Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans

[odysseus]

It's about time that folks understood that the leftist media support the terrorists!

The media don't serve the nation but the almighty dollar and profit. The president reports to the American people. I'll take the word of the president over the leftist media any day!

This is simply way too glossy to really believe in. Reality is a little bit more gritty Mr. Camp David. While yes, the media is often leftist - they by no means are exclusively and far right neo-con stuff ala Fox news is easy to get.

Also - FYI: Many conservative "right wing" representatives and people are also criticizing the President on this. This issue crosses borders politically. While leftists will use whatever to get a hook into Bush on any weakness, that's just SOP in DC. However again, don't be fooled that this is not something that angers right wing types either. Especially Libertarians. Look and ye shall find brother.

 

[dasmi]

I haven't quoted one leftist, newspaper, media mogul, or Democrat. My words are my own. I for one refuse to believe something just because the President said it.

Also - FYI: Many conservative "right wing" representatives and people are also criticizing the President on this. Look and ye shall find brother.

Yes, like me.

He has a plan for fighting terror... The New York Times doesn't care about threats to national security... helll if there was another terrorist attack they would be delighted!

Oh, and I suppose the President does care. Perhaps we should ask the residents of Southern Arizona, California, and Texas just how much he cares about national security.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

The New York Times doesn't care about threats to national security... helll if there was another terrorist attack they would be delighted! It's about time that folks understood that the leftist media support the terrorists!

+1 (oh BTW, the co-author of the news article has a BOOK which is going to be published on the same subject within a month, apparently. So much for journalistic "ethics" (which don't exist, anyway))

 

[Camp David]

Oh, and I suppose the President does care.

Yes. His demonstrated success in national security since 09/11/01 is testimony.

The media have hindered the war and enabled terrorism. Worse, they do so and make a profit on it. They should be the target of your ire, not someone who is doing his best to guarantee your safety. Once again, you are misled by leftists... get on the right path, not the leftist path to treason!

 

[odysseus]

They should be the target of your ire, not someone who is guaranteeing your safety.

You have GOT to be KIDDING. NO ONE OR ENTITY is guaranteeing your safety. Nor your freedom for that matter...

 

[Biker]

Really? I didn't know a warrant was not required "at this point." So, you can tap, and then obtain the warrant after the fact?

Yes, under FISA.
Biker

 

[Trip20]

This example has some flaws. For example we all know that "intelligence" often can be anything but, and that operative word on "terror-cells" should be "suspected terror-cells" since if they had already proven to be, we wouldn't need to worry about all these warrant issues. I think a lot of people these days are forgetting to understand "suspected" and "innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty" these days; sad to say.

oddysseus, every scenario has flaws. As a given, it should be understood that all variables are in place to put you in the exact scenario as it's posed. To do otherwise is a dodge.

Then you go on about semantics? Pick A or B. Don't worry about what color the drapes are.

 

[Trip20]

Yes, under FISA.
Biker

Then why the hell didn't they get warrants! hmm...

 

[Tomcat1066]

Yes, under FISA.
Biker

This is also how you deal with a wiretap if an American citizen contacts a known terrorist and talks "shop". Warrant is still gotten, but any information can be used to fight terrorism.

I'm happy that way.

Tom

 

[Igloodude]

Why? You're using the words and ideas of a handful of liberal leftist media reporters... on balance to that I'll take the words of our brave president anyday!

Our "brave president"? Excuse me?

 

[jefmad]

Originally posted by Trip20:
Then why the hell didn't they get warrants! hmm...

That is the question that NEEDS answering.

 

[Helmetcase]

Devils Advocate:

You receive intelligence that another large scale terrorist attack is about to occur. The only way to obtain information is through a wire-tap. There is no time to get a warrant. The tap must occur in the U.S. as the phone conversation is between 2 or 3 terror-cells embedded in the U.S. All involved are U.S. citizens.

Not to pick on, but how many times CAN YOU MISS THE FACT THAT FISA LAW ALLOWS FOR IMMEDIATE WIRETAPPING OF ANYONE? THERE'S NO REASON TO NOT OBEY THIS LAW, AND IT IN NO WAY SLOWS DOWN EMERGENCY TAPPING.
Paint that inside your eyelids everyone. That's been explained about five times already in this thread. Let's at least stay focused on stuff that's actually worth debating . Sorry to yell Trip, I know you get it...but some people don't.

 

[odysseus]

oddysseus, every scenario has flaws. As a given, it should be understood that all variables are in place to put you in the exact scenario as it's posed. To do otherwise is a dodge.

Dodging? What variables? Your point is not clear to me. Anyway, the main thrust of that point is that if it is only suspected, and since you are a US citizen in the example and are "innocent until proven guilty", you should have the right to have a warrant signed off by a judge and treated as a citizen in this country is Constitutionally given rights to. Prove to me that a US citizen in the US is not to be granted that right. Care to discuss this point?

 

[Trip20]

It doesn't add up.

If they can easily obtain warrants after the fact (according to FISA as relayed by Biker)... then there is no excuse in stating there wasn't time to obtain a warrant.

Additionally, if obtaining the warrant after the fact, you need not worry about compromising the potential intelligence... you've already got it on tape.

I'm having a hard time finding a reason not to obtain the warrant. I'd hate to think the administration believed it would all be swept under the rug... and remain there. So of course they had to assume they'd get "busted".

What is the benefit of ignoring the need for a warrant?

 

[Trip20]

odysseus, the post says there's no time to obtain a warrant (this is before I knew one could be obtained AFTER the tap was complete).

Not once did I state a U.S. citizen was not entitled to due process. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't call me out on a debate where none is needed. I assure you we're on the same side team in that respect.

I posed a scenario. There is no need to comment on the scenario other than to answer A, or B. As stated, all variables are in place (as a given) to put you in that exact position. You have two choices, sh*t or get off the pot.

 

[Helmetcase]

What is the benefit of ignoring the need for a warrant?

Perhaps they felt it would leave a paper trail they didn't want to have around. Perhaps the worried they wouldn't get them.

But those don't carry much weight. Most likely, W believes he's God's instrument in the war on terror and that the Patriot Act and Congress's authorization to conduct the GWOT means to Bush that he doesn't have to answer to anyone. Short answer--he just didn't feel like doing it and didn't think he had to.

 

[bogie]

Is it possible for the president to do ANYTHING that everyone will agree is the right thing?

Folks are splitting hairs here... "It's okay for the NSA to do it, but they have to do something within three days" vs "It's okay for the NSA to do it."

They're gonna do it, regardless. What's being eliminated is the paperwork, and possible security leaks.

I swear, if Bush walked in on Bin Laden about to smash a spotted owl with a sledgehammer, and tasered him, someone would find something bad to say about him.

 

[Biker]

Then why the hell didn't they get warrants! hmm...

I have no clue unless thay just don't GAF about the law. Maybe this admin think they are above it? Ya gotta wonder...
Biker

 

[odysseus]

I posed a scenario. There is no need to comment the scenario other than to answer A, or B.

I guess that's why scenario's are always debatable.

There's always another way to interpret it.

 

[longeyes]

Maybe they don't trust the warrant scribblers.

 

[Trip20]

bogie, don't expect that any of this means much at all. 99% of the people here only know about 2% of the details involved.

This is all pretty much speculation on everyone's part. The people you need to worry about, are the ones who are not willing to change their opinion when given credible evidence - but instead want to continue bashing Bush, just because... well... it's Bush.

 

[Trip20]

odysseus - you stinker

 

[odysseus]

but instead want to continue bashing Bush, just because... well... it's Bush

I haven't seen much Bush-basing going on. There might be one or two who did. I am concerend about the precident and the Constitutional aspects of this and the office of executive power. I think most others who responded here are in like as well, so it has not been a Bush bashing discussion here. More of a inalienable rights discussion.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I think I have figgered it out. They are trying to save the taxpayer money.

When they arrest Joe Citizen for plotting to do terror they won't charge him.

Just lock him up.

No Trial.

No Defense Lawyer to ask the Judge if the wire tap evidence was obtained with a warrant.

No Judge.

Sorta like the KGB used to do it.

Saves us taxpayers some money.



No need for the warrant if there's no need for the judge.

 

[Trip20]

Correct odysseus... which is why I was pointing out the difference to bogie... by explaining he need not worry about this discussion, but instead those who.....

want to continue bashing Bush, just because... well... it's Bush

Sheesh, are you the post police!