I received an email listing (garbage) that you have to believe to be a republican. I saved the email and all of the email addresses it was sent to. Currently making a list of what you have to believe to vote for a dimmie. Post your list in comments and i'll check them every day and add to my list.

They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls

'Without a warrant' is the key part you are leaving out here. We see this as part of the Bill of Rights.

They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists

We are categorically against torture, yes.

They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs

We feel that if a secret program is contrary to the Bill of Rights it should be reveled.

They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act

Again we see parts of this to contravene the Bill of Rights.

They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary

Bush fired Rumsfeld on his own volition, while the Dems were still in the minority.

They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort

But we do believe it's illegitimate, as it was sold to us under the auspices of WMD. Now we're supposed to buy into the notion that we should be behind any sacrifice to build a democracy. We don't feel that this is what was asked of us.

They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

We don't understand the exit strategy, so how will we know when it is time to quit?

While some may quibble over Kolhmayer's choice of wording, these factual acuracy of the postions he represents are all quite true,

No. It's more than quibbling, CY - much of those items are flat-out lies. Let's see what I can debunk just off the top of my head:

- They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls

Flat-out lie. The effort was to force the gov't to obey the law in the process of tapping phone calls. Further, it was never about tapping specifically terrorist phone calls; it was about tapping vast swaths of citizen communications in the vague hopes of stumbling on terrorists.

- They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists

Again, a flat-out lie. The various treaties signed by the US have the full force and equivalence of federal law. The Executive does not get to unilaterally decide who those laws do and do not apply to - it's a topic the populace, or at least their representatives in Congress, MUST be involved in deciding. Attempting to force the Executive to obey the law is NOT disloyalty. Quite the opposite.

- They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions

How exactly? Again, by requiring that the US Gov't actually obey US law? His argument is still crap.

- They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs

You mean the ones that were publically discussed by the Bush administration years before the NYT printed the info? How traitorious is it when info is leaked that makes Bush look good?

- They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act

Which has exactly what to do with the price of RPGs in Baghdad? Kohlmayer's definition of "vital" means exactly squat.

- They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists

See above discussion on torture.

- They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst

Again, if it's illegal, work to change the law. Nobody gets to simply ignore the law when it's inconvenient.

- They have impugned and demeaned our military

How, exactly? By blaming our failures on the commanders and troops in the field? No, that was a GOP Congressman.

- They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal

I'm no lawyer, but if the shoe fits...

- They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary

Flat-out lie. Rummy wrote his own pink slip by running the war effort incompetently. And then Bush flat-out lied about the firing. Not for national security reasons, but just because he was tired of answering the questions.

- They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort

Again, if the shoe fits...

- They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

No, they want to fight the war that actually affect US security. Remember Afghanistan? the Taliban? Bin Laden? _Those_ were the people who actually attacked us. Let's try fighting _that_ war.

- They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

No, they want to fight the war that actually affect US security. Remember Afghanistan? the Taliban? Bin Laden? _Those_ were the people who actually attacked us. Let's try fighting _that_ war.

Exactly. Add that to what I said above.

I was quoting 'legion' above. I screwed up the formatting somehow.

legion - pretty good for off the top of the head. Coupla corrections if I may:

Monitoring financial transactions -
This was a US/European operation and is illegal in Europe, both by ECU and various member government laws. Libruls had nothing to say about it because it did not occur on US soil.

Profiling terrorists in our midst -
Actually, this would simply take the form regulatory relief by either TSA or DHS and acceptance by a increasingly conservative judiciary. Problem with profiling is that there blond blue-eyed folks up to no good - ever take a look at McVeigh? Israel's got it going with behavioural profiling but would make the current security mess at airports a walk in the park - so hand over the massage oil.

Scrapiron -- do you mean one of these?

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/62974620.html
http://www.stallman.org/republicanBeliefs.html

they've been floating around in one form or another for quite awhile.

Funny Sam, I don't remember anywhere in the Bill of Rights where is says that foreign terrorists are covered. Hell, they aren't even covered under the rights of the Geneva Convention as they fail to abide its regulations as well.

Bohica -- not sure if you're talking about interrogation or wiretaps. If one party of a conversation is a citizen in the US, and the government taps into that conversation without a warrant, then the citizen's rights have been violated. Why not just require the government to get a warrant? They can get one 72 hours after the fact if necessary. The only reason they don't want to be limited by warrants is because they're eavesdropping without adequate evidence in some cases.

Recall that Nixon used eavesdropping to try to influence an election. In that light don't you think it's bad to allow politician to eavesdrop without warrants?

You might say, well they were only international calls, but we don't know that. Anyway, judicial oversight is a fundamental part of the checks and balances that our forefathers conceived.

We don't understand the exit strategy

What part of victory is confusing you. Perhaps we can help.

In all of the distortions, misrepresentations, and blind speculations used above to "justify" the shared liberal/terrorist positions defined by Kohlmayer, not once do any of those defending these liberal Democratic positions even make the attempt to deny that they share many of the same goals as those who would see America's sons and daughters slaughtered.

Fascinating, but worrisome and quite sad.

CY
I like roasted goat but that doesn't mean I share a world view with every goat eater.

I'm not defending librul positions - I'm speaking for a) Constitutionalism; b) the rule of law; c) honest open and temperate discussion of same.

Wait...Wait - this fax just in from OBL
d) Hot sauce with the goat

sami, you need to be a bit more informed before you start claiming that you ae speaking for "a) Constitutionalism; b) the rule of law; c) honest open and temperate discussion of same" if you are endorsing those positions held forth above.

There is zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws.

All the screeching done over it has been from critics who have no direct knowledge of it at all, and who have wasted their time on idle speculation. Those that have seen the details of how the program operates have not questioned its legality in the slightest, and noted liberal Lanny Davis, just fully briefed on the program, even stated he wished more people could understand how it worked so that they could understand just how safe their privacy was.

As for interrogation, the law Bush signed defining acceptable techniques should have been passed over 70 years ago; until he signed it, when had a dangerous gray area uncovered by law. As for the techniques themselves, they are not torture. They cause stress and discomfort, but leave no damage, and to equate these techniques to torture is to belittle those who have been scarred by the real thing.

Most of the other arguments, as I stated before, are distortions, misrepresentations, and blind speculations, just like these two I chose to single out as examples.

And your "fax" claim above is also bogus. Everyone knows that Osama uses a Mac.

Sam, why does an electronic intercept of a foreign enemy of our country require judicial review just because the number he calls happens to be in the US? As for torture, I believe interrogations should be a little bit tougher than the average police drama, without the lawyer. It shouldn't be a Mel Gibson movie, but it also shouldn't be a trip to the principals office.

CY -
And your "fax" claim above is also bogus. Everyone knows that Osama uses a Mac.

BUSTED.

Beg to differ - FISA was established for just this sort of thing. This adminstration has admitted to domestic eefsdropping (such a secret). If NSA listens to domestic calls without a warrant, it's a felony. IMO, the NSA wiretap was placed outside of FISA particularly to push the precedent of a unitary president. I think it is deliberately illegal.

And Lanny Davis is as librul as a tree-stump. He's a neo-con, the same path taken by numerous old-line dims. Do I have to use the Lieberword?

We can argue over the effectiveness of torture (or where stress/discomfort leave off and torture begins but I would have to get my wife involved in that) but it really pulls us off the moral high ground. Doncha feel the least bit uncomfortable with the USofA is one of those who disappears people and engages in physical abuse. I always kinda thought that behaviour belong to banana republics and commie pinko fags.

My concerns with the consitutionality and rule of law really revolve around a concern that we sacrifice the little things in a never ending GWOT because we can pretty much beat the crap out of a terrorist and who cares. Until the terrorist is a lawyer in Oregon or a German citizen in the wrong place at the wrong time or a Canadian citizen itwpatwt or a US citizen who was where he shouldn't been and talked to the wrong people. The next thing you know President Hillary will be hunting both ex-bushie and librul bloggers with apache helicopters.

And don't you think OBL looks like a hot-sauce guy -- with really bad garlic breath?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact

It all comes down to whether you trust you government or not. If given power, do you think our government will abuse it or not. You see, I think there are evil people in this world, and I think our government should have the power to make them disappear and go away, forever. I ALSO trust our government not to abuse this power to go after political opponents, bloggers, or the kid at school who picked on the President when he was little.

"not once do any of those defending these liberal Democratic positions even make the attempt to deny that they share many of the same goals as those who would see America's sons and daughters slaughtered."

I've never heard anyone say they share goals with the terrorists. I see defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights as my highest duties to my country. The terrorists want to convert everyone to Islam or kill them.

CY said: There is zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws.

That's how the administration has represented it, but it's not true. One FISA judge stepped down as a protest to the administration's behavior. Anytime you listen in on citizens without a warrant, that is against the Bill of Rights. The administration has various defenses, but it's just that simple. They are breaking the law.

Bohica,
You're aiming the right direction, but I'd offer a little target correction.
It all comes down to whether you trust you government or not. If given power, do you think our government will abuse it or not.

Our gov't is made up of people, and people, in the larger sense, _will_ abuse power. No matter how great a given President is, there's no guarrantee what the _next_ President will be like. We must never fall into the trap of giving him more power than a President ought to have, just because we think he can use it well; that power never goes away. The Romans felt that way about Caesar. They made him Emperor. then they got guys like Nero and Caligula.

Power _will_ be abused. We must never forget that the people in power work for _us_, not the other way around. Mistrust of the gov't - _any_ gov't, not just ours, and not just the current one - is the safest path.

Purple Avenger said: The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Implicit in what you are saying is that we should bend the Constitution when we feel threatened. I side with what Lincoln famously said in his 1838 Lyceum Address:

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

In other words, our strength emanates from the Constitution, not the other way around.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Actually, PA, I'd disagree. The Constitution defines more than just our general system of gov't - it defines our values and our way of life. While there is some allowance for change as our society evolves over time, there are limits. If one destroys the Constitution, does not "America", both as an ideal and as a nation, cease to exist?

To put it another, admittedly hyperbolic, way: if Wall Street got nuked tomorrow, the United States would still stand. If the President dissolved Congress and the courts for restricting Executive authority, the same could not be said.

Bohica said I ALSO trust our government not to abuse this power to go after political opponents,

But I gave you an example of just that up above -- Nixon tried to use his power to defeat his political rivals.

Also:

"Distrust of government is a tenant of our nation:
It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
--Thomas Paine

Does that not squarely contradict you?

Geez, Sam - get out of my head!

legion: I am your long lost Mini-Me.

Bohica22-
>>It all comes down to whether you trust you government or not.

Ok - not. Neither the left nor right.

It is ironic that an idealogy that grew out of distrust of the vision of less government has wrapped itself so thoroughly into big govt. And there's more - you take the old discredited liberal internationlism that gave vietnam, mix in a bit of the acheson arrogance and a speck of nixonian manipulativeness and you have (all together) NeoConservativism.

hurrah

Sorry -
distrust of AND the vision of less government

the little things matter

So are you all saying that if Nixon had the Patriot Act, he would have gotten away with it? Your arguments all seem so slippery slope. No one seems to have a problem with going after terrorists, but what if someday "I" become the terrorist. Granted, its a problem of definition. Foreign terrorists aren't soldiers covered under the Geneva Convention and they aren't US citizens either. But I still think there will be a common sense rule applied that our government will be able to tell the difference between myself and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

In all of the distortions, misrepresentations, and blind speculations used above to "justify" the shared liberal/terrorist positions defined by Kohlmayer, not once do any of those defending these liberal Democratic positions even make the attempt to deny that they share many of the same goals as those who would see America's sons and daughters slaughtered.

1.

Didn't you already outlaw intellectual dishonesty and laziness back whilst decrying the Jesus' Generals Chicken-Hawk post?

2.

Judge Rules Against Wiretaps
NSA Program Called Unconstitutional

By Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A01

A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

If given power, do you think our government will abuse it or not.

This is where the left engages in projection. They assume others would do as they would do...and abuse the power ;->

Purple Avenger: you seem not to understand US history. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are all about tyranny, mostly tyranny from our own government.

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing."
--John Adams

you seem not to understand US history.

I understand that a liberal democrat president imprisoned a bunch of people in concentration camps during WWII.

I understand that same liberal president engaged in press censorship/coercion the likes of which is unheard of today.

I understand that a certain president named Clinton used the IRS to attack his political enemies.

You can get away with a lot when you're a winner, PA...

Watching leftist non-lawyers debate national security and the law...is like watching Janet Reno trying to give Jimmy Carter a shave and a haircut.

In the same moment I want to look away in fear and revulsion AND I can't stop watching.

The low level federal "judge" who "ruled" on the issue out of Detroit is a low grade imbecile, whose ruling was labeled a joke by nearly EVERY legal analyst...left, right and center...so reliance on that ruling is either wholly uninformed or intentionally disingenuous.

Secondly, selective listening in on INTERNATIONAL calls for the safety and security of the country in a time of CLEARLY THREATENED ATTACK...is the seminal issue. How can you accomplish it legally? What boundaries and limitations are there under the law?

Let's try to restrict ourselves to these issues...despite the wild-eyed pronouncements that the Consitution will erupt in a miracle/tragedy of self-combustion and be forever relegated to the ash heap of history...and further pronouncements that the action takent IS "illegal"...virtually NOBODY who has reviewed the procedure fully is quite that shattered by its implementation.

The President of the United States did not "break any laws", a new set of facts (terrorist sleeper cells from a group of enemy combatants set up camp and are communicating with each other to try to kill, maim, destroy, subvert, overthrow our country)and while we gracefully try to adhere to the beautiful and saintly principles painstakingly scribed with quill pens, these enemies are pouring in money, killers and plans across our borders by way of space satellite aided technology.

There's a bit of a disconnect here and it's not the fault of the framers...it's simply that they could not have anticipated the need for protection of the Union...from sleeper cells with laptops, cell phones, ATM cards and suitcase nuclear bombs.

If you are a leftist and you want to discuss whether the intelligence review of ANY OR ALL international calls exceeds the boundaries and limitations necessary to protect the country and my countrymen from the existing threat...by all means...go for it.

But at least stop BRIEFLY along the way to recognize that there is a legitimate state interest in protecting the country...and its people.

I realize that many leftists think that Al Qaeda and other murderers are romantic, "minutemen" who are simply giving our innocent citizens exactly what they deserve, ...but unfortunately the people charged with providing a national defense for our country simply don't have the luxury of cooing at and passing love notes to...an enemy who hijacks our commercial jets and slams them into our buildings. Or who announce plans via the internet and communicate via cell phone how to poison our water supply, build nuclear weapons to destroy our cities or blow up ships in our ports. Sorry, they simply can't.

As usual, the leftists put our interests last...and look for ways to crap on the country. Why not? They're Americans in name only. Timeshare Americans really don't care about national security or communal responsibility. It's all about the "freedom of the individual"...to do anything they want, however they want, whenever they want. And if a few thousand terrorists set up a horrific death spectacle here on the home turf...well, too bad.

For those who wish to discuss the issue seriously, the ONLY issue (the Fourth Amendment discussion is frail and not worthy of serious debate) is whether there is a limitation or boundary that can be exercised that would accomplish the goals of national security without compromising them...AND more narrowly pinpoint the likely targets.

NOBODY here is capable of answering that question. You don't have the security clearance to speak intelligently about it. But you can guess. You can come up with some ideas.

Warrants for phone calls or intercepts...on SLEEPER cells is rather oxymoronic, I would think. If the leftists want to seriously debate this and go through the mental gymnastics trying to find a BETTER way to ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING...by all means...have at it.

If they simply want to blow more asshat steam about the President, our intelligence community, the military, Republicans, the Supreme Court, corporations and capitalism, ...or whatever their echo chamber playbook page is open to today...then, I would just as soon go back to the Reno shaves Carter scene, at least that might have a useful ending.

For those who wish to discuss the issue seriously,

How can you be taken seriously when you say?

As usual, the leftists put our interests last

Ak-dad

Because...that's what a leftist is...and does.

The whole point of being a modern day leftist is to be against...to be "anti"..

This is precisely what amazes me about modern leftists...they are so programmed in the echo chamber...it baffles them when someone calls them on the very thing they are set up to accomplish.

On a national security level, on a homeland defense level, on a level related to confronting enemies of state....where do you stand?

Leftists can't answer these questions...because they don't stand ....anywhere...really. They are programmed to only stand against...to be "anti".

It's why a good man like Joe Lieberman got shredded in their buzzsaw of hatred. He is a solid, warm-hearted liberal on social issues, but not a leftist echo chamber member on defense and security of this country.

The reason none of the leftists want to take on serious issues related to national security, confronting our enemies...is because...the leftist playbook simply is devoid of anything to say about it. There is no plan, there are no ideas...it's a vacuum.

Leftists put us last...because they don't like our form of government, they want to replace it with World Populism...a multi-cultural, mushy, feel-good, warmed over Socialism. "Let's all talk and be friends" utopian, egalitarian society of art museums and theater in the park. I mean, it's really rather lovely. Insipid and inter-galactically inane...but cute nonetheless.

Back here in the real world, the inhabitants of this planet have to deal with Islamic thugs who want to kill people who are "infidels" because they don't agree with genocidal maniacs who want to wipe out all the Jews and Christians and Buddhists and Hindus on the planet.

The leftists put us last...because to them...WE stand in the way of their childlike pursuit of nirvana. They want to party like it's 1999. And they don't want to live in the real world post 2001.

Leftists want to overthrow this government...and they really don't care to think about what might replace it. It's chic and trendy to be against America. Funny thing is...they would be the most miserable...among all the misery...if the Islamofascists ever got their way.

It's no use to tell them to be careful what you wish for...because they have no intention of being careful...and they don't wish for anything...only against.

"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are all about tyranny, mostly tyranny from our own government."

The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were created to protect us from the tyranny of King of England. Now we are trying to protect ourselves from the tyranny of those who want the world to be an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law. Different enemys require different tactics.

Being someone who deals with this subject intimately on a daily basis, I have continued to marvel at the ignorance and stupidity being passed off in these "leftist" arguments. CY, you know what I do for a living and you know what I have access to because of my work...the ignorance the liberals here are demonstrating is awe-inspiring. I've always found unabashed pride in one's own delusional ignorance to be something to behold.

Time and again you have people posting here who know nothing about Constitutional Law, nothing about what we are really doing to protect this country, but are just parroting the ill-conceived arguments they have heard repeated by others (and the MSM in many cases). I'm sure more than one of them will claim to be a lawyer (Constitutional Law, perhaps? yeah, right.) and will also claim they are an expert in the legalities of what can and can't be done in the name of national security. Bring it on...that's my personal playground, nancy boys.

I do this for a living and am around it every day--DC politics, the whole smack...including several liberal judges who get their "opinioned" rulings overturned on a regular basis (some of which were used here to justify lefty arguments).

And those who were talking about "getting a search warrent in only 72 hours" and "that's what FISA is there for" are stupid beyond their years. I could write a book (I have already written a report) and the shortcomings of FISA and how a "warrant wait" of even 3 hours would have cost us a HUGE terrorist attack two years ago.

I marvel at the stupidity of these people--people who think their opinion really is worth something...I marvel and shake my head in disgust. Stupid people have always irritated me and people who think they are experts on Homeland Security and the Constitution are not only an irritant, but are dangerous to our security. I think I'll have to stop reading your comments section CY--I'm tired of being subjected to uninformed, self important leftists who can't think for themselves and certainly have no idea what they are talking about. If I want to know what the leftist zombie squad is thinking, all I have to do is turn on the MSM.

No thanks.......I have enough problems trying to protect these people in spite of how hard they make my job each day.

Bohica said: The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were created to protect us from the tyranny of King of England.

That's just not true! The Declaration talks about the inalienable rights of man. The Constitution is not at all about England, it is about ensuring that our own government not become tyrnannical. I sincerely encourage you to learn more about this. Read the Bill of Rights, for instance.

Purple said:

I understand that a liberal democrat president imprisoned a bunch of people in concentration camps during WWII.

I understand that same liberal president engaged in press censorship/coercion the likes of which is unheard of today.

I understand that a certain president named Clinton used the IRS to attack his political enemies.

Do you believe that only Democrats are liable to abuse their powers? That's a childish view of the world.

There are a couple of recent studies that point to the hardwiring of our brains from infancy to be left or right. Very new, but interesting. The studies showed each side the opposite of their stated opinions and both sides reacted negatively if their point of view was not what was shown.

I found it interesting because, these "scientists" seems to be saying that "we" don't have control over what we think. I disagree totally. I started out as a liberal, bleeding heart, in my 20's. Living life and experiences taught me that what I had been fighting for became a sad joke...in my early 40's. The day I read that we, American women, had aborted 30 MILLION babies in about 25 years, left me aghast!

What I know from decades of living is that if humans cannot learn from daily life and personal experience we are doomed. We need to be responsible for our actions without question. All of the Liberal agenda items that have been imposed on us in the past forty years have brought us to low educational levels, horrible drug usage, high AIDS infections, old and new diseases, making others millionairs by reason of race, creed or someone's idea of "hurt" infliction, a blind hating academia, biased media, and, of course, the "new" ugly: Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

I fear for my grandchildren, greatly.

My apologies WB,for saying "nobody"...obviously, there are a few exceptions to the rule.

I have a Constitutional law background (with dozens of federal court jury trials under my belt), but zero security clearance.

But please don't walk away in frustration...you are EXACTLY what we need. More and better FACTS. Better information. Truth is like kryptonite to leftists...but the rest of us truly appreciate it. And by the way, it doesn't get said often enough, but...thanks for being there.

Sue

Fearing for the next generation is a healthy response and quite normal. Standing up and speaking for them is the answer. When you are 20 (or act like it, like those suffering from arrested development)...you are subject to peer pressure and want the world to be simple and organized.

The world unfortunately has people in it who don't play by the same set of rules. The predatory mind will always seek to find the weakest member of the herd. If you are impressionable and easily swayed...if you refuse to think things out for yourself...you become prey. Prime targets.

This is why I advocate being an "issue-ist". Decide each issue on its own merits. Not because it resounds with or emanates from the left or right...but because after examining it thoroughly what's left IS right.

cfbleachers said: Truth is like kryptonite to leftists ... I advocate being an "issue-ist". Decide each issue on its own merits. Not because it resounds with or emanates from the left or right...but because after examining it thoroughly what's left IS right.

What a hypocrite!

I fear for your grandchildren, too, Sue.

I fear they will be working in Chinese-owned sweatshops to pay back all the money Bush has borrowed off them to fight his phony wars...

The leftists put us last...because to them...WE stand in the way of their childlike pursuit of nirvana. They want to party like it's 1999. And they don't want to live in the real world post 2001.

cfbleachers,

Apparently you still want to party like it's November the 6th. The people have spoken, and they've told your kind to STFU. Besides, Cy said there was, "zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws." The court ruling while not 100% proving that the program does violate the law--because it is being appealed--does prove there is more than zero evidence.

And those who were talking about "getting a search warrent in only 72 hours" and "that's what FISA is there for" are stupid beyond their years. I could write a book (I have already written a report) and the shortcomings of FISA and how a "warrant wait" of even 3 hours would have cost us a HUGE terrorist attack two years ago.

What you are all saying can be boiled down to the same logical fallacy that Bill O'Reilly used when he asked Dave Letterman the loaded question, "Do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq?" No one on the left has ever said that we shouldn't prevent terrorism. In fact we mostly want all the same things you do, except we want to do it within the law.

BTW: Sorry I couldn't have responded sooner, we had our units Christmas Party at Drill today.

You a junior cadet Freddy? LOL Sounds like it - as if your credentials hold up against WB and cf. Have at it.

FRED:

I want to thank you for your post--nothing I could have said or done could have proved what I was saying more than your post did.

You're an idiot and I surely hope that was not a CP for a military unit you are a part of--if it is, then John Kerry was certainly talking about you...

I have seen two terrorism cases go south and have read all the reports on them (it was what I was asked to write a white paper about--to demonstrate the problems that were encountered so it didn't happen again).

Both of these cases were lost, one due to a FISA judge not getting the HUGE VOLUME OF PAPERWORK on time (it had to go through channels, just like anything else)...the other, the suspects broke observation and were lost because no one could put everything together for the FISA warrant in this situation because they WERE NOT WHERE THE INFORMATION COULD BE COMPILED IN TIME...That is all that can be said about that.

I know about FISA warrants, FRED. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. But like a typical liberal--you spout off your mouth because you've hear a sound-byte on TV. Good for you, that makes you such an expert that you can call others names and attack their credibility. Well, I can certainly repay the favor in name-calling...but I'll back mine up with fact...You are a complete idiot and a FISA challenged moron. Here's why...

Your complete lack of understanding of FISA and how a FISA warrant must obtained--what those guidelines are for obtaining one--and what the 72 hours after action warrant requires is glaring and reeks of your complete stupidity on the subject.

First, Not EVERY NECESSARY WARRANT PERTAINING TO TERRORISM FALLS UNDER THE EMERGENCY FISA 72 HOUR ALOWANCE you refer to...get your facts straight before you try to sound like an expert, ok? Again, your arrogance proved my point. You have no idea what you are talking about and still you have the gaul to criticize others who are far more knowledgeable than you on the subject.

This is typical of your leftwing, Nancy-boy species.

The FISA fact is, unless you are POSITIVE you can declare the situational need as an "emergency" under the FISA rules, you're screwed if you try to collect the information from a "source".

You will not only lose the rights to the information you collected, but you will lose the ability to USE that information or pass it on to anyone who could use it. In fact, if a possible terrorist action is recorded and the judge didn't sign the FISA warrant in time, you still can't do a thing with what you know...and despite what you lefties like to shout, these guys follow the rules. Too many of our people are fearful of being sued or thrown in jail--which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

So Fred, since you are an expert on FISA--expert enough to sum it up with one sentence and call into question my "qualifications", let me spell some of this out for the other "unenlightened leftwing nuts" who might be out there reading this.

FISA warrant guidelines are a lot more stringent than a regular court is. In fact, those seeking the warrant must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (yes--beyond a reasonable doubt, not just suspect something, like we can sometimes have in normal warrants for police officers from regular judges).

You must have a "...factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists."

Hey Fred, that was real legal language I was using. I was quoting from the actual U.S.C. on that--but I'm sure you already knew this--since you're are so incredibly intelligent...not!

So, what are the guidelines for this factual basis? Maybe Fred can tell everyone. He's an expert on FISA--he knows so much he can criticize those of us who do this for a living...but, since Fred isn't here right now, I'll tell you what those guidelines are. I happen to have a personal copy, but you can also find these guidelines on the Internet(at least the unclassified proceedures)...but first, we have to make sure that no US citzens are going to be mistakenly gathered up in our warrant. Which is reasonable--and it should therefore be easy to demonstrate...or is it...?

50 U.S.C. Section 1805(a)(3)(A):

"...on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—

(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power...

See Fred, more legal stuff. Have you ever READ these FISA codes, Fred? Have you ever been involved with a FISA-based case? Do you even know what a FISA warrant "application" looks like. Have you ever in your life read one? Do you work with DHS and have you ever dealt with matters involving FISA and terrorism warrants?

Have you Mr. Expert Fred? I doubt it. People like you would have their head explode if they ever bothered to read all the facts and reason out an intelligent argument about something.

So, in the hopes that your head will explode, let me give you a little lesson on your so-called FISA 72 hour "application" and what it really means. And Mr. Expert Fred, we HAVE lost warrants due to a SINGLE 3 HOUR WAIT because the paperwork did not move through the system fast enough after the application was submitted.

You see Fred, unlike you, I don't just run off at the mouth without having the facts on hand--like you do.

What you are referring to (the 72 hours clause) is found in the United States Code on FISA. For those who are familiar with legal documents, it is known as:

50 U.S.C. Sec. 1805(f)

Under (a), you will find what has to be filled out and submitted within your 72 hours...the list is long and difficult to compile under the best of circumstance. I have seen FISA warrant requests that took 18 days to complete...18 DAYS. And those are NOT that rare, Fred...

Here's what has to be submitted...and it's not a single file folder--I've seen it thick enough to measure with a ruler.
QUOTED:

It shall include—
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate—
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.

So Fred, go somewhere else to try and impress people and pretend you're a real man who knows the score. Your efforts here have only served to prove to everyone you're stupid.

Sorry CY, but like I said on the phone...I like intelligent liberals who discuss matters and have open debate with conservatives--they're good, and we balance each other out in the end...but people like Fred and some of the others here are just butt-stupid, and the sad part is they don't even realize it.

You can get away with a lot when you're a winner

Indeed. Give up on integrity and all things become possible.

WB: I read your two posts with interest. I think all mature citizens see a tradeoff between security and privacy, and as such it's interesting to hear the point of view of those on the enforcement side.

The trouble is, you didn't convince me that FISA is a bad thing. You gave an example of where a three hour delay in obtaining a warrant would have resulted in a huge attack. Then you state that the "72 hours after" rule applies only in special cases, like an emergency. What's the problem exactly? The three-hour situation certainly qualified as an emergency, so why not use the 72 hour rule. You say that you all risk losing access to your information if you invoke the 72 hour rule and the situation turns out not to be an emergency. That seems like a fair tradeoff to me. What am I missing?

Second, you say the filing requirements are onerous:

It shall include—
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
...
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.

I believe that law enforcement absolutely should answer those questions before eavesdropping on a citizen. Do you not think so?

Third, the background here is the NSA wiretapping program. That judge in Detroit and the FISA judge who quit in protest of it obviously don't think it's constitutional. Are you saying it's constitutional, or not constitutional but necessary, or what?

You'll probably think I'm being snarky here but it's not so. You are not doubt angry about people like me, but I hope you can understand that I see my job as a citizen as protecting the Constitution. We survived WWII without cowering, and I believe we can survive terrorist attacks without cowering too.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sam, I know for a fact that the FISA judge who quit did so without ever being briefed on the NSA program, and that not a single one of the other FISA judges has uttered so much as a word of protest, nor resigned, after they were briefed.

The Detriot judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, issued an opinion that legal experts on both sides feel will be overturned, due in no small part to her opinion was very poorly written and ill-reasoned. The judge shold not have even allowed the case to have been brought; even partisan lefties (including sockpuppet, I think) agree that the plantiffs don't have the standing to bring the case.

A typical reaction to her ruling, from the WaPo:

...the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful...

...her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality.

And Sam, if you want to invoke WWII, remember that the President, FDR, sent tens of thousands of U.S. citizens to internment (concentration) camps without a trial or the possibility of an appeal for the duration of the war without any evidence whatsoever, executed terrorists after military tribunals without appeal or the false application of Geneva Rights, interpreted his constitutional powers as being far more extensive, and curtailed the freedoms of American citizens far more, than President Bush has ever considered.

Quite frankly, I think FDR would feel President Bush isn't using his Presidential powers enough, and based upon his actions, I'm certain he'd be disgusted by the abject moral cowardness and inability to do what is in the best interests of America by those who now claim to lead his party.

“You're an idiot and I surely hope that was not a CP for a military unit you are a part of--if it is, then John Kerry was certainly talking about you…”

I’d take that as an insult, if the truth was that Kerry had ever insulted the troops in the instance you’re referring to from right before the election. Seeing as it was directed at Bush and not the troops, I have no reason to be upset.

“Have you ever READ these FISA codes, Fred? Have you ever been involved with a FISA-based case? Do you even know what a FISA warrant "application" looks like. Have you ever in your life read one? Do you work with DHS and have you ever dealt with matters involving FISA and terrorism warrants?”

I work with a Task Force that falls under the DHS, but no, I do not deal with FISA warrants. But in light of your statement, “FISA warrant guidelines are a lot more stringent than a regular court is. In fact, those seeking the warrant must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,” I’m wondering if you’re that familiar yourself. Are you sure you don’t mean, “probable cause?” That is--and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this because you are far more knowledgeable than me on this--what. 1805(a)(3) describes, “probable cause.”

I seem to remember a bill a while back introduced by former Senator DeWine that wanted to change the standard from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion,” a suggestion that was rebuked by Bush’s own DOJ because, “there may be little to gain from the lower standard,” and it would, “potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions,” the probability being that Courts would find it unconstitutional**.

Basically what you are saying is the same conclusion that the 911 Commission came to:

"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."

I hope you will be on the phone to your Senator to encourage the Democratic Party to follow through on their campaign pledge to implement all the 911 Commission’s recommendations. We all want to combat terrorism. Once again, however, we must do it within the law.

P.S CY, why did Raygun sign the Civil Liberties Act of 1988?

Sam S:

Actually, I’m not against FISA. I think FISA is a good thing—the problem is most people and the media act like FISA is a “cure-all” for all our terrorism surveillance needs. It’s a good safeguard in most cases, but it has some glaring shortcomings that have needed to be addressed for a long time. FISA can’t be used as a solution for every important situation that involves terrorism eavesdropping. That was why the NSA program was started…and it’s not the only one out there. It’s just the only one the public knows about right now.

The problem with the emergency warrant situation we’ve been discussing is that you have to determine that it is an emergency situation BEFORE you start your eavesdropping and enter into the FISA arena for your warrant.

That’s not as easy to do as you may think—you can put 2 and 2 together in the field to make four, but for those numbers to add up to get a warrant under FISA? That isn’t always so easy or straightforward. If you declare your situation needs an emergency warrant, start your surveillance, and the court says it wasn’t an emergency—you just got your surveillance killed and all of your evidence is lost--forever. I would be willing to go on record in saying that in about 60% to 70% of the cases that need to go to FISA for a warrant (emergency or not), losing the evidence that they obtained would cause the investigators to lose an important contact or some kind of critical piece of information.

If it turns out that your situation is not an emergency, but you thought it was—then you are in deep, deep trouble. A wrong call can be a career killer--Both from a supervisory standpoint, and an evidentiary one. Not only have you lost the warrant, but you also lost any leads or clues you gained from the investigation--so you are just plain screwed. And, if that lead results in a terrorist action, people then get upset that you didn’t act on what you found—even though those same people were the ones who tied your hands in the first place.

It’s a no-win situation--and as I said before, it’s not cut-and-dry trying to determine if something justifies an emergency warrant or not. Hindsight is how the public will judge officials and law enforcement when it comes to those actions, but when you’re on that side of the situation, public opinion and the MSM are uninformed and merciless in their reactions against you. You have to be right 100% of the time. The terrorists only have to be right one time...

Those FISA judges who sit on the bench are not necessarily the best judges or the most qualified. Some are good, some are bad. They are much like any other judge you go to for a warrant—they have pet peeves and things they like or dislike seeing in a warrant request—and unlike the officers going to them for the warrant—those judges are immune to public opinion and outcry. See, that “three hour situation” I was talking about was (with hindsight) very important, but at the time it appeared to be only a possible candidate in its qualifications as an emergency--possible, but not a “shoe-in” for a warrant being awarded.

So, do you risk your case or even your job (and yes, it could be your job if a terrorist strike or transfer of arms succeeds because you lost the warrant to a judge's opinion or didn’t ask for the emergency warrant in the first place)? Evidence was good, but could be considered less credible depending on how a judge looked at it. So, you’re the breadwinner in your family and it’s your call--what do you do?

Not as cut and dry anymore, is it? This is what I mean when I'm talking about the issues. There are many other things to be considered when you are talking surveillance and monitoring terrorism activities. You can’t argue FISA modifications and NSA programs with soundbytes from TV, radio, and a comments section in a Blog. It is highly complex and if you don’t take the time to study it, you really can’t correctly assess what is truly at stake and what really should be done.

On something as important as a suspect surveillance warrant, the variables in each circumstance as to whether or not to call for an emergency warrant vs. not calling for one--those variables defy a pat answer.

Yet knowing that either decision you make can cause you to lose your important lead and allow a terrorist to slip past you--that can and does cause a lot of wasteful and unnecessary “rethinking” and bureaucratic second-guessing during an operation. Do you really want to risk it and lose everything—can you afford not to? Do you want to lose your job because you called it wrong one way or the other? Not every circumstance it this extreme, but many are. As you maybe can see now, these situations are often not so “cut and dry”. The MSM and the public are quick to forget such facts when it comes to the War on Terrorism.

Remember how much the MSM and people have criticized the FBI and other agencies about the pre-911 refusal to seek a warrant for the computer information that field agents wanted to get off of the terrorist’s computer? That’s not quite the same as the FISA/NSA issues we are discussing here, but what I’m getting at is how the public takes way too much for granted and oversimplifies the situation with their 20/20 hindsight. We look back on that situation knowing that these people flew jets into buildings and killed thousands of people, but that was an absolutely unthinkable scenario to those making the warrant decision at that time.

I’m not defending what was done, but I am saying that we tend to gloss over those kind of facts when we “rush to judgment” on such important matters. The AG saw the warrant as a huge mess that he might lose before a judge and he didn’t want the problems that would be associated with such a loss. In the end, we all know that this was a terribly bad decision. However, at that time, it was also a bureaucratic decision. Sadly, within the agencies, it is not much different now—its just that the bar has been lowered a little this time around. And through it all, the ill-informed public and media outcries have made indecisive quagmires out of things that should have been easy decisions to begin with.

As for the eavesdropping requirements, I do agree with you on the need for this kind of accountability in the warrant “application”. But, due to how the terrorists are operating today, there also needs to be a more streamlined way to get those questioned answered—FISA is not there yet and though it is a good system--it’s not near perfect and it needs to be changed to meet the changing tactics of our enemies. NSA was trying to do this, but to no avail--thus the "by-pass". Which is what started the “tiff” between the FISA judges and the NSA.

Terrorists work hard to operate behind the same rights as US Citizens have--so if we are to be successful, something has to give. We have to come up with realistic solutions if we are going to be expected to get the "bad guys" before they get us. It’s not a comfortable thought (nor should it be), but it is a reality we have to face. Either we accept that fact that we are going to get hit once in a while and suffer massive casualties and economically crippling attacks, or we get much more aggressive with our surveillance.

The real world is not a pretty place to live and you can’t have it both ways. It is going to be one or the other--no matter how many times you click your heels together and tell yourself "There's no place like home". Yes, we need to seriously question these issues that affect our freedoms--but at the same time, we need to do it with a full willingness to face the consequences of our questions and decisions. Over the last 20 years, the public has never been willing to do that.

That justice who quit the FISA was no big deal as those involved with FISA know it was more about ego and a judicial power grab, not the Constitution. There are quite a few "inside" comments and stories about that event and why it really happened. It's interesting to see people use that judge's resignation as proof the NSA program was illegal...they have no idea all the factors that went into that resignation...and the Constitution was not top of the list.

Put simply, the NSA project is constitutional if you read it one way, maybe constitutional in a "gray way" if you read it another. However, the cold hard fact about the program is/was what the President said (whether you like him or not):

…If you are an American Citizen and you are talking to known terrorists, we want to know what you are saying…

Add to that statement all the things Abraham Lincoln wrote about personal freedom during times that threatened the country. Read what he said should be done. Read about some of the things he did. It’s a real eye-opener for some people. And yet he fought harder to protect the Constitution than any other President before or since.

Constitutional extremists may find things to nitpick concerning the NSA program, but if you read the papers of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution, the past Supreme Court rulings concerning actions by Presidents from the Civil War through WWII, you will find that seeking out and going after US Citizens who act in a manner that poses a threat to the United States—specifically those communicating with foreign interests which are in open conflict with our country (which is what the NSA wiretaps were going after)...you will find that over the years, the “powers that be” were given sweeping authority to protect the common good and go after those people. The NSA program targets foreigners who are considered and known to be dangerous to the United States. If a US Citizen is talking to them, well, I’m sorry, we really do need to know what is going on there. The NSA program has not weakened us—and in fact has given us a HUGE shield of protection—right up to the point that it was announced to the public.

I am certainly not angry with you, Sam S. or people like you. Your comments to me and questions were quite legitimate and I am happy to discuss them with you...and am happy to hear and consider your thoughts on the matter.

It’s the people like Frederic, who have no idea what they are talking and yet have to resort to name calling and accusations to attempt to prove they are right--those are the people who anger me.

About not cowering in the past, if you mean not giving up our personal freedoms and rights in order to fight WWII...Please research World War II a bit more. Look at a number of the less talked about monitoring programs the government implemented and what our government did on the home front to find spies and citizens working against the war effort (some of the programs during WWII were so far-reaching and invasive on our personal freedoms that they are still classified). Those powers and invasions of privacy (in many, many cases) were far more sweeping in power than the NSA and other agencies have asked for today. Were there abuses? Certainly there were. But here’s what is most important to remember about that. Every time those sweeping powers were granted, we recovered our freedoms and moved on after it was over. It didn’t topple us or cause a Constitutional Crisis as so many have feared would happen.

Pertaining to the protection of the Constitution, technically, it is the government’s job (including all three branches) to protect the Constitution. It is our job to oversee the government that does this protecting. However, it is also our job to give our government the ability to carry out that protective task--even if it means temporarily limiting some freedoms we have for the common good of our country.

If we can’t trust those who are in the government with that protective power, then we must vote them out and vote in those who we can trust to carry out this vitally important task…

That’s why in the past the US has always been such a successfully dynamic and powerful country:

We have always been able to strike that delicate balance with our government….

Thanks for the discussion—I hope this has answered some of the questions you were asking me.

Frederic,

Yes, I'm aware of the Resonable Doubt/Probable Cause statements...but I was typing "freestyle" and not proofing for that. Most people unfamiliar with this would not notice or care about the nuances of the wording. And all of this can be pretty boring anyway, so I didn't really give it a second thought. Things are different when I have to do these blasted reports, though. Apologies for playing a little "fast and loose" with the terminolgy. Because of what you posted this last time, (DeWine, etc), it certainly makes the terminology being used by me very important.

Curiously enough, your last post shows that the FISA process can be very slow...in fact for the "72 hours warrant" that was mentioned...it is many times not fast enough. Again, I have seen it lost for want of three hours.

Overall, the FISA system is not broken (per se) but it does need to be given a good hard look and that look should be done with recent terrorist practices in mind.

I'm very sorry to have landed on you so hard in my last posts. CY will tell you that I have just heard so much in this line of work and received so many accusations from "professionals and experts" who don't know the drill...you just get tired of it and end up some nights with a very short fuse. Tonight was one of those nights...

Your last post was well done and had some great points...and please accept my apologies for jumping back at you so hard. Also, thanks for your Task Force work under DHS. It's appreciated.

WB: thanks so much for taking the time to write that. You probably don't realize how rare that perspective is for many of us, and it gives me an appreciation for the job. I have a couple of remarks.

I have two things to say about "if you are an American Citizen and you are talking to known terrorists, we want to know what you are saying." First, well sure that's as it should be. It's a sore point because the GOP has made a false issue into a bludgeon. I've never met anyone who objected to eavesdropping on 'known terrorists', and if FISA makes that difficult it's broken. The GOP keeps calling us sympathizers, and it's tiresome. Second, at one point someone stated that the surveillance program was constitutional because there were no names associated with the data. That's fatuous, because anyone can reverse lookup phone numbers. The president of Qwest refused to participate because he felt it was unconstitutional. The program smells funny to me, and as I said above I feel it's my highest duty as a citizen to be vigilant for exactly that kind of abuse.

My other point is that most of the anti-terrorism measures I see demonstrate incompetence, and I have to wonder how much is really getting done. I hope it's clear that I mean no disrespect by this. A lot of the safeguards are theater. A good example is when New York introduced a policy where every so many people who enter a subway station are asked to submit their bags for inspection, but it's optional. A child terrorist could figure out that he should refuse to have his bag searched and then walk to the next subway station instead. Showing ID to get on an airplane is silly; ask any teenager about fake ID's. Those Muslim/Christian/martial arts guys in Florida were bozos. The more recent case where a guy supposedly tried to mix a bomb from liquids is dubious according to all the chemists I've heard from, yet you can't bring a bottle of water onto an airplane. Pretend you're a terrorist for half an hour and you can come up with better ways to kill people that are no better safeguarded now than they were ten years ago. On the other hand, pull out a box cutter on an airplane now and you're going to get your ass beat quick, yet look where all our efforts seem to be going. A lot of what I see seems to be along the lines of "show the citizenry that we're on the job," and have the unfortunate side-effect of making us more tractable. You say a huge plot was foiled at one time, but I never heard about that. The two trumpeted cases that I mentioned above don't seem very impressive.

Thank you for the discussion. I really am grateful for your time.

Sam, nobody cares if someone is banging their neighbors wife, cheating on their taxes, or conspiring to buy a bag of weed from the mailroom boy, or organizing a demonstration to save the freaking whales.

DIA, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRO, ASA, etc THEY DON'T CARE about that stuff and neither does anyone else.

If someone can't trust the people charged with protecting this nation at least that much, then just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work must be a damn terrifying experience for them.

cfbleachers said: Truth is like kryptonite to leftists ... I advocate being an "issue-ist". Decide each issue on its own merits. Not because it resounds with or emanates from the left or right...but because after examining it thoroughly what's left IS right.

"What a hypocrite!"

LOL...usually people have to know at least where I stand on more than one issue...before labeling me a hypocrite. Apparently, Sam S doesn't like where I stand on THIS issue...since I agree with WB...

"A lot of the safeguards are theater..."

Not a bad point...just not thought completely through...

A lot of TERRORISM...is theater. Terrorism is designed not to defeat a military, but to impose fear in the populace and weaken their will. While most of the hard work that goes on, does so behind the scenes, you still need to combat the effects of terrorism by making a show of force of the GOOD guys.

In addition, terrorists are human (at least partially) and they make mistakes. People trained in law enforcement, who have been doing it for some time...are capable of "reading the street". They can see things that are outside the norm often enough...(not always, of course)...to make it helpful to set up a few "gauntlets" that terrorists would have to walk.

Lastly, I don't know who the "friends" are that are chemists...who don't believe that certain mixed chemicals can cause a sizeable explosion, noxious and deadly fumes, or be combustible with the use of a small lighter or match...apparently they never had a kid's chemistry set or knew my cousin Vincent as a ten year old! LOL

PA,
There are a whole list of arguments that could be made, but this should never be one of them; "trust us" is not a valid point. There's a reason the Constitution has checks and balances, and it's not because the drafters had the attitude that they trusted the people in charge. Please, never call yourself a conservative if this is your argument:

"If someone can't trust the people charged with protecting this nation at least that much, then just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work must be a damn terrifying experience for them."

Purple Avenger said: Sam, nobody cares if someone is banging their neighbors wife, cheating on their taxes, or conspiring to buy a bag of weed from the mailroom boy, or organizing a demonstration to save the freaking whales.

DIA, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRO, ASA, etc THEY DON'T CARE about that stuff and neither does anyone else.

If someone can't trust the people charged with protecting this nation at least that much, then just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work must be a damn terrifying experience for them.

That is naive, sure they care. I already gave you the example of Nixon. Politician have a huge incentive to get dirt on their enemies. You can extrapolate from there. There are moral and immoral people in every branch of government. Suppose an immoral person at the NSA has a grudge against some guy for bilking the agent's dad out of $10,000 in a shady real estate deal, or the guy that got his daughter pregnant, or so on and so on. Haven't you heard "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

When Benjamin Franklin famously said, "A republic if you can keep it," he meant if you, the citizenry, can keep the government in check. The foundation of the US is the unending struggle against tyranny.

cfbleachers: I just can't see how you can fairly entertain ideas from the left since you believe that truth is alien to the left.

Here is the first link that turned up from my Google search for "airplane bomb mixing liquids chemistry": http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
maybe it's wrong, but that's exactly what I read from two other sources back at the time.

Suppose an immoral person at the NSA has a grudge against some guy for bilking the agent's dad out of $10,000 in a shady real estate deal

Then there's no "law" written on paper that can stop them.

Cops aren't supposed to do contract killings, yet some have done so in the past. I knew an oldschool ex-NYPD wireman (now dead) who routinely wiretapped and performed break ins without a warrant for years. If you don't care if the information gathered is admissible or not in court, lack of a warrant isn't much deterrent.

If you think you can somehow legislate moral behavior, you're living in a fantasy world.

Purple Avenger: Then there's no "law" written on paper that can stop them.

Most citizens are law abiding. The rest should be punished. Why the quotation marks around 'law'? I'm confused.

Cops aren't supposed to do contract killings, yet some have done so in the past

What does that prove?

If you think you can somehow legislate moral behavior, you're living in a fantasy world.

I'm just baffled by this post. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I'm not surprised. I doubt you ever could.

"I just can't see how you can fairly entertain ideas from the left since you believe that truth is alien to the left."

Couple of points SS...I can entertain viewpoints from anywhere. LeftISTS...have a nasty habit these days of not being terribly fond of the facts. LeftIST dogma is no more appetizing to me than rightIST dogma. That doesn't mean that a viewpoint that emanates left or right of center has ZERO merit...it means that people attached to dogma and who manipulate and distort the facts are not particularly credible.

I believe the greatest danger in modern America stems from leftIST dogma. I think the Ministry of Media and all their branches intentionally distort facts and have bastardized our information stream in order to advance a leftIST dogma.

This doesn't mean that anyone who falls left of center can't have a good idea, or that all their viewpoints are wrong or bad. If you read anything I have written, I have made comments about Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Jim Baker, Scowcroft...it would be tough to pigeonhole me on a particular issue, to know where I would stand...BEFORE the facts are in.

Not true of people attached to a dogma. Or those who reside in the echo chamber.

I just see (in terms of national defense, homeland security, Saddam Hussein and Iraq) that most of the lies, distortions, manipulation of facts, against America (and Israel)...consistently stem from leftISTS...and their dogma, their Ministry of Media and then parroted by the lemmings in their echo chamber choir. I find that...harmful, seditious, despicable and in need of constant highlighting.

I agree with cfbleachers! All of the lies about Saddam having WMDs, about being greeted as liberators, as having flower petals strewn before us were made by Leftists (whatever that term happens to mean, as I guess most of America is Leftist now).

And, really, why shouldn't we let the Government listen to our conversations. They're so good at finding bad guys (let's not mention Osama). And they're just doing everything they can to protect us. Why, with the amount of government brainpower on this site, it's a wonder we still have a Constitution!

Purple Avenger: "I don't understand what you are trying to say."

I'm not surprised. I doubt you ever could.

I ask for clarification and you take that as proof of your superiority? You're not worth my time. Your penultimate post was obtuse.

"All of the lies about Saddam having WMDs"

I don't happen to think that Clinton, Albright, Cohen, Berger, et al...were lying. This is an inane issue. He had them. He used them. He was preparing to make more. Try to keep up.

"...were made by Leftists (whatever that term happens to mean, as I guess most of America is Leftist now)"

Now? Why? The CENTER voted to teach the Republicans a lesson. It didn't MOVE leftward, it voted in a way that moved the country just over 50% for Republicans previously, and just over 50% for Democrats recently. The country is a center....maybe slightly right of center country. Nothing changed that dynamic. You are going to be sorely disappointed if you view it any other way. "Most" Americans aren't any different than they have been...they still don't like the seditious left.

"And, really, why shouldn't we let the Government listen to our conversations."

The issue is whether there is a legitimate state interest in a limited surveillance of international communications. Again, try to keep up.

"They're so good at finding bad guys (let's not mention Osama)."

If we aren't as good as we should be...shouldn't we be doing things to make it easier to find the enemy, rather than harder???? I would think that would be a logical progression to this argument...but, maybe your view of who the enemy is...like most leftists...is America...instead of those who want to destroy her. I can't speak for you...

"And they're just doing everything they can to protect us."

And you think they should do less? We should make it as hard as possible to protect us? Maybe do nothing at all? What do you think would be reasonable to do, to attack our enemies, to stop their evil acts? I've not yet heard ONE CONCRETE IDEA from leftists on this. I think I know why...

"Why, with the amount of government brainpower on this site, it's a wonder we still have a Constitution!"

Again...leftists have this exalted view of how brilliant they are. When examined more closely...they really fall far behind the center in terms of college and post-graduate degrees statistically. In fact, they place third...behind conservatives in terms of numbers of Americans with college or graduate degrees. Centrists place first...by a wide margin.

The Constitution is not in trouble, but the Republic is...if we allow leftists to dominate the information stream with lies and distortions.

So, here are a couple of simple questions:

1)Do you believe there is a legitimate state interest in protecting America and Americans from sleeper cells of Islamic fanatics who want to harm us?

2)Do you believe that surveillance of their communications is a legitimate tool in protecting America and Americans, IF you agree with 1) above?

3)What is/are your concrete suggestion(s) for accomplishing the task of interrupting their cash flow, communications and planning?