1 I swear I don't know what to think. The RINO's seem as bent on our defeat as the dhimmis and terorrists. They should all be tried and shot for treason, starting with McCain.

2 I've never really like the Partiot act for the following reasons. The name. Freedom is precious. Note history. Can it be said we are more free now than in 1900? So the natural progression is the erosion of freedom. What I would really hate is for UBL or other terrorists to be sitting around saying. Well we trolled the silly Americans into giving up some of their precious freedom. I'd rather fight them than give an ounce of it away. I don't want them to have the satisfaction. So that being said we do need tools and methods for this war. The best possible answer is sundown dates. Currently they are too close together. But neither do I want them removed. What I would like is for the terrorists to be defeated and at some point the damn thing expire. What do I think will happen? It will pass and eventually it will become entirely permanent.At some point some other use for it will come and freedom will be eroded. So for attacking my nation and trolling America to trade freedom for security I hope every last one of them get's his. Here IM http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/142705.shtml

3 Our history is full of freedoms temporarily compromised during wartime: the Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans. But all were redressed when peace came. Sure, until the end of the nineteenth century it was legal to resist arrest without a warrant, but I don't really miss the absence of that "freedom". Do you?

4 Whoa, whoa, whoa here. True, this is definitely not the first time the National Security Agency has overstepped its original intent. All through the 60s and 70s Cold War era, this agency was collecting information on US citizens they deemed as "dangerous" to national security. The fact is, the vast majority were dangerous alright, but not to national security threat. They were dangerous to the administration in charge. That is precisely the reason why, in 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, establishing a secretive foreign intelligence court, staffed by federal judges, to authorize intelligence-related warrants. The Bush administation NSA today, however, bypassed even the FISA court, which imposes only a minimal check. Why is that? The need to "move quickly is how I think President Bush explained it. But that doesn't hold up: FISA already contains an exception for emergencies that allows the attorney general to authorize foreign intelligence surveillance for up to 72 hours without judicial approval. Also, I don't get how news of the NSA’s program “alerts our enemies,” as president argued: FISA allows the same surveillance to be conducted under the rule of law. Could it be this is another dubious action the President and his advisors didn't think would pass the scrutiny of Congress? The orginal Church Committee of the mid-70s found that an agency without a legal mandate easily becomes an agency operating beyond the law. The NSA, concluded Church, had simply “not applied at all” the legal standards and procedures for electronic surveillance. Other agencies, including the FBI, simply failed to look into the legality of their actions. And defending the breaking of laws by noting this is a "time of war" is no better than defending it by saying "But we only do it on Tuesdays." My point is, are we truly a nation of laws? Or are we a nation where one man (yes, even the President), unchecked, can choose to ignore laws passed by previous legislators, without informing Congress at large and clearly? If we are to make the claim that we are exporters of democracy and open government, and actually have it believed by the average guy in Iraq, we'd better choose the first one.

5 I think if you could Give Bluto and I fifteen minutes on this we could come up with an agreement that was simple and got the job done.

6 So Mark, was FDR's censoring of the mail in WW2 legal or illegal? Cue Jeopardy theme...

7 IM; I'm not sure; could've been illegal I suppose, though the NSA and FISA did not exist at that time. What's your point?

8 No, Mark, we are not a nation of laws. Right now, our immigration laws are being flaunted by numerous jurisdictions such as LA and NYC. They refuse to enforce immigration laws, yet I see or hear very little opposition to the lack of enforcement of law written by the Congress of the United States. No, my friend, the rule of law is a farce. The liberals only want it when it supports one of their policies. And liberals are the first to throw it aside when it fits into their agenda. Hence the unauthorized spying by the Clinton Administation.

9 Well, if that is the case, then it is a sad statement on ourselves as a people indeed, and we no longer deserve the title we've given ourselves as "exporters of freedom."

10 Mark, how much freedom do you we feel we should give to say, covert operations run by foreign nationals intent on using our system to subvert it? As an example let's use so-called "peace" organizations that operated during the Vietnam War, which were actually Soviet-funded fronts designed to sew discontent and ultimately played a large role in Congress' shameful actions to abandon our south Vietnamese allies? Millions died as a result. Is it your position that Constitutional protections to US citizens should apply to hostile foreign nationals during a time of war, or do you just hate President Bush?

11 Ah, Mark, don't be too hard on the US or its people. What I wanted to show you is that the US is not perfect, nor should anyone expect us to be. But the liberals only want to bring up the subject of the US being a nation of laws when it fits their agenda, but flaunt the law whenever they want to. It's called hypocrisy, and that's the pervue of the liberals.

12 Interesting when the left attacks the use of an Executive Order and circumventing the constitution, how about this one: "Government by Decree: From President to Dictator through Executive Orders" ISBN: 1-56384-166-5 A crucial executive order, President Directive (P.D.D 25), was executed by President Clinton in 1994. The State Department released a summary of the directive, but the details of P.D.D remain classified to this very day. Nevertheless, the summary does indicate that the president has the power to place the U.S armed forces under foreign command." ... "Some interesting research was conducted prior to the signing of P.D.D 25. A Combat Arms Survey was distributed to a group of U.S Marines, which asked among other things, whether the participants would be willing to fire on U.S citizens. One of the true or false hypothetical arguments read as follows: The U.S government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty(30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Concider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S Government." So there is a two for one right there, placing the military under foreign control (United Nations), questioning confiscation of non-sporting weapons, and the questioning if the U.S Marines would enforce it. However lets impeach this President for intercepting foreign communications of suspected terrorists.

13 howie made an excellent point early on. But first, this NSA thing has no legs and is just another exercise of BDS. Sundown requirements and clearly defined target specific laws make sense. Need I remind everyone how something like the RICO Act came to be used as a general tool of use based on the ideology of the moment.

14 Wait a sec...I was making the point that knowingly circumventing law is...well, illegal. There is a very specific set of laws, debated in Congress, passed into law by that same body on a bi-partisan basis nearly 30 years ago that dictate how wiretaps are to be carried out. That law does not change according to the circumstances. That's the whole idea of a "law," to prevent undertaking certain actions deemed objectionable based on fluid circumstances. You can of course change the law, which required addressing Congress. President Bush could have done that, but I believe he only approached a select few members on an informal basis in Cheney's office and it isn't clear that he literally said wiretaps would be performed. Lindsay Graham didn't seem to know, nor Arlen Specter. Yes, I'm concerned by agencies and administrations that seem willing to blow off laws passed by Congress (remember anyone that whole "checks-and-balances" thing in the Constitution?) in the name of our "security" (wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, "Those who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both? Yes.) I'm also concerend by a President that endows himself powers and privileges not outlined by the Consitution nor authorized by Congress (didn't we fight something called the "Revolution" to limit the powers of a president so he would not become king?) I don't know what other Prsidents did, including Bill Clintom. This is not a defense of him, of the Democrats, of Karl Marx or the King of goddam Prussia. This is in defense of what our country stands for, not just now, but for the long term, and how it effects our ability to influence world events. I don't know who the hell is coming to get our guns, or have our Marines shoot at each other or civilians, or how we're becoming the piss-boys of the U.N. I'm talking about practical matters that will effect how well we hold onto our power in the years to come!

15 I think dave played a trump on your pair of 3's, Mark. Sorry, what Bush did looks like kid stuff compared to what your boy Bill had in mind. At least to us Jesuslanders who were the intended fodder for the Marine bullets, if they had been willing.

16 Lord, here comes the "Clinton Defense" , this idea that anyone who breaks a federal law--literally a law-- gets to walk from now on 'cause Bill got away with something. Well, I don't have a boy named Bill, and there is no "kid stuff" when it comes to breaking federal laws.

17 Well before I put you off a very good book, let me state that it is in fact a catalog of abuse of the Executive Order, by either the Republicans or Democrats against the constitution (Nixon,Wiretapping opponents/Clinton:Above) and EO's against the virtues of the United States (Reagan: Iran contra). The Executive Order, can be used to create law at the stroke of a pen, without Congressional approval and can usurp Congress at will, a good example of this (sorry for another reference to Clinton) is Executive Order 13061. In 1996 there was an attempt to pass the Heritage Areas Act in Congress, but the effort went down in defeat. Under the original act, Congress would have had the authority to designate areas of land as heritage zones. Undeterred by the failed package, the Clinton administration simply repackaged the act as an Executive Order. On 11 September 1997 President Clinton issued Executive Order 13061, which "officially" established the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). In order to create a system of Laws, and checks and balances as you state, this power should be removed from use by any sitting President. I personally do not care if terrorists rights are being violated, but I do agree that there are already laws on the books that could do what the President did, without the use of an EO.

18 Mark I'll be blunt (when am I not?) If this NSA thing is indeed exclusively overseas traffic back & forth ... And exclusively foreign nationals (which it appears) ... And the bulk done immediately after 9/11 and the first couple of years (which it appears) ... Then I don't give a fuck! - and neither will a signifcant majority of the American people! You want to run with a "what if, abstract legalistic argument" - then knock yourself out! These "targets" have faces and one very real solid point of interest/confluence - the WTC You can campaign in '06 with your "what ifs ..." - and I/we will on the "faces" and the WTC over and over and over again - till you start screamin' and squeelin' like a pig - to no avail. It's all pubic perception and relations baby! So, bring it on! - and we will let the American people decide.

19 Dave, I take your point and agree that EO is a potentially dangerous power for the Executive branch to retain, no matter the party in power. In this case, however, there is a law that explicitally states that wiretapping without a warrant is illegal. It was not "packaged" for presentation to Congress; Congress was simply ignored and the wiretapping was kept secret until exposed. The part I don't get is that under the present FISA laws, wiretapping is allowable so long as the President confers with Congress. Why would such a simple step be skipped?

20 Not to be complacent but probably because certain parties cannot keep their mouth shut, including agencies such as the CIA, and members of Congress who are party to classified information. I personally believe that some information should be kept from the citizens at large, some things do need to be secret. As the EO, wasn't an order to take citizens into a concentration camp, or ban citizens from owning weapons, and simply affected those who may plot attacks against the U.S, you have to wonder if FISA/Congress was so flexible why not use it, and avoid yet another drama?

21 Hey Hondo, the WWF called and want their diatribe back!!!!!

22 What does the World Wildlife Fund diatribe sound like?

23 Oops, guess its the WWE now.

24 Is that the best you can do?

25 World Wildlife Fund I know - even made a few donations in the past. WWE (?). Had to Google that one. Your one-line insults really need some work.

26 Got you Googling, ya dope

27 Multi-task - try it sometime - its easy

28 Agent Brown says all your executive orders are belong to us.

29 Guys, we're wasting our virtual breath. Our government is so corrupt and incompetent from top to bottom that I believe that it will eventually cause the collapse of our society, the early stages of which event we are now seeing, and if We, the People, don't step up and do something, our country will be lost. That "something" that we do, will require us to be armed. Of course, liberals need not apply for participation on the winning side of the new revolution, because they are the cause of at least half our problems, and will have to be dealt with accordingly, along with their muslim allies, and possibly the millions of illegal aliens who are now invading us. Of course, I'd be happy if we gave California back to the Mexicans, because there sure as hell isn't anything there worth fighting over.