January 17, 2006
ACLU, Journalists To Sue NSA For Eavesdropping on Terrorists
In an early morning press release the ACLU has announced its intention to sue the National Security Agency for intercepting suspected terrorist international calls and emails. The lawsuit is obviously timed to take advantage of a New York Times article critical of NSA intercepts. The ACLU lawsuit also has as plaintiffs several "prominent journalists", raising the possibility of a conspiracy between leftwing journalists and activist groups.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program.The arrogance of the ACLU/MSM lawsuit is breathtaking; that Americans should be put at risk because a few paranoid elitists believe without any evidence that some of their calls may have been monitored - and also, of course, that they're unhappy with the 2000 and 2004 elections and would like to stage a coup d'etat.
Thanks to Jay at Stop the ACLU for emailing me about the press release.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
02:17 AM
| Comments (93)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.
1
"Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program."
In other words, they were talking to terrorists (or the terrorist's friends)and now they are pissed that the government knows it, and afraid that their records will be leaked linking them to????
Posted by: Fred Fry at January 17, 2006 06:40 AM (JXdhy)
2
The ACLU has been trying to destroy America for 55 years. They are still at it. We used to call this behavior stubbornness. I think their America hatred for so many decades is more aptly described as pigheadedness.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at January 17, 2006 07:08 AM (xcy9v)
3
The fact that they're able to sue and aren't all in jail is indicative of the restraint and selectivity of the wiretapping program. As a matter of fact, it's a testament to the level of tolerance of the general public. I wonder if CAIR is on that list of "nonprofit" (read: nebulous) organizations.
Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 08:11 AM (osKlJ)
4
"/MSM "
Yes. Chris hitchens and the Hudson Institute.
Posted by: actus at January 17, 2006 08:45 AM (TEHSD)
5
Nevermind. I see CAIR is in there. And the odds are better for winning the lottery than guessing what side Hitchens will choose for any given issue. He's been disowned by the left for his stance on the war and now he's trying to alienate the rest.
Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 08:56 AM (osKlJ)
6
Prosecute the ACLU under RICO racketeering statutes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 09:10 AM (8e/V4)
7
I am glad to see your complete confidence in the government...I mean it's not like they don't have an agenda or ever make mistakes, right? Anyone who is against this type of spying must have something to hide. It can't be because they don't trust the government when it says 'trust me I only listen to terrorists'. Makes one wonder why we even bothered with the whole Constitution thing doesn't it? All we ever needed was a wise and benevolent Republican government and all will just super!
Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2006 09:25 AM (agTB+)
8
The fact that they're able to sue and aren't all in jail is indicative of the restraint and selectivity of the wiretapping program.
Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that thousands and thousands of people with no ties whatsoever to terrorism were being wiretapped.
The logical flaws in your statement are astounding. Are you saying that there are currently thousands of known terrorists wandering around the US, unapprehended? Are you saying that only guilty people file lawsuits?
If there were any evidence at all that the people being tapped had any kind of tie to any kind of terrorist or terrorist group, then the FISA court would have gladly issued a warrant.
If you hand the government the power to engage in warrantless surveillance, it will come back to bite you in the ass. Don't you people see that?
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 10:41 AM (xMayo)
9
"few paranoid elitists believe without any evidence" So how do you suggest they get evidence for a secret program? I'm sure if they ask they'll get an honest answer right?
Given the rights hatred of President Clinton, I wonder would they be so trusting if he was in office?
Posted by: David at January 17, 2006 10:43 AM (BhVb3)
10
From commie pinko Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain
a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Posted by: jim at January 17, 2006 10:58 AM (l+abj)
11
Jim, you've used the wrong modifier. Franklin didn't say "a little liberty", he said "essential liberty". Few people outside the ACLU would describe the freedom to communicate freely with terrorists as "essential".
But thanks for playing.
David, the Clinton administration engaged in warrantless physical searches, not just cell phone intercepts. I don't recall the ACLU filing suit against them, do you?
Again, thanks for playing.
Joel, read the response to David, and note that the government has the right and the duty to gather intelligence to protect us against another terrorist attack.
And thanks for playing.
Adam, if the President or another elected official screws up, he can be voted out of office. If the ACLU and/or CAIR and/or co-conspirators in the MSM manage to get us attacked again, where do we go to vote them out of their jobs?
But thanks for playing.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 11:31 AM (RHG+K)
12
Funny how the libtards never made a peep when the BATF and FBI under the Klintons were murdering white Christians in Waco and Ruby Ridge, but they scream bloody murder when it's a Republican president fighting fascists. Why is that I wonder?
Let me repeat it once again, in plain words: Liberals are enemies of America and Liberty, and should, must, all be killed, because they are actively aiding those who seek to destroy us. This is war, and they are the enemy as surely as Osama ever was, because they support him unconditionally.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 17, 2006 11:48 AM (0yYS2)
13
"Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that thousands and thousands of people with no ties whatsoever to terrorism were being wiretapped."
Do any of these people have any evidence whatsoever that they were wiretapped? The fact that CAIR and the ACLU, given their histories, are all over this is suspect in itself. Don't be naive.
"Are you saying that there are currently thousands of known terrorists wandering around the US, unapprehended?"
Are you willing to say there isn't?
Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 11:57 AM (osKlJ)
14
Bluto - Yes, the government does have the right and duty to gather intelligence. We have this really neat law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act that says how to do it too. All material present to the court is classified - no chance of a leak - and things can be brought to it after the fact if speed is a necessity. None of that sounds particularly onerous, does it? You claim you *know* those being surveiled are talking to terrorists - so what's the problem with going to a court and proving it? Again, mind you, a closed court. No chance of a leak. Nobody will get tipped off.
Improbulus Maximus - That sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Threatening wholesale slaughter of Americans and attacking our way of life. Even President Bush has said that the right to disagree is one of our most defining American qualities. You'd better hope the NSA isn't reading this.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 11:58 AM (GF8EU)
15
Joel, read the response to David, and note that the government has the right and the duty to gather intelligence to protect us against another terrorist attack.
No one is suggesting that the government shouldn't engage in surveillance.
It is my undestanding that physical searches were not covered by FISA; once that loophole was closed, Clinton terminated them.
The "Clinton Did It Too!" argument is, frankly, laughable. If true, it would mean that a Republican-controlled Congress sat idly by and allowed him to break the law, finally deciding to impeach him on a private affair that had no bearing on national security.
Can I also remind you that one of the Bush administration's many excuses for why 9/11 happened was that we didn't have enough people to analyze the intelligence data in time to catch the specifics of the plot.
How does increasing the amount of data without increasing the number of people to analyze it make us safer, exactly?
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 12:01 PM (xMayo)
16
Nothing like answering a question with a question. Care to actually answer my questions?
Posted by: David at January 17, 2006 12:05 PM (BhVb3)
17
"Adam, if the President or another elected official screws up, he can be voted out of office. If the ACLU and/or CAIR and/or co-conspirators in the MSM manage to get us attacked again, where do we go to vote them out of their jobs?"
You assume that we would ever know what the President is doing. Remember, he wants this kept secret, no oversight. Those of us who disagree say we don't trust the government to violate liberty in secret because they can be trusted. As for the ACLU and the press, they don't run the country, nor do they have the ability to govern, declare war, spend public money etc.
Your question is puzzling, almost as if you have elevated anyone who doesn't agree with everything that this administration wants as somehow dangerous. Are you saying the Constitution isn't robust enough to protect us? Ridiculous. Bush has all the tools he needs to investigate terrorists, he just doesn't FEEL like he has to do it right. That is the problem. People who don't agree with you don't like terrorists, we just want the President to follow the darn law instead of acting like a dicatator and then using fear to justify his actions.
And, for the record, I voted for this pissant in 2000 and am a registered Republican. I was raised to be suspicious of government and that to be conservative meant LESS goverment intrusion, not more.
Also, for the other poster, Ruby Ridge was on Bush's watch (aug 1992). You can't blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. Republicans ARE fallible too.
Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2006 12:07 PM (agTB+)
18
"Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that thousands and thousands of people with no ties whatsoever to terrorism were being wiretapped."
Do any of these people have any evidence whatsoever that they were wiretapped? The fact that CAIR and the ACLU, given their histories, are all over this is suspect in itself. Don't be naive.
Maybe they do. I don't know. That's why people file lawsuits: to uncover the truth.
"Are you saying that there are currently thousands of known terrorists wandering around the US, unapprehended?"
Are you willing to say there isn't?
Yes. I am.
And your challenge to that statement makes me laugh. If you actually think there are thousands of known terrorists roaming the US freely, then why hasn't your protect-us-at-all-costs government rounded them up? Obviously their civil liberties aren't a problem. So...?
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 12:13 PM (xMayo)
19
For the millionth time, stop quoting Ben Franklin on "Liberty", when the issue at hand is "Privacy."
Liberty means you can DO things. Privacy means you aren't allowed to SEE me do those things. Two separate and distinct issues. I don't have less Liberty just because you happen to be LOOKING at me DO something.
Thus quoting Ben Franklin is ridiculous in the extreme. But you Libs tend to be ridiculous in the extreme.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:18 PM (8e/V4)
20
>>>And your challenge to that statement makes me laugh. If you actually think there are thousands of known terrorists roaming the US freely, then why hasn't your protect-us-at-all-costs government rounded them up?
Is that was passes for logic in the "reality-based" camp? If thousands of common criminals haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of pedophiles haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of traitorous Liberals haven't been rounded up yet, does that mean they aren't out there? That's funny, I'm laughing.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:23 PM (8e/V4)
21
Having the government listen to your phone calls without a warrant isn't a loss of liberty? And, on another note, some believed that 'waterboarding' wasn't torture. Tomato, tomahto...let's call the whole Constitution off.
Posted by: Adam at January 17, 2006 12:32 PM (agTB+)
22
DistantAntennas: This isn't about criminal prosecution, it's about interdiction; stopping terrorist acts of war before they occur. And that makes it the province of the executive branch, not the judicial.
We don't (at least not yet) expect Marines to obtain a warrant before searching a mosque from which they're taking fire.
"no chance of a leak" - are you f'ing serious?
I must say, you seem to display the career bureacrat's touching and naive faith in process, rather than results. Do you work for the government, by any chance?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 12:33 PM (RHG+K)
23
I actually welcome it - and the reasons can be found in what joel wrote. The ACLU and the left (and possibly the Dems (they are still holding back)) are betting the farm that this program was abused and expanded to cover topics and target beyond AQ.
They are hoping their actions expose instances covering hundreds and possibly thousands of "AMERICAN CITIZENS" of "NON-ISLAMIC DESENT" with no possible tie or connection to AQ and terrorism.
Read the Lib MSM articles about this closely - notice how they all virtually return in expanded detail to the 60's & 70's with past abuses. the Walter Pincus article from a few weeks ago was probably the most glaring of the lot.
They are hoping (praying) for a re-play of their past glory and success. This is BDS!
I am fairly confident that the program (however used) 1) STAYED ON TARGET, and 2) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TREMONDOUS SUCCESSES IN THE WAR ON TERROR AQAINST AQ HERE AT HOME AND ABROAD!
If the above is true - then not only does this blow up in their faces - it provides (am being political here)Bush & company with a MAJOR ELECTION TOOL FOR '06!
The overwhelming majority of the American public (including some libs who won't admit it) WILL SHRUG IT OFF AS A FACT OF WAR AND PUBLIC SAFETY!
There are successes - they are classified - the time is now to start putting them out there TO BE PRAISED!
Don't believe me? Watch the Dems - they will get first shot at the info - watch closely if they start to dance and wonder off.
This doesn't compromise security! Note - the bulk of all info to date refers to the first few years immediately after 9/11!!! This is old material - programs and procedures adapt as required over time. Let's get the old shit out there NOW!
Guaranteed - lib/left that respond to me will waffle in with esotic hypothetical arguments - and not adress the reality that the American people will not give a damn about muslim "residents" here or those who might be "naturalized citizens" - not with a real war against AQ/fundementalist Islam!!!!!
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 12:34 PM (3aakz)
24
>>>Having the government listen to your phone calls without a warrant isn't a loss of liberty?
It is-- if you're a terrorist.
Otherwise, no. You can still spout off about your inane personal matters that nobody gives a crap about, and nobody's going to stop you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:50 PM (8e/V4)
25
>>>And your challenge to that statement makes me laugh. If you actually think there are thousands of known terrorists roaming the US freely, then why hasn't your protect-us-at-all-costs government rounded them up?
Is that was passes for logic in the "reality-based" camp? If thousands of common criminals haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of pedophiles haven't yet been rounded up, does that mean they aren't out there? If thousands of traitorous Liberals haven't been rounded up yet, does that mean they aren't out there? That's funny, I'm laughing.
You're vastly misunderstanding my point.
The premise of a lot of the argument from your side is that these people who have been wiretapped MUST be involved in terrorism. Therefore, that makes them "known terrorists". I'm not questioning whether there are terrorists in the US, there clearly are, but not in the numbers that would justify the amount of warrant-less surveillance that the NSA has been conducting.
The question here is whether the president can suspend our Constitutional rights in order to "protect" us. Your side says "yes".
If he can do so to wiretap, then why shouldn't he do so to incarcerate these "known terrorists"?
Posted by: Joel, "Traitorous Liberal" at January 17, 2006 12:51 PM (xMayo)
26
and ps., the more muslims you Libs let into this country, the more of your "Freedom" is going to be threatened, because we aren't going to bend over and let another 9/11 happen. Got it? Ball's in your court.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 12:53 PM (8e/V4)
27
Bluto - FISA restrictions don't apply to soldiers in active combat. That's a bogus arguement and you know it. It's the province of the judicial branch because Congress passed a law that says it is. If you don't like that, get Congress to change the law, but the President can't just ignore the law. That's called treason.
As for process...I call it 'law', and we all have to follow it. If you want to crown Bush as a King, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take it lying down.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 12:54 PM (GF8EU)
28
Carlos - You mean like how we bent over and let the first one happen? Does the phrase "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" ring a bell? I agree, we shouldn't let that happen again. Maybe we should have competant leaders who pay attention to the information given them rather than screwing off and going on a month long vacation. Just a radical thought.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 12:57 PM (GF8EU)
29
>>>Just a radical thought.
Distant,
Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver plate-- he refused the offer. News to you? And then 9/11 happenned.
How many millions of times have I informed an ignorant liberal about that. You people bore me to death.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:02 PM (8e/V4)
30
and ps., the more muslims you Libs let into this country, the more of your "Freedom" is going to be threatened, because we aren't going to bend over and let another 9/11 happen. Got it? Ball's in your court.
I will restate what I said earlier:
The data flow pre-9/11 was too much for our intelligence agencies to handle; increasing the data flow means an even smaller chance to uncover the specifics of the next attack before it happens.
It's that simple.
What you are supporting will virtually guarantee another 9/11.
You've already bent over and let Bin Laden destroy the America that existed on 9/10, and now you're prepared to hand a crown to the incompetent that helped him do it.
And now I'm off to check on that shipment of Muslims I'm expecting this afternoon.
Posted by: Joel, "Traitorous Liberal" at January 17, 2006 01:03 PM (xMayo)
31
Joel,
that's actually a valid and rational counter-argument. A rarity these days.
But the answer is not to decrease the flow of information, rather it is to INCREASE our ability to analyze it.
Also, I'd prefer let the folks at the NSA determine how much info they can handle-- not some check out clerk at Whole Foods.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:13 PM (8e/V4)
32
Carlos - Read 'Ghost Wars'. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around, and Clinton did make mistakes. Nobody's perfect. Including Bush. When he says that there's no way they could have predicted 9/11, that's manifestly untrue. When Cheney says that they could have prevented 9/11 if only they'd violated the consitution, that's manifestly untrue too. There was no sense that any of this information should be acted on. If the administration stepped up, admitted there were mistakes and set about fixing them, that I could respect and understand (even if, at times, disagreeing with specifics). They haven't done that. 9/11 is used as a justification for massive power grab and wielded as a club against anybody who tries to disagree. That's dangerous, and it's unamerican and I, for one, refuse to be cowed by it.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:17 PM (GF8EU)
33
Joel,
that's actually a valid and rational counter-argument. A rarity these days.
No, actually, it isn't. I see them all the time. And they are usually greeted from your side with personal attacks, charges of treason, and snide comments about the "reality-based" community.
But the answer is not to decrease the flow of information, rather it is to INCREASE our ability to analyze it.
The answer is also not to violate the Constitution, which is what makes America America.
Also, I'd prefer let the folks at the NSA determine how much info they can handle-- not some check out clerk at Whole Foods.
That's quite condescending.
But again, the question is whether we have a president who is bound by the law, or a king.
Posted by: Joel, "Traitorous Liberal" at January 17, 2006 01:21 PM (xMayo)
34
>>>If the administration stepped up, admitted there were mistakes and set about fixing them, that I could respect and understand (even if, at times, disagreeing with specifics). They haven't done that.
Distant,
Hindsight is 20/20. Knowing that mega-terror is likely to happen doesn't mean you know WHEN, HOW, or WHERE. Even today we are told it's not a matter of IF but WHEN. And to make things worse, the naysayers would tie the hands of our counter-terror agencies based on largely irrelevant Ben Franklin MISquotes.
But what mistakes should they fix to allegedly gain back your confidence. Be specific.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:25 PM (8e/V4)
35
Distant:
You rock.
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 01:26 PM (xMayo)
36
>>>The answer is also not to violate the Constitution, which is what makes America America.
That just begs the question. You've yet to prove wiretaps on incoming foreign calls is anymore "unconstitutional" than Customs checking foreign packages in the mail, or randomly searching people at airports. If the latter is kosher, then so is the former.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:28 PM (8e/V4)
37
In a polarized political environment (covering unspoken issues way off this topic) never - never ever admit a mistake!
It solves nothing but feeds the BDS.
mistakes can be reviewed and discussed later for corrective purposes - and not political ones.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:31 PM (3aakz)
38
hondo,
correct. Clinton was long gone from office before he finally admitted that watching 400,000 rwandans get slaughtered probably wasn't the right thing to do.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:33 PM (8e/V4)
39
And to make things worse, the naysayers would tie the hands of our counter-terror agencies based on largely irrelevant Ben Franklin MISquotes.
Willful misinformation.
The FISA court requirements were "come up with something, ANYTHING, within the first 72 hours and we'll issue a warrant". A warrant makes the surveillance -- and any evidence subsequently uncovered because of them -- legal. Airtight legal. No warrant = questionable legality.
Personally, I would prefer that cases against terrorists be on rock solid legal ground.
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 01:33 PM (xMayo)
40
"72 hours"
A phone called takes SECONDS, and then it's over.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:36 PM (8e/V4)
41
Carlos - While it's clear we disagree on many things, I'll give you credit for being honest. There will be another terrorist attack. It's pretty much inevitable. This is what makes me very skeptical about a President claiming 'war powers', particularly powers that go far beyond even the flexibility given during more conventional wars.
As for specifics...at this stage, I'm not sure there's anything *this* administration could do to regain my trust. However, in general, the report of the 9/11 commission highlights many of the problems. Chapter 8 of the report details how in the summer of 2001 alarm bells kept going off but none of it was properly integrated or acted upon. To reiterate Joel's point - getting more data does you no good if you can't analyze it, integrate it and act on it.
As for attempts to 'tie the hands of our counter-terror agencies'...that's what the constitution is all about - placing limits on the power of the state to protect the freedoms of the individual. At times these limits are inconvenient and troublesome but in my mind, they're worth it. The alternative is a police state. Law like FISA don't tie the hands of the intelligence agencies as much as you may think. Again, going back to pre 9/11 - they had the data, but it wasn't integrated or acted on. Those are problems of management and organization that can be fixed with litte changes to current practices. And, if changes are needed they should be brought to Congress, debated and voted upon.
If you think warrentless wiretaps should be legal - fine. Clearly I disagree, but I'd hope we could agree that making that decision is the role of Congress.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:40 PM (GF8EU)
42
Carlos - That's 72 hours after the fact. Not something I would want to happen often, but I don't think it's unreasonable. If something is detected that needs to be tapped immediately, it can be. It's entirely legal. FISA allows for it. Within seventy two hours, those doing the tapping have to go to the FISA court and say 'Hey, we had this phone call, here's why we thought we needed to do the tap right away.' Then the FISA court rules and issues, or doesn't issue, a warrant after the fact.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:43 PM (GF8EU)
43
Do note - when the left talks about this they will bend over backwards NOT TO USE THE TERMS AQ, RADICAL ISLAM, MUSLIMS, TERRORISM, 9/11 ETC.
They need to keep their arguments separate, hypothetical and procedural - for very clearly understood reasons!
It won't work.
I am ready n' want to play "politics" with this issue!
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:44 PM (3aakz)
44
All of the leftie trolls are still missing the point (or, more likely, deliberately obfuscating it). The NSA intercepts (not "wiretaps", this isn't 1967) were not intended to gather evidence for criminal prosecutions.
They were about identifying terrorist plots and foiling them before they occurred. And that is why they come under the authority of the executive branch.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 17, 2006 01:46 PM (RHG+K)
45
Do note - when the left talks about this they will bend over backwards NOT TO USE THE TERMS AQ, RADICAL ISLAM, MUSLIMS, TERRORISM, 9/11 ETC.
They need to keep their arguments separate, hypothetical and procedural - for very clearly understood reasons!
It won't work.
I am ready n' want to play "politics" with this issue!
If you're going to make stuff up, try not to have it directly contradicted by more than one previous post.
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 01:47 PM (xMayo)
46
>>>Then the FISA court rules and issues, or doesn't issue, a warrant after the fact.
Do you have a link/source for that?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 01:49 PM (8e/V4)
47
That's it? Your comeback?
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 01:56 PM (3aakz)
48
Bluto - I do understand the difference between intercepts and wiretaps. Your point is taken and I'll be clearer in the future.
So let's say that an intercept points to some American doing something illegal. Okay, fine. I think we both agree that something should be done. Since you've got evidence, great. Arrest him. Try him. Send him to prison for life. I've got no problem with that. Terrorists can and should be found and punished, but we can do that within the law.
What's your alternative? Capture the guy and send him to Guantanmo? Summary execution? All of that sounds remarkably fascist. I thought we were against something like that.
Every time we capture and prosecute a terrorist we put our values on display. We show that we can keep ourselves safe without abandoning our principles. If we do what you suggest, we'll be going to a very dark place.
Hondo - Huh? I have no problem talking about terrorism, 9/11 and Al Qaeda. I've done it numerous times on this board. It's a real threat, but not one I think we need to shred the constitution to stop. If we do, we'll just be doing their work for them.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 01:56 PM (GF8EU)
49
Carlos - Indeed I do. Check out this:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html
For reference, this is Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1805, Subsection F (yes, I know, a mouthfull), titled "Emergency Orders".
It says that the Attorney General "he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 02:02 PM (GF8EU)
50
The overwhelming majority of left and articles written do in fact avoid commentary on the reasons why this is occuring. Instead, they "personalize" it - and wrap it up with generalizations of daily life - and often express their own fears of gov't intrusion and targeting of they themselves.
Sorry, your not the target - your not as important as you think you are - and no one (nor the govt) gives a damn about your personal lives.
Capture and prosecute? To you it is a crime - to me (and I am fairly confident the majority of Americans) it is a war.
"Their work" is to explode bombs and other weapons inside American cities and kill as many men, women and children as possible - beyond that they don't give a damn.
Keep it simple - you clearly believe there is an acceptable risk - you clearly believe that there is some degree of "expendiblity" of American life - Ok, now clarify how far, how much?
In your mind the image is how you (and others) feel about yourselves. In mine, its (not) putting body parts in a bag (AGAIN).
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 02:18 PM (3aakz)
51
"72 hours retroactive"
Distant, Joel,
fair enough. I will concede on that point. But in return, could you please do me a favor and read this short article about the technology being used and why the FISA rules are inadequate for the purpose? Thank you:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/13468947.htm
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 17, 2006 02:23 PM (8e/V4)
52
"Let me repeat it once again, in plain words: Liberals are enemies of America and Liberty, and should, must, all be killed"
The true feelings of the right come through.
The right is no different than the terrorists. God help us all.
Very telling that nobody here condemns this hate speech, so I will have to assume every right wing poster here is for killing all liberals. Scary!
/IM are you really just an adolescent fat piece of shit who can't get a date? Does Daddy coming in your room at night get to you and you take it out on the internet? Poor fucking baby WAAAA I'm scared the terrists and liberals are the boogeyman, what a pussy.
Posted by: Angryflower at January 17, 2006 02:27 PM (Bss6w)
53
Hondo:
Your concerns regarding terrorists are valid, and no one -- not on the left, nor or the right -- wants to hamper government efforts to protect us from it.
However, you seem to think that adhering to FISA's standards is somehow interfering with anti-terrorism efforts. Can you offer one example of how following existing laws resulted in the failure to prevent any act of terrorism?
In an era where dissent is characterized as treason, being classified by a government agency as a terrorist and hauled off to a secret prison is a valid concern.
What mechanism would prevent the government from doing so if we suspend all legal requirements whenever the administration calls someone a terrorist?
I don't think you are following this power beyond the goal of eradicating terrorism. Once it's out of your hands, it's out of your hands.
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 02:37 PM (xMayo)
54
Carlos - An interesting article that raises points at least worthy of discussion. I'm not sure I agree with them - I'm pretty skeptical, honestly - but I think this is something that can be reasonably debated. Again, this is a large source of my anger over Bush's actions. If the law - FISA or any other law - is no longer useful or relevant, the proper action is to change the law, not just ignore it. That's what being a nation of laws and not of men is all about.
Hondo - Joel's exactly right. You need to think beyond today. History has show us that government uses the powers it has whenever it can. There's numerous examples - the Palmer raids, the COINTELPRO - where wide swaths of the population were caught in a driftnet, hounded for political purposes. Given that you want to kill all people with my viewpoints, I'd hope you can see how I might be a little concerned.
AngryFlower - Okay, let's knock it down just a notch. The Right may say lots of crazy things, but few of them are blowing people up. Really only a couple, and most of them have been convicted. See, it is possible to prosecute and imprison terrorists.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 17, 2006 02:46 PM (GF8EU)
55
The FBI agents who actually had to work the phone numbers coming out of this NSA program said they were pretty much all worthless. Innocent schoolteachers, Pizza Hut stores, people with no connection to terrorists whatsoever. Floods of them. The VERY few legitimate leads that came out of the program, the FBI already knew about!
Posted by: Michael Hampton at January 17, 2006 02:53 PM (FVbj6)
56
Contrary to popular belief, and what some would tell you, the idea that the FISA procedures are streamlined for urgency sake, is not entirely correct. The steps necessary to get to the point where it's so "quick" and "streamlined" is cumbersome and involved. It takes a considerable amount of time to come up with the paperwork and if all ducks are not in a row with all t's crossed and all i's dotted, it's back to square one and in the meantime said surveillance is stopped and it's back to square one. It's not a matter of someone just walking into the office and saying, "Hey, we had this phone call, here's why we thought we needed to do the tap right away." The telling phrase is "...if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable..."
This fantasy of "come up with something, ANYTHING" is just that. Fantasy.
And I like how Distant "rocks":
"...rather than screwing off and going on a month long vacation." Yeah, that was intelligent. As if a President, any President, actually takes a vacation in the sense that we do. Where we go off for a period of time and are absolved of any requirements related to our jobs. That was petty and part of the reason it's hard to take someone seriously if they have to devolve into BDS tendencies to make a point.
And you, Joel, are conveniently referring to "terrorists" as if they are each and every one plotting mass murder on their own. When in essence, the term is applied to their supporters, logistically, monetarily and ideologically. Yes, there are thousands "wandering around out there".
Furthermore, this armchair lawyering is ridiculous. There is considerable opinion out there defending these actions as well as opposing it without any actual court decision on its legality. But if it sounds like maybe someone did something wrong there are an awful lot of you out there who have already played judge, jury and executioner.
I've said here before, somewhere, there is a delicate balance between, say, the complete supression of Able Danger's information, as we've already seen, and unfettered violations of everyone's privacy. We are nowhere near that point as is being portrayed here by some.
Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 02:56 PM (osKlJ)
57
angryflower (or raging tulip)
Maxie is maxie - he is in a league of his own. If you want to react off him, attempt to define topics, etc that way, then I suggest you email each other.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:11 PM (3aakz)
58
The steps necessary to get to the point where it's so "quick" and "streamlined" is cumbersome and involved. It takes a considerable amount of time to come up with the paperwork and if all ducks are not in a row with all t's crossed and all i's dotted, it's back to square one and in the meantime said surveillance is stopped and it's back to square one.
Well I guess that explains how four out of 10,000 warrant requests were rejected. Four. Oh the terrible, terrible burden.
You know, I'm even willing to give the NSA a little wiggle room on the 72 hours thing, as long as they get clearance from the FISA court eventually.
You don't seem to get this: it's not about the spying, it's about there being no oversight whatsoever on the spying.
And you, Joel, are conveniently referring to "terrorists" as if they are each and every one plotting mass murder on their own. When in essence, the term is applied to their supporters, logistically, monetarily and ideologically. Yes, there are thousands "wandering around out there".
See, there you're clearly just inventing a reason to dispute me because I'm a liberal. I made no distiction between those who launder the money and those who plant the bombs because there is really no distinction to be made.
So let's say for the sake of argument that there are literally thousands of "real" terrorists and their support staff walking around the US right now.
If it's okay to suspend their civil liberties to spy on them, why isn't it also okay to suspend their civil liberties and take them into custody?
Ignoring US law to protect us is okay in some circumstances, but not in others? Who draws that line, exactly, and on what basis?
This is the dangerous territory we've entered.
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 03:15 PM (xMayo)
59
Time for all of the ACLU to be indited for aiding and abeting terrorist tear down their HQ in hanoi on the bay SAN FRANCISCO
Posted by: sandpiper at January 17, 2006 03:23 PM (U/q87)
60
joel
FISA's standards are adhered to on the vast bulk of material! What we are here discussing are the "exceptions". You will not accept any "exceptions" for any reason - be up front about that - state it - and accept responsibility for it!
THERE HAS BEEN NO FAILURE TO PREVENT ANY ACT OF AQ TERRORISM IN THIS COUNTRY! YOU KNOW THAT .... WHY IS THAT SO? What kind of idiotic question is that anyway - prove something didn't happen?
Be freakin' honest here with everyone! Your opposition/complaint is based solely on your own personal fear of the GOVT! ... and your argument is totally dependent on hypothetical extrapolations of "what if", "in the future", and "me - my life - my privacy".
In your mind - the greater threat to you is your own government - and I guess dependent on whatever administration.
I don't have that fear - and consider it irrational and grossly exaggerated - and I suspect when all this is said and done - the majority of Americans will agree.
Because I believe this "opposition" is politically motivated (BDS), I welcome this whole thing into the light of day!
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:45 PM (3aakz)
61
Joel, there's no sense in my discussing this with you because of your snide attitude toward me for a flippant remark. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities with my opening remark. Even when you concede a point you do it grudgingly and with disdain. The point I made in the end was that there is no concrete evidence yet that what has been done is illegal. If you're so concerned about the legality of it then why not wait until you know something illegal has been done? Unless you're a con law scholar, I'll wait for the conclusion. Your assumption that there is no oversight is just that, an assumption.
The nature of the enemy here is why things have taken the turns they have. They are insidious in the way they use our own laws against us. They hide behind our goodwill and tolerance. Unusual measures have been taken to curb this, but I'm not convinced our rights have been abused.
If you or any of us had answers to your last couple questions we wouldn't even be discussing this. And the previous questions imply you can't see the difference, or imply that there is no difference, between listening in on a phone call and just flat out arresting someone, then you've gone too far afield.
Quite frankly, I don't think the government has gone too far. If I find that they've used this for more than uncovering those hiding here planning to hurt us, I'll jump right on the bandwagon with you. Until then I have nothing further to say to you.
Posted by: Oyster at January 17, 2006 03:49 PM (osKlJ)
62
distantwhatever
I have never used the language you imply or expressed any sentiment remotely similiar - I personally find it useless and counterproductive. AND EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT.
If you think you can backup your argument based on your fears of future abuse at the hand of "fellow Americans" then your in sad shape.
I'm not interested in the details of all this - I fully know that the "interests and fears" in it are politically motivated. And because of this - I see this all as a potential powerful winning issue in '06. I want the Left to be the Left - because I know in the end - its a losing issue that backfires.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 03:57 PM (3aakz)
63
Michael Hampton
Read the article - interesting you pick out one very tiny piece from an un-named source (interesting still - the source allegedly is a former FBI official - not involved with the program but getting some information from it).
I laughed! You desperately need this program to be widespread encompassing thousands of innocent un-related Americans (Pizzahut line funy!)- and a failure to boot!
And when it not .... I'll campaign on this one in a heartbeat - that's what its all about isn't it? - politics - and I can see a winner in 06/08, and all you can see is a faded documentary on the '60s. Groovy!
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 04:14 PM (3aakz)
64
Oyster:
I apologize. I had no idea you had exclusive license to be snarky here.
Hondo:
I don't fear the government. I fear the incompetent fascists that are currently occupying it.
(Though I concede, with appropriate Oyster-approved disdain, that Distant was somewhat out of line in saying that you specifically wanted to kill liberals -- but we do hear a lot of that from your side, I think that was his/her point).
So I'm gonna leave you all with this thought:
How would you feel if it were Clinton instead of Bush?
Posted by: Joel at January 17, 2006 05:14 PM (xMayo)
65
You don't hear it alot from our side - you hear it a lot from few - and then extend it to the others.
Incompetent fascists? Such a grossly self-serving exaggeration and you can't see that that is the reason your on the outside looking in. Fine.
If it were Clinton I could only hope he would do the same right thing - without taking a hundred polls firsts and fretting about his image.
I actually believe that is the first time I have ever on this blog mentioned the name Clinton (except my senator)- a former president. Can anyone verify that for me? I don't look back and dawdle.
I didn't like Clinton - didn't vote for him - and I wasn't afraid of him either. Your governed by your own irrational personal fears, and want us to accommodate you at the expense of our own lives (not hypothetical for me).
It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 06:10 PM (3aakz)
66
Here we go again.
Seems that some here think the President has the power to do anything and everything to protect his people.
To them I ask, "Why is Saddam on trial?"
Torture? Murder?
Big deal!!
He was doing everything in his power to protect his people against Islamofacists during time of war.
What would you rather he do? Side w/ the Liberals and the ACLU who want him to whisper sweet nothings in the ears of his enemies?
Personally, I don't think the President has free rein to do anything he wants, and excuse it by saying its to protect his people.
But, then again, I'm not a big fan of Saddam.
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2006 06:36 PM (ByaZN)
67
A rather poor attempt to be intellectually cute - actually quite junvenile. But your welcome to it - a lame argument is a good argument - for the other side.
Another one of joel's problems is he has intellects like you for an ally.
Sorry joel.
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 06:59 PM (3aakz)
68
hondo,
Nothing juvenile about taking the words of someone and putting it right back at them.
Which side are you on? Saddam's or those that want to coddle the enemy?
Just wondering?
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2006 07:23 PM (ByaZN)
69
How about faux-intellectual or simply idiotic and plain stupid. Obviously you can't see how stupid you sounded. Great!
I'll make you happy ...
I'm on Saddam's side, I want to coddle the enemy, torture, murder big deal! Yeah!
And that achieve's what for you? Bush's impeachment?, withdrawn from Iraq?, What? Tell me.
I see the issue for the joke that it is, and laugh at the fools who desperately latch on it in the frantic belief THIS will change the course of history as they see it.
Dream on you silly boy.
Don't worry - you will find another "issue" in a few weeks that will CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY (AND GET RID OF BUSH)!
ha ha
Posted by: hondo at January 17, 2006 07:57 PM (3aakz)
70
Hondo:
You're willing to hand over your civil liberties to Bush on the shaky premise that he's protecting you, without any evidence demonstrating that you are, in fact, safer because of his actions. Not having been blown up yet is hardly proof of that.
And somehow you don't see that as "trembling in fear".
Whatever.
Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 08:23 AM (xMayo)
71
If they really are only targeting "terrorists," it is hard to understand why they didn't follow the law and get the secret warrants that can be obtained retroactively up to 72 hours after the tap. So it is a reasonable suspicion that they are also listening in on people for whom there is not even probable cause sufficient to satisfy a court that has almost never rejected a warrant request.
Posted by: trrll at January 18, 2006 10:01 AM (6ORla)
72
Those who favor this expansion of presidential power might want to consider the virtual certainty that the "War on Terror" will outlast Bush's presidency, and considering the narrowness of the Bush victories, there is no guarantee that all future presidents will be conservative. Would you really want to place this level of unfettered power in the hands of, say, President Hillary?
Posted by: trrll at January 18, 2006 10:06 AM (6ORla)
73
Apologies Hondo. I confused somebody else's post with one of yours. Please excuse my carelessness.
Posted by: DistantAntennas at January 18, 2006 10:47 AM (GF8EU)
74
Your all an hysterical joke filled and blinded by your bizzaro fantasies of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE being just five minutes away like a bad Sci fi movie - and you and vigilance the only safeguard. It isn't and you aren't!
Sorry joel and others - they are no plans for concentration camps in Kansas, your next door neighbor is not CIA spying on you, satellites don't peek into your windows etc etc etc. because you are nobody - NOBODY - do you understand? The only heroic important pedestal your on is in you mind.
You expect us to seriously accommodate your anxieties, fears, and "what if" nightmare fantasies? Because? - Especially when all this is soooo blantantly driven by your current personal political beliefs ...
You know what - before this story - you already had these same very fears and concerns! Because that is key to your belief system - you need the fantasy of AMERIKA to give you meaning.
Why continue ....
Suffice to say - this attempt at BDS will achieve absolutely NOTHING like all the lame others in the past. Bush & company and policies will continue on!!! You will fail because you are incompetant joke who alienates more and more Americans (who are not conservative) every day! and you are too stupid and smugly arrogant to see it. Fine.
All I care about right know is seeing how this NSA issue can work in 06/08 for Bush and fellow Conservatives to win and increase their majorities in the Congress .... and it will! And I'm lovin' this! ... so help me out here joel ... run down to your local mall .. hand out flyers ... get a bullhorn ... AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE!! ... yeah, they been hearin' that since the 60's - a real winning issue - yeah ... like they haven't hear it from the lib/left for decades.
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 11:14 AM (3aakz)
75
Oh forgot -
When the people in the Mall blow you off - don't forget to insult them (stupid, fascist, racist, sexist etc etc etc) -
then ask them to vote liberal and Democratic.
(I have actually seen this technique utilized several times over the years - and works every time - for the other side of course .. use it .. your good at it! You'll lose but you will feel good about yourself - I can live with that.)
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 11:25 AM (3aakz)
76
hondo,
And if all the things you say joel fears do come true, you will ignore them, cite 911, and continue Bush's blind faith initiative program.
BTW, Boo!
Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 11:46 AM (ByaZN)
77
Ooooooo! A "what if" argument! How predictable ha ha! And you actually think it signifys intelligence and thoughtfullness on your part ... how flacid.
Oh - remember - I support Saddam, murder, torture - now didn't that achieve something for you? Make your day - end world hunger, depose Bush?
Bush wins - left loses (again) - thats what matters! And I love it!
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 12:08 PM (3aakz)
78
Sorry joel and others - they are no plans for concentration camps in Kansas, your next door neighbor is not CIA spying on you, satellites don't peek into your windows etc etc etc. because you are nobody - NOBODY - do you understand? The only heroic important pedestal your on is in you mind.
A nobody? I'm an American citizen. That means I'm entitled to certain rights that your precious god-king thinks he can ignore any time he feels like it.
Or is it that in this demented episode of "24" you seem to inhabit, rights are reserved only for "somebodies"?
And if Bush wanted to set up concentration camps in Kansas, exactly what would prevent him from doing so if Americans like you support him no matter what he does?
Shut your eyes and tremble away, coward. President Daddy will take care of you.
Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 12:36 PM (xMayo)
79
And you really think your dark juvenile fantasies of AMERIKA are a selling point & winning issue with the majority of Americans (conservative or otherwise).
Dream on in your silly lil' mental closet of personal obsessive fears and anxieties. Your kind has been marketing them for decades, and they don't sell on Main Street.
And you hope to achieve ... what is it exactly? How?
The only one trembling is you - which you remind us constantly of your fears over and over and over again.
I remember counterparts to you in the 80's - obsessively terrified & confident Ronald Reagan would start WW3 and nuke the world.
They were a joke - strange isn't it - positively convinced and hoping for the worse - just to prove their lil' point - and not realizing how totally idiotic that sounds to everyone else watching.
So, no concentration camps, no police state, no Nazi parades, no dark nightmare fantasies ...
and you would be soooooo disapointed! Now that is funny! - And you can't get the joke!
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 01:32 PM (3aakz)
80
One of my favorite things is someone trying to put down someone else's intellect, and using the most horrendous spelling and grammar to do so.
Hondo:
It's ironic that while you ridicule people who have enough imagination to foresee abuse-of-power problems, you are advocating the steps that would lead to those same abuse-of-power problems.
"You dumb liberals, the government will never be able to create a police state; and to prove it we should tear down existing obstacles that prevent the creation of a police state."
That is what I hear in your comments -- but to be fair, there's a lot of baseless speculation on my fantasies to wade through to find any coherent message. The level of discourse you seem to be looking for is about half a step above "I know you are but what am I".
Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 02:12 PM (xMayo)
81
Typical first comment and often repeated by fresh-faced smug lil' wannabe intellects who think the world should be dazzled with the brilliance of their thoughts.
I saw that coming - commented on this aspect numerous time in the past - and laugh about it. I don't bother to preview and proof - not for a blog.
joel - I have a 4th grade education, I can barely write my name! .. And speaking! Why that's a chore in itself! Only read books with pictures! ... I could go on ...
Does this make you feel better, joel? Make you feel - smarter?, enlightened?, wise beyond your years? That's nice.
You call it imagination? That's funny! Your hopeless lil' dark fantasy - can you sell it to the masses joel? Can you convince others to act on your feelings? No?
Then its all worthless BS that achieves absolutely nothing 'cept get you off and make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But that OK with me. Because what's important is who's in charge, in power, calling the shots ... it ain't you or anyone like you ... and it ain't ever going to be ... because your to lame, moronic, and blind to see how un-marketable you are.
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 02:37 PM (3aakz)
82
Because what's important is who's in charge, in power, calling the shots ... it ain't you or anyone like you ... and it ain't ever going to be ... because your to lame, moronic, and blind to see how un-marketable you are.
So you're a whore for power.
That explains a lot.
Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 02:47 PM (xMayo)
83
Yes
Feel better now? Have you achieved something - anything?
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 03:12 PM (3aakz)
84
Have you?
Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 03:24 PM (xMayo)
85
Yes - defeated Gore/Kerry, toppled Saddam, threw out the Taliban, trying to reshape the Middle East equation (verdict still out), decimated AQ (both on and off camera), prevented any further attacks inside the US, re-shaping the Supreme Court for the next 20 years, fighting liberalism and leftism here in America - sometimes successfully - sometimes checking them in place for another day - but they are not winning anything - anywhere,
holding on to the House and Senate for what - 12 years now?, and looking to turn thins like this topic into a winning issue to increase that strength ....
I could go on .. right? And you? ....
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 03:52 PM (3aakz)
86
Congratulations. You're a good little fascist.
Posted by: Joel at January 18, 2006 04:36 PM (xMayo)
87
Thank you - that was fully anticipated.
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 04:40 PM (3aakz)
88
What would make me feel better is if Americans (I'm talking to you, hondo) would open their eyes to see what's happening to their country.
hondo = lemming
Here's a little trick for you, hondo.
Take your arguement and change the word 'Bush' to 'Clinton'.
Now do you get it?
Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 07:22 PM (ByaZN)
89
First of all, let me write a few words about winning.
Abramoff, Diebold, MSM.
You're right about one thing. It's an absolute embarrassment that Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of Ice Cream, but the greatest nation in the history of mankind has 2 political parties: Republican and Republican-Lite.
Yes, I am a loser. I'm just an American not an American Corporation.
BTW, why would terrorists waste their time coming to America to attack Americans?
They're not made of money.
All they need to do is wait for Dear Leader to put Americans in another country (without the proper armor, no less) to be attacked.
He may be a moron President, but he's OUR moron President.
Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 07:41 PM (ByaZN)
90
Your upset - its starting to dawn on you that you are indeed outside looking in - and going to stay that way.
Myself and many many others don't see as you see - so feel free to call us lemmings, stupid, fascists or whatever ...
I'm playing the numbers game here - don't hesitiate to insult us - then ask us to vote for your side - I like that logic - a lot.
Continue to see your failures and lack of influence as a conspiracy and plot - and not as a personal failing of lack of marketable skills. Carry on with my blessings.
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 07:56 PM (3aakz)
91
Please don't vote for "my side" (i.e. Americans).
Stay at home and keep your ignorance to yourself.
Peace out!!
Posted by: Robert at January 18, 2006 08:09 PM (ByaZN)
92
But I don't stay home - and you already know I am not actually ignorant - now don't you?
Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 08:14 PM (3aakz)
93
The law requiring warrants for physical searches was passed in 1995, and was supported by Clinton.
The Clinton administration engaged in physical seraches in the Ames case, which occurred in 1992.
Hence, the Clinton administration could not have broken the law since the law was not on the books. Hence, there were no reasons for the ACLU to sue.
Do check your facts before commenting.
As far as the ACLU is concerned, it protects the right to free speech for groups across the political spectrum, regardless of how unsavory these groups are. As for example, the right of neo-Nazis to march in Peoria, and the KKK to hold demonstrations.
The ACLU protects the right of the rightwingers to spew hate, lies, and distortions, as much as it protects other political groups. You people should be glad the organization exists.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at January 19, 2006 06:40 AM (dUpW1)
90kb generated in CPU 0.0468, elapsed 0.1495 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1319 seconds, 342 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1319 seconds, 342 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
