed in a hurry in the 6th Circuit, and no ruling will be coming down indicating that the program is constitutional.

The ACLU didn't have standing to bring the suit, they didn't produce a terrorist who suffered damages by having their calls monitored.

Without a 'victim', there isn't a case here which needs or can be decided.

This entire affair is just a cheap publicity stunt designed to try and tear down the president in the polls.