Bottom line is that this country is going to hell in a handbasket. The war in Iraq was just a front for something totally different, something that the public will never understand, yet, our soldiers are paying the price. Now is not the time to leave. If we did, all those soldiers died for nothing. We put ourselves in this mess, we have to stick it out till the finish and most people dont get that, which is quite sad, since its common sense.

Left by chris on December 20th, 2005 at 3:59 pm

I’m sorry, I don’t understand why the President felt constrained by the requirement to get a warrant from the FISA courts. Is he spying on groups and people forbidden by that law or not?

Yes, some Congressmen were informed- then forbidden to say anything of the program- that’s supposed to make me feel better.

If the President wants the trust of the American people he needs to explain why the broad powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were insufficient to protect the US.

I don’t know what you call people in favor of the unchecked power of the Executive branch but ‘conservative’ is not the word.

Left by Preston on December 20th, 2005 at 5:06 pm

Preston — simple question: are you or are you not in favor of our govn’t being able to intercept phone communincations between known members of terrorist networks?

My answer is obviously yes, I’m in favor of it.

But I’ll take it a step further…I’m in favor of it by any means necessary. Our Constitutional rights are reserved for citizens of this country. Not for foreign terrorists.

Left by Robbie on December 20th, 2005 at 8:27 pm

It’s American citizens he’s spying on, and he’s violating our Constitutional rights. And there are legal ways for him to accomplish the spying you hypothesize. He’s either doing something else, or he believes the Constitution doesn’t apply to him.

I understand the macho appeal of your “by any means necessary” crap, but I wish you would propose defending our Constitution by any means necessary, rather than defending a bad president.

Left by Dan on December 20th, 2005 at 11:22 pm

are you or are you not in favor of our govn’t being able to intercept phone communincations between known members of terrorist networks?

Once again, we currently have laws that provide for even retroactive warrants for surveillance. All anyone is asking is that the President follow the law by getting a warrant. Then he can spy to his heart’s content. Someone will have to explain why this isn’t good enough.

Over at the Free Republic they like to imagine what expanded Presidential powers would be like in the hands of Hillary Clinton. I don’t know if she is your own personal bugbear but it would be prudent to imagine these powers in the hand of someone who you did not agree with politically.

Left by Preston on December 20th, 2005 at 11:44 pm

I’ll agree with the previous writer- your claim about ‘any means necessary’ is incredibly undemocratic and a bit frightening.

Left by Preston on December 20th, 2005 at 11:46 pm

Sorry, Dan — but it wasn’t American citizens he was spying on. It was known Al qaeda operatives…most of the intercepted calls were coming from out of the United States.

People who were not known Al qaeda members did not have their phone conversations tapped.

As for FISA, the methodology being used didn’t fit under the FISA umbrella.

Left by Robbie on December 21st, 2005 at 12:10 am

If you don’t want the FBI or other members of our government (who are trying and succeeding at keeping you safer in your homes from terrorists attacks) from listening to your phone calls, here’s my easy 2 step plan:Heh.

Left by The Horrors of an Easily Distracted Mind on December 21st, 2005 at 12:23 am

Additionally, the Fourth Amendment speaks of “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

If we learn that Osama bin Laden has recently called certain phone numbers in the U.S., our government should be able immediately to tap the phones of those with whom the master terrorist has been in communication.

That sounds more than reasonable to me.

And here are 28 more categories of warrantless searches that are approved under our current law.

Left by Robbie on December 21st, 2005 at 12:41 am

Robbie- You seem awfully confident about the limitations of this surveillance. What’s your source. Isn’t the point of a unilateral program is that no one knows who is being spied on?

Also- if you have a source on the limitations under the FISA courts I’m willing to read that too. But your assertions that we weren’t able to immediately tap the phones of our enemies is belied by the existence of retroactive warrants.

Furthermore- are you serious with that list? That’s the counter to opposition to the President refusing to apply for a retroactive warrant to spy on anyone he sees fit to? I’m sorry, that’s truly pathetic. Do you see how limited the examples are- they are situations of probable cause and implied consent and simple necessity. They are not on-going programs.

I’ve heard that when blindly presented as a set of proposed laws the Bill of Rights doesn’t receive majority support from Americans- it’s just chilling to watch that opposition in process.

Left by Preston on December 21st, 2005 at 6:49 am

How to not be wire-tapped

As you know, we here at MacStansbury.org love to tell people what to do. In fact, even if we can’t tell you what to do, we’ll tell you where to go! This is one of them times.

It seems that a lot of people, for some reason, have gotten up…

Left by MacStansbury.org on December 21st, 2005 at 3:59 pm

Another way you can look at it is that, why would anyone really waste their time complaining about it, if you have nothing to hide. Regardless of how much bitching or complaining that you will do, the Government will continue to eavesdrop.
if they did not do this and there was another attack on this country, everyone would be singing a different tone right now, wondering why we didnt do all we could to prevent a tragedy.

Left by chris on December 21st, 2005 at 4:22 pm