Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: roses of sharon
In your vitriol to castigate Democrats, you missed the actual story.

The NSA (which is a part of the Executive Branch) called the lawyers.
"...lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first."
The lawyers discussed the situation for nearly 10 hours with the Attorney General (who is part of the Executive Branch).

"Finally, approval was granted [by the Attorney General, who is part of the Executive Branch] and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began. " [edit added]
The situation had nothing to do with the Democrats. It was fully the ineptitude of the NSA/Attorney General to render a decision without first having 10 hour of listening to attorneys.

==

Recall a similar incident with attorneys regarding the situaion in Afganistan in the early days of the WoT. The military were about to 'take out' the one-eyed Mullah, but the JAG decided to talk about it. When a 'go ahead' was finally issued, the Mullah was long gone.

Recall another incident where attorneys were consulted regarding a collective of al-Qaeda attending a funeral. The attorneys prohibited any attack because civilians were in the general area.


26 posted on 07/11/2008 8:59:35 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: TomGuy

Yes, it is the fault of the Democrats along with the extreme libertarians who have no concept of what we are facing. Without the law, there would be no call to the NSA.


30 posted on 07/11/2008 9:06:52 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
I read the story, and remember the Afghanistan story.

I also know which party is UnAmerican, protects our enemies, aid and abets are enemies in war time FOR DECADES, sides with tyrants and commies, FOR DECADES.

Which party battles in Congress for laws protecting the enemy, which party protects criminal rights, which party prevents enemy interrogations, which party has the media to call the President a war criminal, liar, murderer, and a trasher of the Constitution if he doesn't follow the advise of attorneys, which party is supported by the Bar Association, which party is supported by trial attorneys, which party is supported by JAG, which party is supported by the ACLU....and on and on.

But you know all that I'm sure.

Don't fret, your guys will soon have all branches...just a few more months and your messiah will take office, and all will be well again!

34 posted on 07/11/2008 9:15:47 AM PDT by roses of sharon ( (Who will be McCain's maverick?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
The lawyers discussed the situation for nearly 10 hours with the Attorney General (who is part of the Executive Branch).

I learned in school many years ago that the legislative branch makes the laws. Has that changed?

The situation had nothing to do with the Democrats...

You are so wrong I can't believe you posted that.

38 posted on 07/11/2008 9:24:01 AM PDT by McGruff (This is not the [insert name here] I knew.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
You ignored a key part of the article:

"The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied. "

39 posted on 07/11/2008 9:24:31 AM PDT by FocusNexus ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy
"who is part of the Executive Branch"

True these agencies are part of the executive branch, but are suggesting that they have no autonomy?

The article didn't say they called the president, and odds are he never knew about the incident until well after.

It isn't Bush that these lawyers worried about sending some other lawyers after them, it's the prospect of financial ruin trying to pay other lawyers to defend themselves in front of some senate turd throwing committee.

Getting the OK from Bush isn't going to help - how long has congress been trying to compel Cheney to testify about Bush firing a handful of attorney generals?

If you can't do your job without worrying about getting indicted for it, you're not going to be very effective.

Congress killed that soldier, just as sure as if they pulled the trigger themselves. It's turned into a repulsive circus of witch hunts, freak shows, and spitting contests, nothing more.

47 posted on 07/11/2008 9:39:21 AM PDT by 4woodenboats (DefendOurMarines.org Defend Our Troops.org Free Evan Vela)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy

You miss the point. The reason they had to spend 10 hours consulting lawyers and the Attorney General was because of the rules regarding surveillance that the Democrats insist on.


84 posted on 07/11/2008 11:27:26 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy

Sounds like the clinton admin (didn’t something similiar happen in the movie about John O’Neill?), I wonder if it’s the same set of folks. If so, they need to be replaced.


146 posted on 07/12/2008 10:44:31 AM PDT by AprilfromTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: TomGuy

I noticed you didn’t reply to any of the posts calling you on your BS.

YOU are the one missing the story.


183 posted on 07/14/2008 8:26:52 AM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson