BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Protected or not Protected

--Story--

When it comes to putting this country in danger the New York Times doesn't think twice. It looks like the people over at the NYT thought our enemies still didn't know enough so they figured it would be a good idea to leak more. I'm beginning to think the New York Times hates America more than Al Jezeera does. I am going to explain to you what things are legal and what things aren't legal.

Before I make my case about the NYT and how Bush's actions are legal I want to explain the story a little better first. The NYT released classified information on December sixteenth and because of it a lot of bad has come. First the patriot act became more controversial (but still passed) and the elections in Iraq were forgotten. But most importantly our enemies knew not to use phones because thanks to the NYT they knew if they called a known terrorist they would be listened to. If that wasn't bad enough the NYT does it again. Now they are releasing more classified information about how the NSA is spying on e-mails too. So again our enemies will have the chance to adjust.

I have called for the investigation of the New York Times and people have said that you can't do that because they are protected by Freedom of the Press. That is a complete lie. It took thirty seconds to do some research and prove that wrong. Here is the encyclopedia description of Freedom of the press.

"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public speech for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting.
It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. In the U.S. this right is granted by the
1st amendment to the constitution.
With respect to governmental information, a government distinguishes which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest
. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest."

It is perfectly legal to try the New York Times for their illegal act. I'm not making this up, if you don't believe me then you can take a look at U.S. law. Which states, "whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person classified information, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to ten years. This statute is not limited in application to only federal government employees." Got it? They broke the law and can get fined or ten years in prison. Their acts were no doubt illegal. What Bush did however was legal.

Democrats are telling me Bush is violating civil rights and Republicans are telling me it's government intrusion. The only problem is that they can't prove what he's doing is illegal, because it's not.

Lets look at a little bit of law called FISA that the left is using against Bush.

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers".

FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811, 1821-29, 1841-46, and
1861-62[1]. The subchapters of FISA provide for:

Electronic Surveillance
Physical Searches
Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

The Act was enhanced by the USA Act (part of the USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government."

So that's mainly what FISA is but lets look at a subchapter to get more specific.

"The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, the surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided
it is only for foreign intelligence information and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."

You can look at this from a few different angles. You could say you can't spy on Americans, or you can look at it a little bit closer. You can ask yourself, what is considered a U.S. person? A U.S. person is considered a citizen or a permanent resident to the U.S. and I find it hard to believe that a suicide bomber would be either of those. Some are illegal immigrants. And some get a green card for work or college. But very few become U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Very few.

But even if I were wrong on this case, article two of the constitution grants the president the power to override laws during a time of war if it is needed for national security and to win the war.

Of course even though it is legal people are also saying it's unconstitutional which is also untrue. They are saying it is breaking the fourth amendment. This is what the fourth says.

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

Notice that word between against and searches? Unreasonable? Yeah, don't forget about that word, it's an important one because the searches are reasonable. The calls are to known terrorists and we tap into them for national security. That would be enough to convince me but you can't forget that we are involved in two wars right now! Things change at at time of war!

So now you know the danger the New York Times has put us in, how what they are doing is not legal, and how what Bush is doing is not only legal but necessary.

46 Comments:

  • At 26/12/05 4:46 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    First of all, this is like the third time you've posted about this.

    Second of all, it is a sad sad time when a newspaper has to protect a country from its own leader.

     
  • At 27/12/05 8:10 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    First of all, this is like the third time you've posted about this.

    That's so people like you would understand this, but apparantly I'm never right being a conservative and everything.

    Second of all, it is a sad sad time when a newspaper has to protect a country from its own leader

    Now that's what we call a 180 degree spin!

     
  • At 27/12/05 8:13 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    If you've got a counter "point" go ahead, but if I were you I'd keep my mouth shut because you know I'm 100% right on this topic.

     
  • At 27/12/05 9:13 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I heard some loser on Air America (I listen to both sides) yelling on about how what Bush doing was unconstitutional, I'm creating a post on my blog. A challegne to say exactly how it is unconstitutional.

     
  • At 27/12/05 2:06 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I don't have to "keep my mouth shut" if I don't want to, Cody. I never said you were wrong or cited anything specific you said. I voiced an opinion and I have every right to do that.

     
  • At 27/12/05 6:48 PM, Blogger Mary Ann said…

    Second of all, it is a sad sad time when a newspaper has to protect a country from its own leader.

    Oh, come on. Is Bush really that bad? I mean, how many civil liberties have you lost since he's been in office?

     
  • At 28/12/05 1:05 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    It's not about only civil liberties, necessarily, and yes, he IS that bad.

     
  • At 28/12/05 9:59 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    No answers forthcoming from her, again. Then explain WHY its that bad. We never whined THIS much about Clinton and he was AWFUL. What is it that makes you HATE a president rather than simple disagreement or dislike?

     
  • At 28/12/05 10:36 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I heard some loser on Air America (I listen to both sides) yelling on about how what Bush doing was unconstitutional, I'm creating a post on my blog. A challegne to say exactly how it is unconstitutional.

    I tried my hardest to listen to Randi Rhodes on Air America and I just couldn't take the BS covered up with emotion. I had to change the station after five or six minutes.

    I don't have to "keep my mouth shut" if I don't want to, Cody. I never said you were wrong or cited anything specific you said. I voiced an opinion and I have every right to do that.

    Okay, I'm waiting to see that comment backed up somehow. And if you actually read my posts you'll find that you're wrong and that's why I advised you to keep quiet to keep you from looking ignorant. You don't want to be that.

    lets look at the comment again.

    Second of all, it is a sad sad time when a newspaper has to protect a country from its own leader.

    So you obviously don't like Bush's spying program which by the way is something the NSA has been doing for decades with permission from presidents (yes even your beloved Clinton). But I don't see how the newspaper saved the country from him. He was operating within the law and just doing it for national security, the newspaper didn't make us more safe. Bush made us more safe whether you want to believe it or not. That's why I called it a 180 degree spin, your comment is of the exact opposite of reality.

     
  • At 28/12/05 11:50 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Cody, Allisoni can't help looking ignorant. Give her a break! :)

    Good post! And I don't care how many times you post on this subject, it needs to be said as many times as possible.

    The total hypocracy of the left is unbelievable!

     
  • At 28/12/05 12:51 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Gayle--you block people from your blog that disagree with you, so I take very little that you say seriously.

    I didn't state anything that I have to "back up" to keep myself from "looking ignorant." The only reason you dislike Clinton is because of his horrible sinful affair with an intern, that had nothing at all to do with how he ran the country. Certainly that was not decent behavior but look at what he did to our nation as far as crime, health care, and finances go. I'm sick of arguing about that because you always spend time thinking of some way to throw it back at me. Go to the White House's website, where it talks about each president, and read for yourself about the great things he did. It's all right there.

    I also have yet to mention ANYTHING that you said in your post. Bush has messed up so many times, Cody you even wrote a post about it if I'm not mistaken, and I have every right, just as any other American, to point that out. He has proved himself somewhat of a failure and therefore I am doing nothing more than simply observing decisions that he himself has made. I disagree with him, he embarrasses me and and my country, and that is that. Go ahead and bash me but I really don't care---You go on and on praising how lucky Americans are to have the right and freedom of speech, yet completely deny me mine. Maybe broaden your horizons a little bit and get to know some people outside of your comfort zone and then it won't be so diffult to rationally debate with someone while still being respectful.

     
  • At 28/12/05 12:54 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Also, if people like you would stop your hateful prejudice against those who disagree with you, there would be a lot more peace in the world. Excuse my "liberal" point of view, but I don't see how, in any way shape or form, you can see that as a false statement.

     
  • At 28/12/05 1:34 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    yet completely deny me mine

    What? I've asked you multiple times to expand upon your opinion on this topic and I still haven't seen it.

    Also, if people like you would stop your hateful prejudice against those who disagree with you, there would be a lot more peace in the world. Excuse my "liberal" point of view, but I don't see how, in any way shape or form, you can see that as a false statement.

    oh please. I don't think I've even mentioned the word liberal in my writings for weeks. This isn't about parties, it's about national security, you're the one bringing party politics into this. You take national security and turn it into Bush bashing and Clinton defending.

    He has proved himself somewhat of a failure

    He's made mistakes, like any president, but he's not a failure.

    and therefore I am doing nothing more than simply observing decisions that he himself has made. I disagree with him, he embarrasses me and and my country, and that is that. Go ahead and bash me but I really don't care

    I'm not even going to give you the satisfaction of wasting my time bashing you. You're just another lemming to the anti-bush army. Go have fun with your hateful propaganda, but do it where other ignorant people will pat you on the back.

     
  • At 28/12/05 2:01 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Hateful propaganda. Haha, alright Mr. Fox News.

     
  • At 28/12/05 3:10 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I have yet to see allosoni's example backed up...`

     
  • At 28/12/05 4:00 PM, Blogger Mary Ann said…

    If it's not only about Civil Liberties, then what exactly is it that makes Bush so bad?

    And besides, Clinton authorized spying without a warrant in 1995.

     
  • At 28/12/05 8:37 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I warned her she couldn't back up her side and now she knows I was right so the only option she was left with is to pass the "heat" over to me.

    Cut this "well even though I left an outragous comment I haven't taken a side on the topic," crap and tell us where you stand so you can attempt to back it up.

    And stop shifting the topic to a Clinton debate because you're more comfortable debating it. We're talking about phone taps and the NYT, not the policies of Clinton.

    Come on, I need a clear and concise argument on your part if you want to "rationally debate with someone while still being respectful,"

     
  • At 29/12/05 2:47 AM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 29/12/05 10:10 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    That's great advertising. YOU'RE STUPID! READ MY BLOG! I doubt I would even LOOK at your blog let alone read it. Spit on it maybe, but I wouldn't want the spit to suffer.

    (Can you tell I don't like advertisements or stupid people?)

     
  • At 29/12/05 12:10 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    The Recliner said...
    Gah, moron. Read a blog written by a intelligent person.

    http://www.imastupidleftwingnut.com


    By the looks of things your blog has no traffic so I'm going to delete your post so you never get any.

    Who's the moron now? Huh?

     
  • At 29/12/05 2:03 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    I'd say you're still pretty much "the moron" being that that wasn't my blog. The only connection I have with the blog I posted, which was:

    http://www.yeoldeprogressive.com

    is that I read it.

    I have a question about your little bulldog there, darkshatasourus. How much do you have to pay him, or is just part of the package deal of you both being idiots?

    It's good to know you have a policy of deleting posts that try to give both sides of an issue. Go ahead, delete this post to. It sure seemed to make you feel cool last time.

     
  • At 29/12/05 2:05 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Oh, and bulldog, you might want to choose an avatar that actually works.

     
  • At 29/12/05 2:37 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I'd say you're still pretty much "the moron" being that that wasn't my blog. The only connection I have with the blog I posted, which was:

    http://www.yeoldeprogressive.com

    is that I read it.


    Lets get this straight, there is two things I don't put up with here.

    Advertisements and insults that have no actuall opposing arguments following them.

    And I don't know how you can keep calling me a moron. It must be pretty hard to make the N sound while your sucking on Michael Moore's penis.

    I have a question about your little bulldog there, darkshatasourus. How much do you have to pay him, or is just part of the package deal of you both being idiots?

    So why are we idiots? Because we don't go on to other people's blogs and insult them? Because we can actually back up our side of an argument? Or because we don't put up with stupid shills like yourself?

    It's good to know you have a policy of deleting posts that try to give both sides of an issue. Go ahead, delete this post to. It sure seemed to make you feel cool last time.

    What hallucinogenic are you on buddy? Don't you think allisoni balloni is someone with an opposing opinion? I deleted your post because it was not an opposing opinion. It had nothing to do with the issue just advertisement and insults. I bet you felt pretty cool yourself when you came on here and called us morons without feeling the need to actually make an argument. if you don't know it's called spam and I don't allow it, and yes I'll delete your posts if you continue to leave comments with no arguments but just links and insults.

    Oh, and bulldog, you might want to choose an avatar that actually works.

     
  • At 29/12/05 3:05 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    "Lets get this straight, there is two things I don't put up with here.

    Advertisements and insults that have no actuall opposing arguments following them."


    Ok, if your ground rules are specificity, I can work with that, you certainly serve up enough material.

    My mesage did have an opposing argument. Me calling you a moron intrinsically evaluated everything you say as wrong or stupid, hence argument. Next I posted a link to a website which is majoritively correct(and better written), which gives the opposition. If that's not good enough I'll keep it in mind from now on.

    "And I don't know how you can keep calling me a moron. It must be pretty hard to make the N sound while your sucking on Michael Moore's penis."

    Oh ho ho, so we're working blue are we? Okay then, I'll keep that in mind.

    Have a lot of experience trying to talk while performing an act of cock suckery do you? Personally, I'm not gay, but I've got nothing against you for being that way. Enjoy darksatorous's penis. I'm sure it's wee and vicious.

    "Because we don't go on to other people's blogs and insult them?"

    Actually, you do. Remember, you guys like to link all your sites together, and it only takes a couple clicks to find an opposition blog that you two have mutually defacated on.

    "Because we can actually back up our side of an argument?"

    Maybe if you weren't immediately opposed to reading the blog I linked to, you would have seen the argument.

    "Or because we don't put up with stupid shills like yourself?"

    Again, and it's a little pathetic that it would take you so long to understand this, I don't write the blog, I just read it. Don't write, just read.

    I've pretty much already covered that last paragraph of yours, so I'm not going to bother quoting it. I'm sorry to hear that a blog with different opinions is to a volitile of a subject to talk about on your blog. Hopefully your readers will make an attempt to read both sides of an argument on their own.

     
  • At 29/12/05 3:35 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Recliner thinks I'm a bulldog because he is confused by what is called friendship. Since he HAS no friends, he thinks I am paid off.

     
  • At 29/12/05 3:36 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    P.S. My avitar works if your computer actually works. Sorry if Mr. Recliner's doesn't have enough memory to run a simple animation.

     
  • At 29/12/05 7:59 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Good job changing and denying you bandwith leecher. I'm sure everyone's going to believe you now.

    If you would notice, my comment on the avatar was the only part of my post your master didn't dispute.

    Also, if you aren't getting paid to puppy guard this man's blog, you should be, that's just sad.

     
  • At 29/12/05 9:02 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You're seriously starting to piss me off dude. Let me try to explain it. Most people have FRIENDS. These are people you get along with and discuss things with. I know YOU don't have any (what a surprise) but try to imagine you do. Would you be your friend's "master" or vice versa? No. It's that simple, let me know if I have to dumb it down for you.

     
  • At 29/12/05 10:34 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    The thing that was said about sucking off Michael Moore....yeah, I'm SURE you didn't think of that on your own. and if you did, you have way too much time on your hands. Also, you may not be of an age that understands this yet, but sex does not equal love. There are more ways to show support for someone that simply giving them oral pleasure. :)

     
  • At 29/12/05 10:46 PM, Blogger Blagggh said…

    Hey, Recliner, Cody and Saturos happen to both be conservative Republicans. That's why their opinions are very similar and they back each other up. It's not because one is paying the other--besides, Saturos is richer than Cody anyway. Maybe next time you want to accuse someone of such a conspiracy as bribery, you could do a little research. You're like a blind archer, attacking these two when you don't know a thing about them.

    And Allisoni, the NYT isn't protecting anyone from the President...except terrorists.

    And to Gayle...just...amen.

     
  • At 29/12/05 11:03 PM, Blogger The Recliner said…

    Now satorous, let's not get grumpy. Why don't you kick back and have a juice box. No cookies though, the last thing you need is sugar. You're really grasping at straws with that whole no friends thing, and desperation is not a good look for you, though I doubt anything would be.

    Listen Blagggh, the situation here is painfully apparent. They are obviously both conservatives, and I don't doubt they are like minded. The issue here is Cody's obvious dominace over the other. Maybe they're just friends, and it so happens that bulldog finds himself without a life or anything to do, but if anyone posts anything that would appear to be against cody's liking, satorous attacks. He's an attack dog, and if your relationship differs in real life, I couldn't care less.

    Dark, gayle, blarrg, all of these people seem to know you Cody, have I unwittingly stumbled upon a blog visited only by a conservative middle school clique?

     
  • At 30/12/05 10:02 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    My mesage did have an opposing argument. Me calling you a moron intrinsically evaluated everything you say as wrong or stupid, hence argument. Next I posted a link to a website which is majoritively correct(and better written), which gives the opposition. If that's not good enough I'll keep it in mind from now on.

    Let me get this straight. I'm a moron because I take the side of an issue that has U.S. law backing it up? Or I'm a moron because I don't want to move to Canada because of an extreme hate for the president like ye olde progressive?

    I looked at his post regarding this phone tapping topic and I found that he didn't have as single slither of fact in there. It's just a collection of words pulled out of the Liberal playbook. It's the same old bullcrap. My writing is clear, well organized, and backed up with facts! My writing is much better!

    Dark, gayle, blarrg, all of these people seem to know you Cody, have I unwittingly stumbled upon a blog visited only by a conservative middle school clique?

    Well I don't know Gayle personally but I do know dark and blarrg. High school clique would be more accurate.

    Saturos is richer than Cody anyway.

    Ouch. But certainly true.

    Also, you may not be of an age that understands this yet, but sex does not equal love.

    oh of course, that's why I can love my dog without having to do anything to him.

     
  • At 30/12/05 11:10 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm not RICH, rich. I'm just a little better off. As for Gayle, you can't call her part of a middle school clique, she's 64 years old!

    As for Jon, I didn't know you were even on here. Welcome. As for Cody, good dog comment, but you know the "oral" comment was a little low.

    However I don't even see the point of arguing with this guy. We all know IM not the one getting paid, and shills get paid by the post. Unless he has an actual arguement I'm not gonna take issue with him.

     
  • At 30/12/05 1:49 PM, Blogger Blagggh said…

    The question here is not whether anyone is getting paid off or playing lap dog. I thought that this was the part where we talk about how stupid/treasonous/lawbreaking the NYT is in releasing this info...but apparently, Recliner here would much rather question our motives than talk about the issue at hand. If you look carefully, Cody is actually trying to rein this topic back in line:

    I looked at his post regarding this phone tapping topic and I found that he didn't have as single slither of fact in there.

    ...but there are some people that would rather interpret our like-mindedness as some sort of scandal.

     
  • At 30/12/05 3:27 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Well of course, because they can't have a real arguement against the post so they try to confuse everyone with irrelevent misinformation.

     
  • At 30/12/05 4:54 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    The Recliner said... ...I posted a link to a website which is majoritively correct(and better written), which gives the opposition.

    Great Blog! Thanks for the link -- I bookmarked it.

    Ye Olde Progressive Bloge

    The post is titled "Bush is setting the bar lower and lower and lower..." for anyone interested in reading it.

    mary ann said... And besides, Clinton authorized spying without a warrant in 1995.

    Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
    The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER..." It's not true.

     
  • At 30/12/05 5:39 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I went to the link and I honestly don't see a difference in what Drudge said in comparison to what think progress said. It highlights this part like it's important or something

    if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

    the whole thing.

    What Drudge says:

    Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

    What Clinton actually signed:

    Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.


    So what these idiots are saying is that because the Attorney General certified the requierments of the law they somehow never actually did the spying. Amazing isn't it.

    I banned you for a reason dkfz. I don't want you coming on here insulting every grammatical mistake and most of all leaving factually incorrect links. Stop trying to delude my readers. For the last time, you're banned. B-A-N-N-E-D. Banned. Don't come back.

     
  • At 30/12/05 6:57 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody said... So what these idiots are saying is that because the Attorney General certified the requirements of the law they somehow never actually did the spying. Amazing isn't it.

    No, that is not what it says. Read carefully:

    What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

    The entire controversy about Bush's program is that it allows, for the first time ever, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

    Cody Said... I banned you for a reason dkfz. ...and most of all leaving factually incorrect links. Stop trying to delude my readers. For the last time, you're banned. B-A-N-N-E-D. Banned. Don't come back.

    The link is NOT factually incorrect as far as I know. If you don't agree with what it says why don't you tell me why? I'm interested in the truth. Obviously the only thing you are interested in is defending bush regardless of what he does. Why do you think bush is above the law?

    Regarding the "ban" -- after I read what you posted over on "blog america" I thought the ban had been lifted...

    Cody Said... Keep up the good work, you're hilarious. I couldn't ban you from here, you're just too funny. You believe every anti-republican conspiracy out there yet everyone else is deluded. I love it.

    Allisoni Balloni doesn't agree with you either -- why haven't you banned her?

     
  • At 31/12/05 11:14 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Okay, I see your point about the difference.

    But you could look at FISA two ways.

    No calls with US citizens can be legally tapped. Or, as long as you tap the calls to gain information about foriegn powers and even though a US citizen is a party you are not gaining information about them.

    But if all else fails you have to look at the constitution.

    Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President Commander in Chief with the responsibility to protect the Nation. This authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization"

    Which sounds reasonable enough knowing that this program IS protecting the nation. It's proven that this program stopped a terrorists attack on the Brooklyn Bridge.

    In fact, I would call for his impeachment if he WASN'T using some program like this to protect the nation.

    Anyways, about the ban thing, that's for the blog America blog. Not here. If I remember correctly I asked you to stop with the personal attacks and you didn't and that was the main reason. So as long as you "play nice" over at blog America I have no problem with you posting.

     
  • At 31/12/05 12:45 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President Commander in Chief with the responsibility to protect the Nation. This authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization."

    Which sounds reasonable enough knowing that this program IS protecting the nation. It's proven that this program stopped a terrorists attack on the Brooklyn Bridge.


    This passage is vague and he's twisting the words so he can do exactly as he pleases. Getting a warrant would not be difficult. The reason he's doing it this way is so that he can spy on whoever he wants AND hide the evidence.

    Everything he's doing is laying the groundwork for the facist state that is to come. With every new law he pushes the envelope just a little further. And people like you will accept and defend anything he does! Because he's "defending" you from the terrorists -- because it's his "job" as president to "protect" the American People. All the while he's steadily chipping away at the RIGHTS of the American people! Don't blame me when the US becomes a police state. You were warned!

    Cody Said... Anyways, about the ban thing, that's for the blog America blog. Not here. If I remember correctly I asked you to stop with the personal attacks and you didn't and that was the main reason. So as long as you "play nice" over at blog America I have no problem with you posting.

    No, you're not remembering correctly. I responded to a post in which you claimed that Iraq's WMD's had been moved to Syria. I called you a Moron. There were ZERO other personal attacks. I'm sorry, I wouldn't have called you a moron if I had know the "WMD's being moved to Syria" theory was so widespread among wingnuts.

    At the time I THOUGHT that this theory had been widely discredited and not accepted as at all possible by anyone -- Democrats AND Republicans. I admit I was wrong about that.

    I'd call it a wacky conspiracy theory. Apparently it's OK for right wingers to believe in conspiracy theories -- but if anyone on the left espouses an idea that sounds at all remotely "conspiracy theoryish" he is immediately branded a "looney".

    It seems that is a double standard your side completely fails to see. I'm sure you find my comments about the coming police state extremely humorous...

     
  • At 31/12/05 1:17 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Firstly I'm willing to retract any WMD statements I've made because it is impossible to prove either side and I don't want to argue something that no one can prove.

    And about the whole fascist statement, It's just wrong. As much as you hate Bush he's not a fascist. He just wants to defend the country and this program is doing just that . I told you already that it prevented a bombing at the Brooklyn bridge. But apparently it's more important that we treat the bad guys nicely than to protect the country from them.

    I'm sure you find my comments about the coming police state extremely humorous...

    Well that depends on if you're being serious or not. If you actually believe that then yes I find it rather humorous. But if you're just trying to get me worked up you should be the one laughing.

    Now I don't know if you've read all five of my posts on this subject but I suggest you do so.

     
  • At 31/12/05 1:49 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Now I don't know if you've read all five of my posts on this subject but I suggest you do so.

    No, I have not. Do you prove that this brooklyn bridge bomber couldn't have been caught if bush had gone through the proper cannels and obtained legal warrants?

    Well that depends on if you're being serious or not. If you actually believe that then yes I find it rather humorous. But if you're just trying to get me worked up you should be the one laughing.

    Yes, I'm serious. I actually put that in my last post -- my last line read "but I'm deadly serious". I deleted it because I thought my case was strong enough to make it clear how serious I was. I should have know that you would think the erosion of our civil liberties is a joke. I'm not laughing.

     
  • At 1/1/06 10:02 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Just a little part of FISA to think about here....

    United States person is a party

    Don't forget that a U.S. person is defined by a citizen or a permenant resident. It is very possible that the terrorists are neither.

    And, can anyone prove to me that Clinton DIDN'T use domestic spying after the Oklahoma city bombings? Extra credit if it's from a reliable source.

     
  • At 1/1/06 10:43 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I just fixed my top two posts for legal miscalculations. It's all fixed now. It should be easier to understand and better backed up than before.

     
  • At 1/1/06 1:10 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    The Most Important Question of All in Bush's Domestic Spying Scandal. Monday, December 19, 2005. By David Sirota, The Huffington Post. (excerpt)

    Why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA court)? The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so "unreasonable" that even a FISA court would not have granted them.

    This is no conspiracy theory -- all the signs point right to this conclusion. In fact, it would be a conspiracy theory to say otherwise, because it would be ignoring the cold, hard facts that we already know.

    Two years ago, the New York Times reported that the administration is using the FBI to "collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators". Then, just a few months ago, the Times reported that the FBI "has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups". And just this past week, NBC News obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration's surveillance of anti-war peace groups. The report noted that the administration had monitored 1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period.

    These are exactly the kind of surveillance operations even a government-tilted FISA court would reject, and it raises yet more questions: Are these anti-war peace groups the targets of Bush's warrantless, illegal surveillance operations? Who else has the President been targeting? Has it been his partisan political enemies a la Richard Nixon? Or has he been invading the privacy of unsuspecting citizens in broad sweeps with no probable cause at all?

     
  • At 2/1/06 1:14 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    It's a stupid conspiracy and I will not be stupid enough to believe it.

    If the FBI is spying on anti-war groups it's probably because the groups are breaking some law. Like protesting without a warrant, and that's not so much of a strech, just look at Mother Sheehan for proof on that. You can't forget that the FBI is not the NSA. NSA is for national security. FBI is for investigating illegal acts within the country. The editorial has obviously spun the whole thing to make it look like it's actually a bad thing for the FBI to stop criminals.

    But you've still ignored some points here.

    One being the fact that there is proof of it's legalty. Two, even though Clinton said he wouldn't use domestic spying, that doesn't prove that he didn't. And three, the fact that this program HAS stopped terrorist attacks.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home