The FBI has two basic tools for gathering information on Americans. Both were created in the 1970s to gather information solely on foreign terrorists and spies. Both were greatly expanded by the USA Patriot Act and other laws, and are now routinely used against ordinary, law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism as well as those who might. Together, they represent an enormous increase in police power in the United States.

The first are FISA warrants (sometimes called Section 215 warrants, after the section of the Patriot Act that expanded their scope). These are issued in secret, by a secret court.

The second are national security letters, less well known but much more powerful, and which FBI field supervisors can issue all by themselves. The exact numbers are secret, but a recent Washington Post article estimated that 30,000 letters each year demand telephone records, banking data, customer data, library records, and so on.

Now don't you feel safer?

They can look at my stuff all they want. If you aren't doing anything illegal you should have nothing to worry about. Plus, if they looked me over they'd be bored to tears.

A lot of Americans have no true idea anymore what constitutes a "Right" and what constitutes a "Priviledge". I'm not crazy about invasion of privacy but throughout history civilians have had to do their share during crisis/war. This is one of those times.

bottom line again, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

I wish these paranoid useful idiots cared 1/10 as much about the "rights" of the unborn as they do for the activities of our enemies of state. Not every human being in this country is a citizen. Not every "citizen" is a patriot and has the nation's best interests in their heart. If there are those who would plan death and devastation on the behalf of foreign radicals, I would much prefer the NSA or the FBI or even the BSA to have proactively persued them, even if it means stepping on my toes by reviewing any of my personal info. If or when it becomes a precursor to a police state, I'll grab my .30-06 and actively hunt the SOBs (remember, I'm one of the armed citizens). Does the radical Islamic terrorist or criminal in planning his/her caper have the same "right to privacy" as does a law abiding citizen? Or do we have a right to expose the criminal process before it becomes a crime or another act of war? I'm certainly not in favor of a police state, and I don't believe the US will degenerate to that level, but I believe in all my heart that if we don't stop these radical Islamic terrorists that they will do everything in their power to destroy us. Is that an alternative we are willing to live with or more acurately, die for?

I agree, Old Soldier. We will never become a Police State. Looking over some of my records/purchases is no big deal. If it leads to catching some terrorists because they looked over their records, so much the better. I, like you, spent 20 years defending this country (still work for the Navy but as a civilian now), been there and done that. I've seen what it's like in other countries that don't have the 'rights' or 'priviledges' we have and will say without question we have the best thing going. Getting into what some people say is patriotism gets me on edge because the liberal world thinks bad mouthing everything is what it's about. I have actually tried reading their end of the spectrum to see if I could follow their logic (just got a headache is all that happened). We (the U.S.) need to be actively involved in the world and terrorism from here on out, can't let them get a foothold or rest. Sitting back on our laurels like the liberals want is an invitation to disaster, Clinton did that and we had 9/11.

What is so hard about getting a FISA warrant? Absolutely nothing. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report (pdf) reveals that there were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards.Source: Epic Archive

And as far as rights and privileges go, the Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution still, included in the first ten amendments: the Bill of Um Rights.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

It is quite odd how people panic now post September Eleventh, when our constitution survived previous threats at least as great. An appeal to exceptionalism, that these times are far worse than any previous times and warrant exceptional means (one of which is no warrants) is the road to tyranny.

Again I will say I don't believe in a Police State (that includes tyranny). I fully support the Bill of Rights including the fourth amendment. I just see no problem with finding out if someone is checking out bomb making books from the library, buying sodium nitrate/pipes etc... posting to hate groups/hate sites. I still believe in warrents and proper searches but have no problem with the Patriot Act flagging certain actions as questionable like those I stated above. That does not mean that I want people kicking in doors and going through my stuff without probable cause/warrent just because. If, however, someone is getting books and supplies while their actions are dubious at best, I want the law enforcement to have the ability to follow up on them, not have their hands tied. The Patriot Act does not take away any of the bill of rights, just makes it easier for law enforcement to follow up on suspects.

My big problem with this is that whenever government takes anything for itself (even for the greater good) it almost never gives it back. As an intel community guy I can tell you that I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it. The line in the sand just keeps getting moved and we just take it. My grandfather would be horrified at this development and his grandfather would be ready with a pitchfork. The truth is that it isn't hard to get warrants when it comes to national security. I signed away many of my rights when I joined the military (and later work in the national security realm) but I didn't do so for my kid's rights.

I agree with you Squirrel, there is a line in the sand, it was there in WWII but it was moved back. There was a tighter lid on the press, there were steps taken to keep the troops morale up, commodities were scarce so ration cards were used and when the threat went away at the end of WWII, the line moved back. I'm not advocating getting rid of any of our rights, I believe in all of them but a temporary tighter reign on all is in order to stop the terrorist cells already operating in america.

RE: The Heretik,

Thank you for a well-reasoned, "non-Chimpy" response. It is a refreshing change from the Oliver Willis and "Fred"-grade posts.

From what I understand of how the NSA works (and let's face facts, almost nobody does), most of their work, like Carnivore, is data-mining of electronic information streams. Their primary difficulty is not having enough information, but being able to restrict it and refine it too a point where the information they obtain is actually useful.

I think the Bush directive did little more than enable them to apply new filters to information to more effectively use the information they were already scouring. That is all.

I think you can understand how issuing a FISA warrant for every potentially intersting email, chat or phone call would bog even a permissive court system down unnecessarily in wait times in very short order.

I don't see how using a lip-service judicial process that you yourself describe does anything but slow investigations down and threaten lives.

Predating the Bill of Rights are certain uninaleinable rights endowed by our Creator and mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the primary among those being the "pursuit of life." Without life, none of the other rights exist.

President Bush, in the context of the day, made a decision that American lives were more precious than a rubber-stamp bottleneck. You care more about paying what you admit to being lip-service liberty than the actual freedom to live. I find that quite sad.

Are you kidding me the only things wrong with this act is that so many of you didnt even look into it to see what it was about. It applies to international phone calls and emails. If you are calling someone in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria then you know I want to know what you are saying to! Like retired navy said if you are doing nothing wrong then what do you have to hide in the first place. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at such blatant mirespresentation of the spirit of our bill of rights and constitution. I hope you feel safer knowing that without this the possibility of terrorist action on US soil probably increases one hundred fold.

Again, I ask; Does a terrorist (citizen or not) have a right to privacy within which to plan to explode a nuclear device in New York City?

Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at such blatant mirespresentation of the spirit of our bill of rights and constitution.

That is nonsense. When they wrote the Constitution, our forefathers had just finished the Revolutionary War, during which the colonies were filled British loyalists who had worked against the revolution. They consciously rejected rejected reprisals and infringing on the rights of former and present loyalists.

You can see the vast difference between what happened in America and what happened in France just a few years later. France had a reign of terror by the new government who insisted on cracking down on all those suspected of disloyalty.

Our forefathers believed that freedom and the rule of law would lead to more security, not less. They were not naive idealists -- they were visionaries who had experienced in full a war where their country was filled with traitors. Despite the presence of traitors, they guaranteed the right to bear arms throughout the country -- which was an unprecedented move.

I believe in their vision.

I'm with you Navy, I guess that I'm not sure that we have the wisdom in government now that we had in the WWII era.

What bothers me is not so much the specifics in this case (applying to international calls, not domestic), but rather placing this revelation within the context/fact that governmental powers tend to increase and expand over time.
So, while right now it may seem fine and, to some, justified, I worry about it encroaching into other areas.
Or, to put it another way, will you guys all feel the same way when a Democrat's in office (which, inevitably will happen someday)? Will you trust them to use such powers wisely?

Absolutely. I may not agree with our elected officials but have and will back them up where I see it for the good of the Country (not just my little world). If I don't agree with them I cast my vote a different way the next time. I do the best I can to be independant and look at all angles to something (doesn't always work but I try). Bottom line is I believe our system works as long as WE THE PEOPLE act accordingly. The Iraq turnout for the election was around 70% (Outstanding by the way) and our Presidential elections may run 50% if we are lucky.

I backed up Bill Clinton while I was in, didn't vote for him or believe everything he stood for but backed him up because he was America's figure head. Besides, it's Congress that does most of the day to day stuff (turn out for those elections are pathetic by the way) so vote, vote, vote. I don't genuinely believe people get into politics to cause problems, it's just the way it comes out sometimes.

I have to agree with Retired Navy... so long as the administration and congress are pursuing an enemy of state and genuinely trying to make America safer, I'll have to give them (Dem or GOP) the latitude to operate. I don't believe our founding fathers meant for the Fourth Amendment to be a shield behind which people could plan attacks against us without the possibility of being discovered. There is kind of an under lap here; does you right to privacy usurp my right to life? Our leaders need to figure out the best way to go about this with the lest infringement upon privacy as possible. Where information is gathered upon a person who becomes obviously nonthreatening - the info should be dumped, discarded, erased, etc. I don't have a problem with the gathering of information in the investigative process, but when it becomes obvious the information is useless, then I don't want the data stored, I want it purged. That's what our lawmakers should be focusing upon as well as means and methods for hunting down the dogs. Make sense?

Bottom line is I believe our system works as long as WE THE PEOPLE act accordingly.

I agree about our system. But our system was set out to limit the power of the government. We are not supposed to blindly trust our elected officials. There are strict limits on what they are capable of. The problem is that the administration is overstepping the limitations which the system has laid on it.

That is the rule of law, and it is there for good reason. I don't trust politicians even if they are well-intentioned.

There have always been those who hate us and seek to damage us -- whether it is fascists, communists, or Islamic fundamentalists. That isn't justification to overstep the system which our forefathers set up. I don't believe that coverups, torture, and restricting of our traditional freedoms are necessary or even helpful to safeguarding America.

There are many nominally democratic governments which are riddled with corruption and do terrible things in secret -- because it isn't enough for the people to be able to vote. Without information, the people cannot make valid decisions about who they are voting for.

I spent more than 36 years as an employee of the National Security Agency, and this revelation by the traitors at the New York Times has me so upset that I cannot see straight. These so-called journalists should be treated in the same way I would have been if I had leaked classified information to the public. I would have been living out the rest of my life in prison - or I could have been executed for treason. Are these people so stupid as to not realize the damage this is doing to our efforts to combat and contain terrorism? No. They are more concerned with the story and their own financial position than in the security of their own country. Hang Them High!

I agree with Retired Spy, isnt this a case of the Left Wing trying to do anything in their power to turn the attention away from the successful Iraqi elections. We can argue about this til we are all blue in the face but it doesnt change the fact the this was classified information and it has been released out like it was the morning news. There are reasons things are classified and for those who serve or have served we know why. I try to understand the whole freedoms that the left pushes but what I cant get over is you cant have freedom without responsibility and leaking classified material is not responsible. Someone has to say enough is enough

In that regard, 81, the Left Wing and the mainstream media are pretty much joined at the hip. If there is anything that can be used to discredit Bush and the Republicans, they'll do it. Damn the consequences. And there are still those who choose to show the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion to be more than 100,000, regardless of the flawed methods used to arrive at those figures. Truth be damned. Get Bush!

The same ACLU that took up the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his court battles over his medical records pertaining to his drug use?

That ACLU?

I try to understand the whole freedoms that the left pushes but what I cant get over is you cant have freedom without responsibility and leaking classified material is not responsible. Someone has to say enough is enough

Perhaps we on the left might take your argument a bot more seriously if you weren't so eager to excuse Bush and his handlers' exposure of a CIA agent.

The point you're studiously attempting ignore, however, is that this administration is breaking the law and essentially crapping all over the Constitution and BoR you profess such reverence for.

The White House asked the NY Times not to run the story not because of 'national security' concerns but rather because they (the White House) had rather US citizens not know that ourgovernment is actively circumventing our rights. Our enemies overseas know what is going on. The bad guys here know what is going on. US citizens do not. Its extremely unlikely the NY Times report will jeopardize any investigations of alleged terrorists but it will alert regular citizens to the degree with which the Bushies hold the constitution and the laws of the land in utter contempt.

Well, Jadegold, would you care to cite some specific examples of where the Bush Administration is "crapping on the Constitution and BoR" in some detail? Also, what PROOF do you have that the exposure of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak came from someone inside the WH? Isn't it interesting to note, for example, that her self-serving, egotistical husband provided information to Walter Pincus and David Corn BEFORE Novak wrote about it in the NYT??? Who really "outed" whom, Sir?

would you care to cite some specific examples of where the Bush Administration is "crapping on the Constitution and BoR" in some detail?

Ever hear of the 4th Amendment? Essentially, your President has authorized federal agencies to break the law and violate the civil rights of US citizens at will.

Look, Bush swore an oath to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." When he issues EOs that permit federal agencies to toss out parts of the BoR, he is in violation of his oath of office.

Also, what PROOF do you have that the exposure of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak came from someone inside the WH?

Let's see--Novak has said that's the case. Various reporters who testified before the GJ said the same. Fitzgerald, in his comments after the Libby indictment, has asserted the same. Now, you can choose to believe Amb. Wilson or David Corn actually revealed the classified info but they aren't mentioned in any of Fitzgerald's comments.

You are still making blanket statements without supporting evidence or detail, Jadegold.

"Ever hear of the 4th Amendment? Essentially, your President has authorized federal agencies to break the law and violate the civil rights of US citizens at will."

Fine. Be specific.

"Look, Bush swore an oath to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." When he issues EOs that permit federal agencies to toss out parts of the BoR, he is in violation of his oath of office."

As in authorizing the NSA to monitor communications and emails of terrorists outside the U.S. and suspected terrorist sympathizers inside the U.S. to help keep your butt from being fried next time? Be specific as to HOW he has violated his oath of office.

Also, show me a Bob Novak quote and the proper attribution to where he stated that someone inside the WH was THE ORIGINAL source.

Classified info can be simply CONFIDENTIAL or FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Fitzgerald did not specify. In fact, there were a number of things Fitz overlooked.

Stay tuned.

Once more for jadegold; DOES A TERRORIST (CITIZEN OF NOT) HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY WITHIN WHICH TO PLAN TO EXPLODE A NUCLEAR DEVICE IN NEW YORK OR ANY OTHER US CITY?

RS:

You really don't know what the 4th Amendment says? Google is your friend.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Let's be clear as to what your President's EO did. It permits federal agencies to spy on US citizens without warrants and without cause.

You're also obfuscating by attempting to claim [C] or FOUO material can be divulged inappropriately without penalty. I suggest you review applicable CM documentation.

The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Source

It does not violate the Fourth Amendment, nor even come close.

They could care less about your midget porn or basement pot farm.

The same ACLU that took up the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his court battles over his medical records pertaining to his drug use?

That ACLU?

I was thinking of the ACLU that defends NAMBLA and has an almost pathological phobia about Christianity.

Just because the ACLU paid some cursory "lip service" to Limbaugh's legal troubles doesn't mean anything.

Another weak attempt to set up a strawman...

The White House asked the NY Times not to run the story not because of 'national security' concerns but rather because they (the White House) had rather US citizens not know that ourgovernment is actively circumventing our rights.

Why did the NY Times sit on the story for so long if "ourgovrnment" was "actively circumventing our rights"?

Are you suggesting that the NY Times is a tool for the Bush administration?

Its extremely unlikely the NY Times report will jeopardize any investigations of alleged terrorists but it will alert regular citizens to the degree with which the Bushies hold the constitution and the laws of the land in utter contempt.

You forgot to mention the biological abominations known as Karl Rove's Flying Monkeys! (Genetically manufactured by Halliburton and funded by Iraqi oil profits)

A paranoid liberal moonbat conspiracy theory just doesn't "cut it" unless includes Rove's Flying Monkey Minions.

I guess you didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org... *guffaw*

Old Soldier: Your question contains a false premise; in this country, there are concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process. At least, there used to be.

Apparently, you seem to believe the Govt. should be permitted to identify you as a criminal without cause and should be granted carte blanche powers to attempt to make that case.

By your logic, your political masters--like Tom DeLay and Lewis Libbey--should be incarcerated as the Govt. uses its massive resources to make a criminal case(s) without regard for DeLay's or Libbey's constitutional rights.

Ask yourself: should the Govt. be permitted to tap your phone, monitor all your communications and mail, search your records, etc. without cause?

So, Jadegold, it seems you are only capable of launching attacks with empty accusations and paranoid conclusions about the government singling you out as a criminal.

You did not answer CY's statement on what the real authorized rules and regulations are ubder FISA, nor did you specify any actual laws the president circumvented or which items in the oath of office he violated.

You did not show us proof of exactly where Bob Novak obtained the original information on Valerie Plame either.

As for classifications I noted, no one said that the leaking of classified information should go without penalties, but leaking questionably valuable information at the FOUO or confidential levels - IF the identity of Valerie Plame was even that important - does not warrant the sort of witch hunt and hysteria or penalties that the Left seems to be seeking through the SP and the GJ.

You refer to the president as my president or our president, meaning, I assume, a president for the GOP only. If you are an American he is your president too. That is what a democratic process is all about. He was duly elected by the majority. If you don't like that process or disagree with it, go elsewhere with your pathetic comments.

You're really not very good at this, are you?

RS: I did not answer CY's question because I didn't believe it was directed at me. CY noted FISA warrants; the EO your President implemented extends far past FISA. Obtaining a FISA warrant is extremely quick and virtually pro forma; IIRC, only 1 request for a FISA warrant has been rejected in the past 6-7 years.

Yet, your President's EO doesn't even require the minimum oversight and scrutiny of a FISA warrant. It empowers federal agencies to conduct eavesdropping and other violations of civil rights without cause.

WRT your defense of the disclosure of classified information--you simply don't know what you're talking about. You intimate some nefarious conspiracy on the part of shadowy leftwingers and Pat Fitzgerald--yet you furnish no proof. In reality, the known facts militate against your conspiracy theory. Fact: the CIA referred the case to DoJ because the agency suspected a crime had been committed. Fact: Fitzgerald has noted Plame's status at the agency was classified and illegally divulged. Fact: Novak (and other witnesses) have testified--under oath--they learned of Plame's status from 'Senior Admin Officials.' Fact: the indictment against Libbey notes Libbey was actively promulagating Plame's status to reporters. The indictment also notes Libbey learned of Plame from Cheney.

I'd suggest you're letting down your side, RS.

You are wrong again! It can take as long as 6 months to get a warrant. The oversight judge was well aware of this EO, and key members of Congress were advised. As CY noted, the EO did not violate standing laws. The president did not violate his oath of office either.

You know nothing about how the Intelligence gathering and processing and evaluation process works. I guess if Bin Laden was in contact with an American al-Qaeda operative and there was a threat of an attack in your neighborhood you would rather protect the operative's privacy than your sorry butt? You would be crying and ranting and raving about how Bush failed you.

Are you a graduate of the Michael Moore Academy for idiotic reasoning?

And then there is the matter of your psychological projection. You claim that I am intimating some "nefarious conspiracy on the part of shadowy leftwingers and Pat Fitzgerald." I did no such thing. Are you paying attention here? YOU ARE THE ONE making all the accusations to suggest that the president is out to take away YOUR liberties and invade your privacy. You are the one making accusations about conspiracies. Do you understand what paranoia really means? You also assert that I don't know what I am talking about with regard to classified information. Duh! I lived and breathed it for 36 years, Donk. Where is your expertise?

When you cite quotations, by the way, cite the complete quotation.

Sorry, RS, you're still not telling the truth. WRT FISA warrants, they are extremely quick to obtain--in fact, FISA was set up specifically to ensure warrants were speedily obtained. Further, FISA warrants can be obtained retroactively; IOW, an agency can begin immediate surveillance on an emergency basis--without a warrant--so long as an application for the FISA warrnt is made within 72 hours.

So--you're essentially making things up as you go along.

Frankly, I've caught you on more than one occasion plainly misstating and misrepresenting both intelligence matters and the handling of classified info. Perhaps you do have 36 years at NSA--but it looks like it was as a line cook at the cafeteria at Ft. Meade.

The same ACLU that took up the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his court battles over his medical records pertaining to his drug use?

That ACLU?

I was thinking of the ACLU that defends NAMBLA and has an almost pathological phobia about Christianity.

Just because the ACLU paid some cursory "lip service" to Limbaugh's legal troubles doesn't mean anything.

Another weak attempt to set up a strawman...

Actually the strawman is the Nambla case. One state chapter (Mass.) involved in a case which actually has repercussions for anyone interested in our rights.

The White House asked the NY Times not to run the story not because of 'national security' concerns but rather because they (the White House) had rather US citizens not know that ourgovernment is actively circumventing our rights.

Why did the NY Times sit on the story for so long if "ourgovrnment" was "actively circumventing our rights"?

Unlike such as Fox and the Washington Times the NY Times often spends a great deal of time corroborating their stories before publishing and/or broadcasting. Sort of old-fashioned but good for we who read the paper.

Are you suggesting that the NY Times is a tool for the Bush administration?

Hardly. They have a full toolchest already.

Its extremely unlikely the NY Times report will jeopardize any investigations of alleged terrorists but it will alert regular citizens to the degree with which the Bushies hold the constitution and the laws of the land in utter contempt.

You forgot to mention the biological abominations known as Karl Rove's Flying Monkeys! (Genetically manufactured by Halliburton and funded by Iraqi oil profits)

A paranoid liberal moonbat conspiracy theory just doesn't "cut it" unless includes Rove's Flying Monkey Minions.

Guess that conspiracy explains the failure of the 'Patriot Act' huh? The senate has finally figured out the Bush adminstration commitment to our rights as citizens. That there isn't one.

I guess you didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org... *guffaw*

Don't visit moveon.org. Nor do I receive their email. Sorry pal.

You continue to show your ignorance, Jadegold.

I am pleased to see, however, that you ARE able to read the basic middle-school-level text of the FISA provisions - even though you ARE paranoid and delusional, and you project your own psychological maladies on others as a defense mechanism.

Are you under professional care? You may want to get on that soon.

Once again, where is YOUR expertise?

You have not caught me or anyone else misstating or misrepresenting either Intelligence matters or the handling of classified information. If anyone is making things up along the way it is you.

You just accuse, but to most with an IQ above room temperature, you just amuse ...

Maybe you should go back to some of those liberal blogs for inspiration. You can all sit around and stroke one anothers' egos - or whatever.

Wow. What is it that makes America great to you?

"If you dont have anything to hide, you dont have anything to worry about?" Have none of you read any of the writings of our founding fathers?

With regard to the comment about how American will never become a police state, have none of you seen the wide discretion given to the police when they shoot a citizen versus what happens to a citizen when the police break into a citizen's house? Take some time to read about Cory Maye being on death row when the police broke into his house.

But, apparently, none of you care about that. Let the government do whatever it wants to do because none of you think that the government would be interested in you. That sounds like a great rationale to allow the government to have unreviewable power to act in secret.

What rights were you protected when you served our country?

RS: To review, I've furnished you with fact after fact. To date, all you've offered is some ad hominem attacks and a rather cloudy assertion that shadowy leftwingers are in cahoots with a dim and/or corrupt Pat Fitzgerald.

You've also suggested that FOUO material is classified material. It isn't; in fact, FOUO material is defined as material that hasn't (doesn't meet classification criteria) a security classification but is controlled material whose disclosure could cause foreseeable harm. Pat Fitzgerald understands the distinction while you can only bluster about your 36 years of experience as Jethro Bodine-Secret Agent.

Further, you've suggested the disclosure of classified or FOUO information doesn't warrant investigation because you've abitrarily deemed it "questionably valuable."

Again, a quick review of any security manual will reveal two things: 1. it ain't up to you to decide what's sensitive and what isn't; and 2. the penalties for improperly disclosing classified material isn't based on your opinions.

FISA warrants - in practice not theory - take as long as six months to obtain.

That is a fact stated by Mark Levin, a well-respected legal scholar and lawyer who knows quite a bit about such things. That is simply the disconnect between how things are, and how things are meant to be.

President Bush recognized this bottleneck and issued more than 3 dozen specific executive orders to the NSA to monitor specific subjects with specific ties to terrorism. He did not authorize wide-ranging, generalized demoestic spying as you have consistantly and hysterically misrepresented.

Senators, including Senate Minority leader Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller were appraised of these specific uses of these exectuve orders more than a dozen times. Congressional leaders were appraised as well. None of them will talk, perhaps because they understand how important these executive orders are to on-going investigations.

The courts were also notified, and every order was individually reviewed for legality by White House council before Bush reviewed and signed it.

I'm sorry, Jadegold. but your paranoia-and-Google-based arguments avoid logic and readily available facts.

Just to cite a couple of your lame quotes again, Jadegold:

"a rather cloudy assertion that shadowy leftwingers are in cahoots with a dim and/or corrupt Pat Fitzgerald" Another clear example of your being delusional and paranoid. No such assertions were ever made by me or anyone else.

"Further, you've suggested the disclosure of classified or FOUO information doesn't warrant investigation because you've abitrarily deemed it "questionably valuable."" My exact quote was the phrase, "IF the identity of Valerie Plame was even that important" I was not judging anything; I was questioning the importance of that information to national security.

"the penalties for improperly disclosing classified material isn't based on your opinions." Once again, no one even implied that my opinions influenced anything with regard to the application of U.S. Statutes.

You were not on the debating team, were you?

First, Mark Levin isn't a widely-respected legal scholar; he's a rightwing pundit who makes a living as a talkshow host. If he's the best you have, CY, you haven't got much. It's rather like citing Rush Limbaugh as an expert on drug policy.

Second, the current FISA warrants are rapidly obtained; what's more, a federal agency can obtain a FISA warrant retroactively allowing that agency to begin surveillance instantly.

Additionally, FISA warrants are almost automatic--prior to 2001, out of over 14,000 requests for such warrants, only 5 were rejected. It should be noted a majority of these FISA warrant requests were found to be based on false or groundless information.

Yet, this isn't enough for your King President. Now, there is no oversight whatsoever.

Mark Levin was Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States and is one of this nation's top constitutional law experts.

Nice try.

Chief of Staff is an administrative position.

Nice try.

Also, CY, I'd take issue that Levin is a top Constitutional scholar. After all, Levin once wrote a book about how the Supreme Court was destroying America.

It begs credulity to suggest someone who wrote "Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America" is a Constitutional scholar since the premise of his book is that the Supreme Court should be abolished.

Did you bother, at all, Jadegold, to listen to the president's explanation today? Or do facts cloud your ability to follow your leftist agenda?

“Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used ‘consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.’ He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have ‘a clear link’ to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.”

PROVE the president wrong, Donk ....

As CY seems to have implied already, googling information for your flimsy talking points is not evidence of exhaustive scholarly research.

The book you cite, Jadegold, did not imply or recommend that the Supreme Court should be abolished. That is just more of your own fabrication and distortion of fact.

Levin is definitely conservative when it comes to constitutional law. He would like to see strict adherence to interpretation of the Constitution - not to have judges legislate from the Bench as they did with Roe v. Wade. Congress legislates; The Supreme Court interprets law and precedent.

Your President is a liar, RS. Did you really expect him to come out today and say, "Yeah, the actions I took concerning spying on US citizens is illegal and unconstitutional but I think we really need to do it to fight terrorism'?

Of course not.

And it doesn't address the central argument--we currently have laws on the books that permit federal agencies to obtain warrants quickly and retroactively, if need be. We also know these warrants are almost always granted no matter how flimsy the case.

Yet, for your President, this wasn't enough. Why?

Given the fact your President has already allowed the disclosure of an intelligence agent's classified status for the purely political purpose of silencing a critic--does it not seem reasonable your President might also lie about why he thinks violating the US Constitution is necessary?

RS: The book in question is as I described it. If you wish to go off on a tangent about Levin's qualifications as a "Constitutional scholar," I'd be pleased to do so.

It's pretty amazing that even very conservative legal scholars think Levin's book is crapola.

Again, if Levin is the Constitutional scholar you claim--why isn't he some high-powered lawyer arguing before the SC or a widely-respected law school prof. Both are pretty well-paid jobs compared to Levin's rather spotty and poorly-rated radio talkshow duties.

Correction WRT FISA warrant rejections: According to this website only 4 applications for FISA warrants have been rejected from 1979 to 2004.

You are really as dumb and as intellectually impotent as a box of stones, GreenGeld. You are beyond the far left fringe of reasoned discussion.

You just go ahead and google to get your rocks off. Maybe you can't get off any other way. Don't care. I don't intend to engage in any more discussions with someone so vacant and biased against the rights and responsibilities of the president. You do not have respect for anything - surely not for yourself - because you are no more than an empty shell.

Hopefully, others will join in this refusal to engage in intellictual combat with someone so poorly armed.

"Intellictual combat," RS?

Look, if you're going to use hackneyed insults to mask your retreat--at least spell them correctly.

Slink away and enjoy what little remains of your civil liberties.

You're so weak that you have to rely one someone's typographical errors to make you feel like a "man."

Retired Spy is right. You are a weakling.

I would be willing to bet that you are not man enough to call our president a liar face-to-face with anyone commenting in these exchanges. Someone might just break your neck.

Moshe,

JadeGold does have logic problems, but please, let's not stoop to threats. You're better than that, I think.

NY Times: "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

You: "Some, but not all."

No offense, but do you really still trust the Bush administration when it comes to Americans' access to information? In case you haven't seen this story, a UMass student was questioned by Homeland Security recently for reading Mao's "Little Red Book." He was writing a paper for a class about fascism and totalitarianism.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

Indeed, CY. Jadegold does have logic problems. He also has problems with respect for the President of the United States and the majority of Americans who voted for him.

I do not need to communicate with this sort of person. He does not debate issues with factual data. He attacks with insults and innuendo.

Shorter RS: Jadegold uses facts; it's unfair to us conspiracy theorists.

That aside, it is refreshing to note the rightwingers haven't lost their typical tactics of threatening violence when their lies are exposed to daylight.

Jadegold:

That aside, it is refreshing to note the rightwingers haven't lost their typical tactics of threatening violence when their lies are exposed to daylight.

You exposed no lies. You just made accusations without evidence. I made no threats to you. I merely assumed that there might be someone who would like to break your neck. The statement I made was "Someone might just break your neck."

I, for one, cannot imagine anyone who would waste their time and energy. You are too much of a weakling - as I noted earlier - hiding behind a computer monitor, given courage by items du jour that you find through google.

You're a pathetic example of an American when you insult the Office of President of the United States and the American public with your conspiracy theory nonsense.

Moshe: You refer to me as a 'weakling,' yet you continue to hide behind veiled threats of violence by asserting some unnamed others might wish to do me harm. Be a man and step up; don't be like your President who decided the National Guard billet his father obtained for him took too much time away from his drinking responsibilities and failed to fulfill his commitment.

Y-A-W-N ....

Just some more ludicrous accusations without substance.

I agree with Retired Spy. Discussion with the likes of you a waste of energy.

Ciao to "Chicken Little" [AKA, Jadegold]

I know demolishing JadeGold is amusing, but I've had enough of his (her?) paranoia, delusions, and slurs. He (she?) has been banned.

Thad, I took the time to read your link, and you didn't exactly bother to tell the whole story, did you?

There are thousands of books on communism and fascism, Marxism, etc., read by tens of thousands of college students every week, without any visits by authorities. It turns out that the student in question has spent considerable time in foreign countries, and I'd be willing to bet that who this student was in contact with overseas raised the attention of authorities.

It was his overall pattern of behavior that triggered the visit, not an interlibrary loan. The loan was simply an excuse, in my opinion, to tweak a suspect, to see how he would respond.

No, I did read the entire article . . . and your willingness to guess wildly about what else happened is irrelevant.

When was spending time in foreign countries prohibited?
Or when was spending time in foreign countries, in combination with researching about communism for a class on totalitarianism, prohibited?

No one said these things were "prohibited," Thad. A combination of factors makes the profile of interest, however. I don't believe that HLS officials broke down any doors or threatened anyone, nor was anyone tortured or even detained.

I surely do not have anything to hide either. Come on down, HLS! I believe it is just one of those small inconveniences that I am willing to live with in an effort to protect you and me and millions of others from more terrorist attacks.

Lighten up on the police state paranoia, please. The objective is to protect us all from harm.

All Things Beautiful TrackBack 'The President's Week From Hell':

"I hate to say this, but are you waiting for another disaster to strike, just so that you can stop repeating how "nothing has happened in the last four years"? I suggest you thank God first and our President second for that, and not your pet Islamofascists for lack of trying. The list of attempts in that period is all too clear."

Actually the strawman is the Nambla case. One state chapter (Mass.) involved in a case which actually has repercussions for anyone interested in our rights.

Wrong.

The ACLU represents NAMBLA in all it's legal defense dealings to this day.

The only reprecussions the ACLU is trying to prevent is against anyone "interested in" sodomizing a child.

Unlike such as Fox and the Washington Times the NY Times often spends a great deal of time corroborating their stories before publishing and/or broadcasting. Sort of old-fashioned but good for we who read the paper.

"Corroberating their stories"?

From the Jayson Blair fiasco to the totally fabricated "Forged ballots from Iran" story of last week, the last thing the NY Slimes does is "corroberate" their fairy tales er, stories.

Hardly. They have a full toolchest already.

Spoken like a true (and laughably paranoid) liberal moonbat.

Watch the skies Artie! Rove's flying Monkeys are coming for you!

Guess that conspiracy explains the failure of the 'Patriot Act' huh? The senate has finally figured out the Bush adminstration commitment to our rights as citizens. That there isn't one.

The Patriot Act will get a "makeover" with a few tweaks to fool er, satisfy the "more paranoid" of citizens (who happen to see government spooks and wiretaps under every rock and around every corner) and get approved early next year.

This was just political grandstanding by the democrats and RINOS for the 2006 election.

Don't visit moveon.org. Nor do I receive their email. Sorry pal.

Yeah right.

Just like you're not a "liberal", you're a "progressive".

Nice try moron er, pal.

What I don't understand ( forgive if someone's already mentioned this, i might have forgotten amongst all of these posts) is why people talk as if the information regarding the NSA's program is useful to the terrorists. People talk as if the terrorists had no idea the government of the world's only remaining superpower would be attempting to wiretap them.

What I don't understand ( forgive if someone's already mentioned this, i might have forgotten amongst all of these posts) is why people talk as if the information regarding the NSA's program is useful to the terrorists. People talk as if the terrorists had no idea the government of the world's only remaining superpower would be attempting to wiretap them.
Posted by Rick at December 19, 2005 05:20 PM

Bingo. The bad guys know they are at risk anytime, anywhere. It's the rest of us at peril when little bits like habeas corpus and this NSA spying on US citizens without a court order.

It's the rest of us at peril when little bits like habeas corpus and this NSA spying on US citizens without a court order.

A bit melodramatic, don't you think?

To quote CY from an earlier comment:

"They could care less about your midget porn or basement pot farm."

That CY is ready to hand over his rights as a US citizen certainly doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Arthur Stone:

Could it be that you are totally paranoid? Rhetorical question because the answer is self-evident.

Stay tuned, Donk. The real legal scholars have something just for you. You'll probably want your liberals in Congress to take measures to amend the Constitution to lessen the powers of the president as Commander in Chief. This, of course, is after they attempt to file Articles of Impeachment against Bush. First things first, right?

Ain't gonna happen, Pal.

ArthurStone, it may come as a shock to you, but your breathless hyperbole doesn't impress anyone very much.

The President's NSA executive order has been reviewed multiple times by two Attorney's General for compliance with applicable U.S. laws, and has been throughly reviewed by the best lawyers of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Security Administration, White House Counsel, and the two presiding judges of the FISA Court itself.

In contrast, its other detractors and supporters are responding and pondering about an executive order that they have not seen, nor, do to natioanl security concerns, are they likely to see.

Congress is probably going to be getting a very discouraging lesson in Constitutional law before all is said and done, and the Democrats are going to be exposed once more as nearly incompetent to handle defense matters.

No wonder Bush was smiling and joking yesterday. He already knows through extensive legal review that he is in the right, and that the Democrats are setting the stage to hand over the '06 elections, lock, stock and barrel.

The president was laughing and joking yesterday because he's too dim to do anything else.

Still, that the AG told George this would be okay isn't quite enough. Gonzalez does what he's told. Likewise handpicked attorneys who will tell the president what he wants to hear is anything but 'extensive legal review'.

But thanks for getting to the point of the whole exercise in this particular expansion of the office of the president, politics.

Wonder if you would be so gung ho if a Demo put forward such an order.

We know the answer.

So the Justice Department, the NSA, and even the FISA court itself is all in cahoots to circumvent FISA? Thanks for establishing your position, Authur, as someone very long on accusation, and terribly short of facts or logic.

If you understand Article II of the Constitution even a little, you will recognize that Bush is not expanding President powers, merely claiming those he already has, and in fact the exact same rights claimed by previous presidents.

You ask if we'd be so "gung-ho" if a Democratic President put forth such and order.

He did. His name was Bill Clinton.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

But please keep making your outlandish claims. Rachet up the BDS and the paranoia to outrageous levels. Build a drive for impeachment.

With folks like you proving why today's Democrats are completely incompetent to protect American lives, 2006 is going to be hard to lose.

Thank you, CY, for the additional clarifications. It is patently obvious that those yelling the loudest from the Left - and some from the Right too - have never actually read the Act (FISA) itself. If they had they would know that section 1802 permits the president to order warrantless Intelligence surveillance operations with approval/authorization by the United States Attorney General.

Arthur Stone does not know the Law or the constitutional powers of the president under Article 2. Too many people are dead set on being 'Stuck on Stupid', and it will drag the Democratic Party even further into an abyss.

That is fine with me ....

When in doubt blame Clinton.

Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

The Clinton Administration sought and got FISA warrents when they were required.

Son, is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you purposefully being obtuse?

Gorelick (correctly) testified that the President's foreign intelligence responsibilities mean that their is no obligation to obtain a warrant for related searches.

Yes, Clinton got FISA warrants, but he specifically iterated the right to conduct warrantless search as needed by involking the inherent authority of the office of the President as enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and provided for by Executive Order 12333.

April 20, 2004 the President said:

'... ...there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

To reiterate. The White House problem with the NY Times running the story on the warrant-less searches had nothing to do with nat'l security and everything to do with the president being caught out in yet another lie in the seemingly endless stream of lies which distinguish the entire Iraq/'War on Terror' balls up. Bush told us he was seeking court orders for wiretaps when in fact he was not.

Arthur Stone:

You are most definitely 'Stuck on Stupid,' aren't you?

The Intelligence Surveillance authorized by President Bush and performed by the NSA are electronic surveillance operations. They are not wire taps, per se, Sir. Can't you get that through your thick skull? The FBI does wire taps.

You are mixing the NSA - a Department of Defense Intelligence gathering entity that does not normally perform surveillance (certainly not wiretaps) inside the confines of the United States or its territories with the FBI - a Department of Justice entity that DOES perform such operations.

The NSA can perform surveillance of international communications entities outside the United States via satellite collection. If collection targets transmissions originating in Afghanistan, for example, and the communications involve two-way duplexing with an entity in the United States, no laws have been broken.

It is obvious that you do not have a clue as to how all this works, nor do you understand the Constitution, the Patriot Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Are you in middle school or high school? If not you could fool me!

Arthur Stone:

I found the reference you quoted, and you managed to take that quote completely out of context. The president was discussing the Patriot Act - not the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or the NSA.

The president was referring to wiretaps in the context of FBI operations. With wiretaps there DO have to be warrants issued because the operations involve tapping physical entities inside the United States or its territories.

So, Mr. Stone, when you made the statement, "Bush told us he was seeking court orders for wiretaps when in fact he was not," you were mixing apples and oranges. He is required to seek court orders for physical wiretaps for most domestic FBI operations. He is not required to seek court orders or warrants to perform "foreign Intelligence" operations against international communications.

Give it up. You are losing this one too.

There seems to be a number of constant posters on this subject. But those of us who are new generally come to hear about the rationales and philosophies behind these opposing viewpoints. No of you on opposite sides of the political spectrum never agree on anything as it is, so why not?
Let's having the arguments and facets of this debate brought to the forefront.

The president was talking about a range of intelligence gathering activities which include but are not limited to wiretaps. He goes on to stress that such activities would be undertaken in a legal, above board manner.

Clearly they have not been which explains his unhappiness with the NY Times. Again, the Times story, contrary to the spin from the White House, bought hook line and sinker by CY and a great many others on this thread, is that to print such a story would reveal our intelligence gathering abilities and 'aid our enemies.'

Nonsense. Printing the story is politically embarassing to the president and underscores his inability to convey anything like the truth regarding his 'war on terror.'

And your confidence aside, others will decide if laws have been broken. It isn't up to you Geriatric Spy.

Looks like ArthurStoned is going to cling to this latest non-story no matter how idiotic it makes him look.

And your confidence aside, others will decide if laws have been broken. It isn't up to you Geriatric Spy.

I hate to break it to you Artie, but it isn't up to you either.

Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

I rather like that title. It implies wisdom and maturity - something sorely lacking in "Artie."

We'll see if Artie comes out from beneath the rocks and pond scum when the Supreme Court, if necessary, rules that President Bush was really trying to protect Artie's sorry butt from being snuffed out by terrorists, and that he did so entirely in keeping with his duties, responsibilities and powers under the U.S. Constitution.

Maybe he will just continue to hide like a scared rabbit - in a hole in the ground - like Saddam Hussein.

Merry Christmas Geriatric Spy.

Endless lying from the White House as a basis for policy. No clear strategy in Iraq. Cronyism and war profiteering rampant. Usurpation of our rights as US citizens.

Not really saving my butt from being 'snuffed by the terrorists'. Sorry. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has hatched a brand new set of terrorists hell bent on snuffing all our butts.

Mission Accomplished!

Geriatric in your case doesn't suggest wisdom and maturity. Rather, ossification and sclerosis.

But Happy Holidays!

And Mr. Elephant Man, labelled an idiot by you and this crowd is a compliment.

Thanks.

Maybe he will just continue to hide like a scared rabbit - in a hole in the ground - like Saddam Hussein.

Hiding won't save Artie from Karl Rove's Flying Monkeys.(Genetically engineered by Halliburton)

Those screeching and clawing noises coming down his chimney on Christmas Eve aren't going to be coming from Santa Claus...

*guffaw*

Endless lying from the White House as a basis for policy. No clear strategy in Iraq. Cronyism and war profiteering rampant. Usurpation of our rights as US citizens.

More paranoid and ridiculous liberal moonbat "talking points" from Mr. Obtuse.

Not really saving my butt from being 'snuffed by the terrorists'. Sorry. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has hatched a brand new set of terrorists hell bent on snuffing all our butts.

Another idiotic and paranoid assertion.

Artie must be some sort of liberal moonbat idiot savant, endlessly parroting the same things over and over.

Another moron who believes that if you repeat the same crap long enough, it magically comes true.

Mission Accomplished!

Yes indeed. Our "mission" to goad you into painting yourself as a paranoid fool was certainly "accomplished".

Geriatric in your case doesn't suggest wisdom and maturity. Rather, ossification and sclerosis.

I see it took you about nine or so hours to come up with that "scathing" insult.

Bravo.

But Happy Holidays!

and a Merry Christmas to you too!

And Mr. Elephant Man, labelled an idiot by you and this crowd is a compliment.

Seeing that everyone else has "labelled" you a deluded, paranoid, Kool-Aid drinking moron, I can see that merely being called an idiot could be construed as a "compliment".

Thanks.

you're welcome.

For a person who claims to work from logic and reason it certainly doesn't take much to get you into the name calling.

Tisk. Tisk.

The kool-aid thing was old twenty years ago and 'moron' is just feeble.

But when you get time you might illuminate just what our Middle Eastern policy is. Inquiring minds need to know.

And none of that 'spreading democracy' stuff. Mere talking point as you would put it.

Happy Kwanzaa!

For a person who claims to work from logic and reason it certainly doesn't take much to get you into the name calling.

Looks like I struck a nerve.

Tisk. Tisk.

The kool-aid thing was old twenty years ago and 'moron' is just feeble.

This coming from a person who actually typed "Tisk. Tisk"

But when you get time you might illuminate just what our Middle Eastern policy is. Inquiring minds need to know.

I might get around to it when I stop laughing at your hysterically paranoid delusions.

And none of that 'spreading democracy' stuff. Mere talking point as you would put it.

I suppose you would prefer that I echo your forays into paranoia and babble about "secret wiretaps", "cronyism", and "war profiteering"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You can't be serious.

You've got to be a "satire troll".

Nobody and I mean nobody can be so braindead as to actually believe the cliched tripe you've spewed all over this thread.

That Artie, what jokester.

For a minute there I actually thought he was serious about all that liberal moonbat pap he was spewing...

Perfectly serious Elephant.

And your name calling indicates which nerve was actually struck.

And thanks for dodging my question regarding our Middle East 'policy'.

Figures.

Perfectly serious Elephant.

So you actually believe the paranoid crap you've been farting out on this thread.

What a pathetic existence it must be where NRA spooks are hiding under every rock and "Chimpy Bushitler's minions" are out to "stifle your dissent".

And your name calling indicates which nerve was actually struck.

I'm not the one sniveling about it.

Stop whining.

And thanks for dodging my question regarding our Middle East 'policy'.

You're welcome.

Given your inane and cliched responses to CY and Retired Spy, answering your question would be a waste of time.

Besides, it's more fun to prod you into huffing and puffing with hilariosly comical self-righteous indignation.

Figures.

No need to pout, Artie. It's not my fault nobody takes you seriously.

You accomplished that on your own.

I think we were discussing NSA types but what the heck. NSA NRA, whatever eh?

Lots of people take me seriously Pachyderm.

Even you.

Can't resist responding can you?

Nice for you guys so used to scratching each others backs and whining about 'liberals' to have one turn up.

Happy Hanukkah.

Correction: That's supposed to be "NSA spooks".

Why add another "boogyman" to Artie's repoitire of paranoia.....

*guffaw*

Actually, we do have NRA spooks, but that is the next scandal.

Stop the personal attacks, folks, or I'll lock this thread.

Sorry about that, CY.

I'll leave Artie alone.

;)

Almost forgot...

Happy Festivus!

*grin*