Bush allowed NSA to spy within USA without warrants

Quote:

---

the Good Guys:
Alas, no. The discussion is not about any and all actions of the NSA. The discussion is not about any and all actions of the FBI. The discussion is not about any and all actions of the CIA. The discussion is about the story broken by the NY Times concerning Bush giving the NSA authorization to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign communiqués.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Pindar, would you please stop trying to handcuff the thread.

I started this thread, and I did not intend it to be strictly limited to 'foreign' comuniques. You keep trying to define them as 'foreign' even though they may have been domestic phone calls from American citizens to American citizens. The full extent of the program has yet to be revealed. I'm not sure why you keep trying to limit the discussion--apparently because you can't win the argument otherwise--but that was not the thread's original intent, and you are quite obviously begging the question.

Please stop.

Thank you

---

---

Regardless your intentions, the Times story was not focused on the entire corpus of activity within the intelligence community. There were story parameters. The focus was: "The Times reported Friday that following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States." This has been what I have been responding to. Garnering speculation of the unsubstantiated does not allow any real conclusions save for what is emotive.

Note: whether U.S. citizens are a part of one side or both sides of a foreign (understood as international) communique is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

the Good Guys:
If you recognize FISA cannot restrict the inherent Presidential authority to gather foreign intelligence and protect the nation, which is the only real option, then there is no illegality argument to be made. I therefore consider the legal question settled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I do not believe that it is so convenient and simple. That is the approach the Prez is using.

---

---

Do you belive FISA can restrict Presidential authority to gather foreign intelligence? If you do then you need to explain the legal rationale and respond to the opposing case law I have provided namely:

-2002 In re Sealed Case No. 02-001
-1984 United States v. Duggan
-1980 United States v. Truong
-1977 United States v. Buck
-1974 United States v. Butenko
-1972 United States v. United States District Court
-1970 United States v. Clay

If you agree FISA does not have that power then there is no issue.

Quote:

---

I can come up with half a dozen paths that the NSA are likely using that WOULD exceed the constitutional protections--apparently, so could some of the Admin's own legal experts and cabinet members as they did not back Dubya/Cheney's approach.

---

Which Administration legal experts and members of the Cabinet are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You need to read more of the thread. FISA does not apply to the President's basic charge of gathering intelligence to protect the nation. Note again the 2002 In re Sealed Case:

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

---

While I have no legal training, I wasnt born yesterday.

You can keep quoting the above, but I notice you always conveniently avoid the problem of where the "foreign" boundary is exactly (something that is not as clear), as well as the little issue of whether the President can bypass FISA if it does *not* encroach. You see, if the Prez is really staying within his Constitutional authority, FISA is not limiting him. However, if he is exceeding it...then FISA is limiting him from taking on unlawful authority, that would not be unconstitutional. What the President has done is establish strong probable cause for the latter by bypassing FISA in this matter. The potential for abuse is compounded by security secrecy used to shield these warrantless searches from scrutiny.

I don't see how you can remain confident in this after reviewing Dubya's track record. His pattern is to claim one thing, while his Admin was doing another. I'm still waiting to hear the rest of the story. There is a reason the President went outside of FISA and none of the statements he has made so far provide a justification. Conclusion: he's still hiding something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

While I have no legal training, I wasnt born yesterday.

You can keep quoting the above, but I notice you always conveniently avoid the problem of where the "foreign" boundary is exactly (something that is not as clear)...

---

Foreign refers to anything beyond the national confines of the U.S.

Quote:

---

...as well as the little issue of whether the President can bypass FISA if it does *not* encroach.

---

I have avoided no such thing. The President can bypass FISA. I think I have been quite clear on this issue. I have explained how this is so according to case law, legal opinion and a general exposition of President's charge of office.

Quote:

---

You see, if the Prez is really staying within his Constitutional authority, FISA is not limiting him. However, if he is exceeding it...then FISA is limiting him from taking on unlawful authority, that would not be unconstitutional.

---

This doesn't follow. If a law does not apply then it can neither limit nor serve as reference for unlawful activity. If you believe FISA does apply: as in it limits the President's ability to gather foreign intelligence make that case. I will read it. Thus, far all I have noted from the handwringers has been innuendo.

You didn't answer my two questions.

An allegation does not a revelation make. I don't address unsubstantiated claims.
Bull , you will respond over one claim made in a newspaper , but not on another related claim in the same newspaper .
Thats just you dodging the issue again Pindar .

Quote:

---

the Good Guys: An allegation does not a revelation make. I don't address unsubstantiated claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bull , you will respond over one claim made in a newspaper , but not on another related claim in the same newspaper .
Thats just you dodging the issue again Pindar .

---

---

The Times story was confirmed by the Administration. The Justice Dept. released a letter to the same effect. This allows for a detailed discussion and conclusions to be made. This does not speak to the quality of the reporting (the article's author later admitted to having read none of the relevant law surrounding the issue) but it is quite distinct from simple rumor mongering or unsubstantiated accusations.

You're not doing very well. Do you have anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

An allegation does not a revelation make. I don't address unsubstantiated claims.
Bull , you will respond over one claim made in a newspaper , but not on another related claim in the same newspaper .
Thats just you dodging the issue again Pindar .

---

I curious about what "related claim" you're referring to. Is it the story in the NYT that talked about telecoms turning over "calling patterns" to federal agents? If so, I've already said that they would be permissible under NSLs and the Patriot Act. If not, what then are you referrring to?

The Times story was confirmed by the Administration.
As was the "technical glitch" that meant domestic calls were tapped by the NSA aswell as foriegn ones .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

You didn't answer my two questions.

---

What two questions? Hadn't seen any when I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As was the "technical glitch" that meant domestic calls were tapped by the NSA aswell as foriegn ones .

---

What are we to conclude from this? Do you want to argue this was procedure? If so what is the support? If not, what is the relevance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

What two questions? Hadn't seen any when I posted.

---

Ahh, I see. The first question was: "Do you believe FISA can restrict Presidential authority to gather foreign intelligence?" This was then followed by: "If you do then you need to explain the legal rationale and respond to the opposing case law I have provided namely:

-2002 In re Sealed Case No. 02-001
-1984 United States v. Duggan
-1980 United States v. Truong
-1977 United States v. Buck
-1974 United States v. Butenko
-1972 United States v. United States District Court
-1970 United States v. Clay

If you agree FISA does not have that power then there is no issue."

The second question was: "Which Administration legal experts and members of the Cabinet are you referring to?" This was in response to your statement the Administration's own legal experts and Cabinet members didn't back the President's approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Ahh, I see. The first question was: "Do you believe FISA can restrict Presidential authority to gather foreign intelligence?" This was then followed by: "If you do then you need to explain the legal rationale and respond to the opposing case law I have provided namely:

-2002 In re Sealed Case No. 02-001
-1984 United States v. Duggan
-1980 United States v. Truong
-1977 United States v. Buck
-1974 United States v. Butenko
-1972 United States v. United States District Court
-1970 United States v. Clay

If you agree FISA does not have that power then there is no issue."

---

As I've said, FISA is not restricting him. Since the FISA court is not restricting him from using his constitutional powers, his reasoning for not using it falls flat. It is there not to restrict his powers, but to help determine whether or not he is overstepping them and moving into domestic warrantless searches. The review court ruling was useful in clarifying that, but by suggesting we as a nation have no authority over monitoring our President's actions it went too far. That is the crux of the issue and it is not going away simply because Dubya/Cheney assume they can do anything they want whenever they want. SCOTUS could be useful in setting some clearer boundaries. Right now the President is using the "it's within my authority because I say it is" approach. That is insufficient.

Quote:

---

The second question was: "Which Administration legal experts and members of the Cabinet are you referring to?" This was in response to your statement the Administration's own legal experts and Cabinet members didn't back the President's approach.

---

At the time Ashcroft and another fellow the Pres referred to as "Cuomo" whose name was similar but escapes me at the moment. There were about half dozen others that I've read about as well.

I'm satisfied to sit here and wait for the results as long as there are active investigations into what the President is doing. Since he has chosen to ignore those who could evaluate whether or not he has exceeded his constitutional authority, and with no valid stated reason, his actions become highly suspect. There have already been several admissions of domestic intercept "mistakes" plus some vague "stream monitoring" that could open some issues depending on how it is used (devil's definitely in the details on that one.) I've known about some of this for years simply from following some of the tech info outlets.

The way he did the FISA bypass, without any direct challenge to FISA and using covert protections makes this an abuse of power issue. He is using a power that neither the populace, legislative, or judicial branch believed he had. He has been unable to prove any need for it. While the legal burden of proof will be on any prosecutor/investigator, the right/wrong burden of proof lies squarely on the President's shoulders.

What are we to conclude from this? Do you want to argue this was procedure? If so what is the support? If not, what is the relevance?

That is something for the judicial commitee to decide Pindar , after it has investigated it .
For you to claim it is open and shut case before this investigation has taken place is ridiculous .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Regardless your intentions, the Times story was not focused on the entire corpus of activity within the intelligence community. There were story parameters. The focus was: "The Times reported Friday that following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States." This has been what I have been responding to.

---

Here again you are you are only giving us a partial truth, and cloaking the rest. Because of course my original post did not involve the Times report exclusively. I purposefully posted the wider MSNBC article that discussed the wider issue: e.g. "A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States" Raising the issue of what qualifies as 'foreign'--which you, time and again, have refused to define--is thus wholly appropriate and intentional.

Quote:

---

Note: whether U.S. citizens are a part of one side or both sides of a foreign (understood as international) communique is irrelevant.

---

Perhaps then you could enlighten us as to what qualifies as 'foreign'. Is a phone call or email from a US citizen in Chicago to one in New York 'foreign'? Because it seems to me that these were data mined byt he government without warrants. Just because something may involve terrorism doesn't make it 'foreign', as we all learned with Timothy McVeigh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

As I've said, FISA is not restricting him. Since the FISA court is not restricting him from using his constitutional powers, his reasoning for not using it falls flat.

---

If FISA is not restricting him in discharging his Constitutional powers then there is no legal issue. As far as not using FISA for foreign intelligence purposes: as previously explained, such does not fall within the FISA purview.

Quote:

---

SCOTUS could be useful in setting some clearer boundaries. Right now the President is using the "it's within my authority because I say it is" approach. That is insufficient.

---

If you read some of the court cases I cited you will note the President's position is hardly unique, but in fact has been the legal standard.

Quote:

---

At the time Ashcroft and another fellow the Pres referred to as "Cuomo" whose name was similar but escapes me at the moment. There were about half dozen others that I've read about as well.

---

I'm unaware of Ashcroft standing in opposition to the program. Given the Attorney General would have to have signed off on any such program (given he is the chief law officer and legal council for the government) such a view seems problematic.

Quote:

---

the Good Guys: What are we to conclude from this? Do you want to argue this was procedure? If so what is the support? If not, what is the relevance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is something for the judicial commitee to decide Pindar , after it has investigated it .

---

---

So the charges of dictatorship seem to have been a tad premature.

Quote:

---

For you to claim it is open and shut case before this investigation has taken place is ridiculous .

---

The above is not an argument. The program as described is legally quite mundane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Here again you are you are only giving us a partial truth, and cloaking the rest. Because of course my original post did not involve the Times report exclusively. I purposefully posted the wider MSNBC article that discussed the wider issue: e.g. "A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States" Raising the issue of what qualifies as 'foreign'--which you, time and again, have refused to define--is thus wholly appropriate and intentional.

---

So you didn't just want to just discuss the NSA program but actually also wanted to discuss Specter's intention to hold hearings? What would you like to say about this intention? For himself, as I mentioned early on, my concern is the legal question of the NSA program.

As far as foreign, as in foreign intelligence: I've actually referred to this previously. I don't think foreign is a particularly nebulous concept. It means something moving outside the bounds of U.S. Territory. This is a geographic qualifier. One could also argue foreign applies to non-Citizens. This is an identity qualifier.

Quote:

---

Perhaps then you could enlighten us as to what qualifies as 'foreign'. Is a phone call or email from a US citizen in Chicago to one in New York 'foreign'? Because it seems to me that these were data mined byt he government without warrants. Just because something may involve terrorism doesn't make it 'foreign', as we all learned with Timothy McVeigh.

---

See above.

The above is not an argument. The program as described is legally quite mundane.
Still dodging the issue eh Pindar .

So the charges of dictatorship seem to have been a tad premature.

???????

I'm unaware of Ashcroft standing in opposition to the program. Given the Attorney General would have to have signed off on any such program (given he is the chief law officer and legal council for the government) such a view seems problematic.
Ashcroft was temporarily incapacited at the time his deputy refused to sign off on this issue , they then went to hospital to get him to do it , Ashcroft is refusing to say what his position was in relation to the problem until he goes in front of the commitee .
I would have thought that since you have been following this subject for some time that you would know some of the basics , but perhaps the basics are too contradictory to your narrow appraoch .

Quote:

---

For you to claim it is open and shut case before this investigation has taken place is ridiculous

Quote:

---

the Good Guys: The above is not an argument. The program as described is legally quite mundane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Still dodging the issue eh Pindar .

---

---

---

What issue is being dodged here? Do you want to suggest the above is an issue and I am dodging it? Why would that be? Are you claiming to be a source of understanding U.S. jurisprudence? Have you offered any analysis that would demonstrate that idea? Have you offered any argumentation at all? As I look over the pass few pages of your posting: I can't really see any arguments, just the kind of comments like the above. If the above isn't an issue (which seems obvious) and it isn't an argument (which is equally clear) then what is being offered that would require a dodge? What is being offered of substance? Tell you what, so we can avoid these nasty dodge problems: put forward your substantive legal argument: your qualitative proof that makes the case for Presidential malfeasance clear for all as a reply to this post and we will go into it.

Quote:

---

the Good Guys: So the charges of dictatorship seem to have been a tad premature.

Quote:

---

???????

---

---

Note post 133: "But I am sure your wonderful legal expertise will be able to find another ruling that will show that the President can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants , wherever and whenever he so chooses .
Though of course , that would be the sort of powers that one would normally associate with a crazy dictatorship."

Quote:

---

Ashcroft was temporarily incapacited at the time his deputy refused to sign off on this issue , they then went to hospital to get him to do it , Ashcroft is refusing to say what his position was in relation to the problem until he goes in front of the commitee .
I would have thought that since you have been following this subject for some time that you would know some of the basics , but perhaps the basics are too contradictory to your narrow appraoch .

---

Ashcroft's hospitalization is some of the basics is it? All the standard NSA coverage has referenced this? Interesting, well if this is the basics, as it were: did he sign off? If he did then that undercuts the charge doesn't it. If he didn't then there is no way the program could have been launched.

Now I am going to need some help with the basics a little more since my focus has been the general legal question: I know Ashcroft was in the hospital is 2004 and he was asked to sign an extension because a Deputy Sec. had questions about some of the provisions continuing. Now an extension would suggest a preexisting thing. The NSA program was instigated not too long after 9/11. This would suggest a previous signing. But if there was a previous signing then...maybe the real Ashcroft (loved of the Left as a defender of civil liberties and the common man) was killed and another took his place, but because the pen used to sign the extension would have a finger print exposing the counterfeit Ashcroft, they had to replace him with Gonzales since nobody is going to check the fingerprints of a sell out minority. Ahh, its becoming so clear now. All that's required is to step into the Celtic mind and what was clouded glass becomes crystal.

Now I am going to need some help with the basics a little more since my focus has been the general legal question:
There in lies the problem Pindar , you put forward quite correctly that there are rulings that allow for this surveilance , there is an agency whose job it is to carry out this foriegn surveilance , there is a legal panel and oversight commitee to ensure that every thing is done within the stipulations that cover these proceedures .
Great , that is established .

Now then will you address the "mistake" , "technical glitch" , or even possibly wilful violation of the program that has led to the surveilance of activities that are solely domestic and not covered under the remit of this legislation ?

Then you can move onto the Ashcroft/Comey bit .
It doesn't matter if it was an original signing or one of the periodic renewals that have to be undertaken at regular intervals to ensure that the proceedures are being followed correctly . Comey refused to sign as he had legal issues over this rather mundane open and shut proceedure . Ashcroft is as of yet not saying if he went ahead and signed off on that which his deputy had refused to do .
Then perhaps you can approach the judges protests and resignation from the special panel that oversees these matters .

Ahh, its becoming so clear now. All that's required is to step into the Celtic mind and what was clouded glass becomes crystal.
Silly boy -10 for raising ethnicity .:no:
What is clear Pindar is that certain things are all legal and above board ...... So long as the legal proceedues under which they are occuring and the checks and balances to ensure that they remain legal are followed .

In this case there are serious questions which bring that into doubt .
Which I am sure your wonderfully analytical mind should be able to understand by the repeated use of the word IF in relation to the revelations and their accuracy .
And also the inquiry needing to go ahead to see IF everything in this rather mundane program has indeed carried out in a legal and proper manner.

Note post 133:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: that is in relation to your legalese arguements Pindar , not your government .

You ignored the main part of my post and only responded to the tongue-in-cheek portion. That is telling on a number of levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There in lies the problem Pindar , you put forward quite correctly that there are rulings that allow for this surveilance , there is an agency whose job it is to carry out this foriegn surveilance...Great , that is established .

---

If you agree the base authority to conduct warrantless surveillance exists then you have ceded the argument. This was the issue and my focus.

Quote:

---

Now then will you address the "mistake" , "technical glitch" , or even possibly wilful violation of the program that has led to the surveilance of activities that are solely domestic and not covered under the remit of this legislation ?

---

I see "mistakes" as mistakes, "technical glitches" as technical glitches and any "willful violation of the program" as a willful violation of the program. Mistakes, errors and/or abuse are what they are and should be dealt with appropriately. None of this relates to the base legality of the program itself which was/is the issue.

Quote:

---

Then you can move onto the Ashcroft/Comey bit .
It doesn't matter if it was an original signing or one of the periodic renewals that have to be undertaken at regular intervals to ensure that the proceedures are being followed correctly . Comey refused to sign as he had legal issues over this rather mundane open and shut proceedure . Ashcroft is as of yet not saying if he went ahead and signed off on that which his deputy had refused to do.

---

Actually an orignial signing does matter: the signing of any extension also matters as both speak to the legal standing of the program. That a Deputy shouldn't want to sign off on a program under review is not surprising. It fits the bureaucratic mindset.

Quote:

---

Then perhaps you can approach the judges protests and resignation from the special panel that oversees these matters.

---

Ceremony protests are meaningless. The Clinton appointee in question remains a judge: he simply stepped down from the FISA Panel.

Quote:

---

Silly boy -10 for raising ethnicity.

---

Raising ethnicity is -1 point: check your rule book.

Quote:

---

What is clear Pindar is that certain things are all legal and above board ...... So long as the legal proceedues under which they are occuring and the checks and balances to ensure that they remain legal are followed .

In this case there are serious questions which bring that into doubt .
Which I am sure your wonderfully analytical mind should be able to understand by the repeated use of the word IF in relation to the revelations and their accuracy .
And also the inquiry needing to go ahead to see IF everything in this rather mundane program has indeed carried out in a legal and proper manner.

---

If you are basing your remaining arguments on "if" then there isn't much to work with is there?

Quote:

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: that is in relation to your legalese arguements Pindar , not your government .

---

That is not how the post reads. The post reads as a charge of sophistry in defense of a tyrant (though not stated as elegantly).

To review:

-No legal rejoinders have been provided by the Irish Delegate.
-An Admission there are rulings recognizing the program's warrantless surveillance authority.
-A focus on "if" has been put forward, but the "ifs" seem focused at worst on possible abuse which, by the very label, indicates something counter to the base program.

So, we are left with a rather mundane program, that may or may not have seen abuse, but in and of itself remains legally sound. Hmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I see (..) any "willful violation of the program" as a willful violation of the program. Mistakes, errors and/or abuse are what they are and should be dealt with appropriately.

---

Right, now we are getting somewhere.

FISA explicitly limits the President's warrantless surveillance powers in time of war: 'The President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen days following a declaration of war by the Congress.'
Primo: the fifteen days have long expired.
Secundo: the 'foreign' nature of some of the taps under the post-9/11 program is now in serious doubt.

Anyway, this discussion has been narrowed down to one legal aspect long enough. Once again I think the lack of urgency and awareness of what is at stake is disappointing in one who would no doubt remember Madison's words: 'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'

I don't know what appliance Mr Bush has strapped to his back during public appearances, but it sure ain't a pair of wings, Pindar.

None of this relates to the base legality of the program itself which was/is the issue.

There you go again , that is not the issue , the issue is has the legality and proceedures of the actions been correctly followed .
Your position is exactly like replying to a subject alledging drink driving and you entirely focussing on if the driver in fact had a drivers licence at the time of the alledged alcohol technicality .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

None of this relates to the base legality of the program itself which was/is the issue.

There you go again , that is not the issue , the issue is has the legality and proceedures of the actions been correctly followed .
Your position is exactly like replying to a subject alledging drink driving and you entirely focussing on if the driver in fact had a drivers licence at the time of the alledged alcohol technicality .

---

We are like tag teams: Tribesman/AdrianII vs Pindar/Xiahou. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Right, now we are getting somewhere.

FISA explicitly limits the President's warrantless surveillance powers in time of war: 'The President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen days following a declaration of war by the Congress.'
Primo: the fifteen days have long expired.
Secundo: the 'foreign' nature of some of the taps under the post-9/11 program is now in serious doubt.

---

I don't know the conversation above, but they obviously haven't read the FISA very closely. Subsection 1802:

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title"

Foreign powers refers to among other things:

“Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor"

This authorization is what required a yearly extension by the Attorney General.

Quote:

---

Anyway, this discussion has been narrowed down to one legal aspect long enough. Once again I think the lack of urgency and awareness of what is at stake is disappointing in one who would no doubt remember Madison's words: 'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'

I don't know what appliance Mr Bush has strapped to his back during public appearances, but it sure ain't a pair of wings, Pindar.

---

Actually what is unnerving is the penchant of journalists and pundits to place personal political agendas over the security of the nation. (How's that for alliteration!)

I'll see your Madison and raise you a Jefferson. Regarding our foreign intelligence discussion: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free.. it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

the Good Guys: None of this relates to the base legality of the program itself which was/is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There you go again , that is not the issue , the issue is has the legality and proceedures of the actions been correctly followed .
Your position is exactly like replying to a subject alledging drink driving and you entirely focussing on if the driver in fact had a drivers licence at the time of the alledged alcohol technicality .

---

---

Alas, teaching is an unending process. The issue has been whether the President could authorize warrantless surveillance. This is what the Times and others were up in arms over. This is what I have been addressing since joining the thread. The President can authorize just such surveillance. This is legally obvious. The desperate opposition needing some other to then couch their opposition to now seems to be looking to hypotheticals in odd attempts to cast the NSA program as some sort of Nixonian scheme. This will not fly either.

Your driving example would be better if someone questioned whether Sheriff George had the authority to drive at night. After it was explained: "yes, his license does allow driving at night" to then find the questioner saying: "But, what if he were drunk?" To which, the reply would be: "evidence?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

We are like tag teams: Tribesman/AdrianII vs Pindar/Xiahou. ~:)

---

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com...ngaroos/10.jpg

I think I'm going to have nightmares because of that picture. :laugh4:

AdrianII:

Thanks for your post #232, you really got to the central bone of contention put forth by the left.

Moreover, you prompted Pindar's #235, which really sums up the Admin' stance in a nutshell.:2thumbsup:

I favor post #235 over post #232, but you always express your points elegantly -- which I do appreciate.


The Tag team picture is too rich -- and I like the implied pat-on-the-back to Australia made by those hats. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Republican senator Arlen Specter has vowed to hold hearings on this.



Hey Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

---

I'm sure this is to be used as rationale that the entire United States, and everything it stands upon and does, is evil, and furthermore that Israel is in the same category.

Wahoo.

Gosh, I've been back on this forum for 15 minutes and I'm already sick to my stomach. I think I'll leave for another 9 months.