Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

Yeah, in your infinite wisdom of 16 I'm sure you can sit there and smugly say 5 years in jail wouldn't harm you.

Based on what? Don't you think if it's well done code that it wouldn't sound like code terrorist code either?

And therein lies the crux. We have only their word on that... so how the hell do you know that's the case? I mean, wtf... all a terrorist had to do was call some damn phone soliciting call center, and next thing you know 10,000 people were guilty by association. With no one to check on them, they could monitor anyone they damn well pleased.

-Michael

 

I always get a kick out nutjobs trying to justify things from a terrorist's point of view. I guess some thing it's "progressive."

 

Corrected for accuracy.

 

No correction was needed. I don't support terrorists and I certainly don't sit around hiding behind the Constitution *only* to try and make it benefit terrorists.

Wasn't it you, that was pimping alex jone's fear mongering about how "the man" was peaking in your window and listening to your phone calls? Granted, you above all, really *should* have a reason to worry

 

How do you know? How do you know that tomorrow they can't just start listening to whatever they want and not getting a warrant for it? Still sound good?

LOL

Well which is it? Did she do it to help terrorists or because it was a violation of privacy? At this rate all I have to do is keep quoting your statements back to you till you realize how ridiculous they sound.

If the media doesn't tell you that, then how the hell did you find out?? Spy!!

*sigh* again... releasing it to whom? Other government officials with security clearances? Holy security breach batman!

According to most conservative party line towers here I'm a professional anti-american sympathizer.

Eureka we have a break through.... so we've gone from let them do whatever the hell they want to and nobody should question them to... just let them bend the rules "slightly"?

Wait a damn minute! Which one of you voted a New York Times reporter to a government oversight committee!

 

George, are you disappointed a liberal Judge tried (but not successful yet) to hinder your country's ability to seek out threats to our country?

 

We all know your disapointed the government was called out yet again for illegal and unconstitutional dictator-like programs. How's a guy supposed to erode everyones rights with all these judges around?

 

Sorry yo!, I did leave you out. I wasn't trying to be rude, but I already know your answer. I could give you some additional attention, if you need it. Just let me know

 

Ya know, I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you get thrown in jail because someone at the FBI decides that "pretending to be a patriot", when grouped with "total lack of understanding of U.S. ideals and principles", indicated suspicious activity and you get flagged as a "potential terrorist".

-Michael

 

Not as dissapointed as conservatives seem to be. Got a feeling that had this been a democratic whitehouse there would be a few less people outraged.

But seriously, read my replies, I like and back the program, IF, it is done with oversight.

 

Sounds good to me. You can call me from the grave, cause it isn't going to happen. As pointed out, and *no one* took issue with, and completely ignored, the program targeted *international* phone calls from suspected terrorists. Since I do not defend, make excuses for, nor associate with terrorists, I have no worry. Obviously, and "the man" has never showed up on my door step.

Protecting terrorists is not a "U.S. ideal" It's a liberal idea and we see who stands behind it.

 

Actually, Clinton/Gore used the very same authority while in the Whitehouse. It had oversight then, as it does today. It has Congressional oversight. So now you are saying you are for it?

 

LOL you think bringing up Clinton/Gore policy makes what they are doing any less requiring of warrants today?

If it did the judge wouldn't have been able to justify her position the way she did without being laughed at for not understanding the oversight process. So she just made that up and you GTech have a better understanding of the wiretapping process than a judge who sat through hearings and testimony and read documents you have no access to?

I said I was against it (as a program or method to fight terrorists) where? Or did I just say it needs oversight? You're getting my posts mixed up with someone elses perhaps? (NOTE: Let's skip the part where you make a joke about all liberals and get to the part where you just admit the tone you implied with that questions was misguided.)

 

And just where does it say that? What top secret briefing do you have that says that only international phone calls from suspected terrorists are being monitored? And exactly what does constitute a suspect?

-Michael

 

It wasn't *their* policy, it's an NSA policy and they did use it. And yes, it is important to bring it up. It's actually very important. While it wasn't *their* policy, it was policy *they* used to do the same things.

Read the first post on page one I made. It's in plain black and white. It had oversight. Congress was routinely briefed on the program. Even the NYT, when attempting to expose a legal program with congressional oversight noted months ago, that the program was used to target terrorists and it had oversight. So in reality, the judge is being laughed right out of the court room. The ACLU, in their never ending quest to tie the goverment's hands behind it's back and bow down to terrorists, found the perfect liberal judge.

You tell me, did you? Are you for it, now that you know it had oversight? That is what you said, right? Or were you for it before you were against it? Which was is the wind blowing?

 

You can put all the stupid questions on hold, please. Those "exactly" questions! I get a kick out of a liberal, you can always tell they are frustrated when they start asking stupid questions to hold on to a failing view and most assuredly will use "exactly" every time!

I'll post it again, since obviously you just skipped right past it while rejoicing:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/08/white_house_vow.html

Anything else?

 

Why the hell are you still saying that they're innocent because they say they're innocent? Wtf? And where in that oh so brilliant reply was there any mention of what makes someone a suspect?

Yeah... quit repeating ignorant comments. If it wasn't proof the first time, saying it twice won't make it so. Give me something from the oversight committee saying it was all on the up and up.


-Michael

 

Huh? Oh, I get it, so now that it proves you were wrong, you're trying to change the questions again. OK, I get it! Clever trick! Do you think it will work though? Makes someone a suspect? Heh! One big ol 190 degree turn there, eh?

Go find it yourself, ya lazy bum! I've already countered what you originally made assumptions about. You don't make up new questions and new demands when you've been owned

 

Wait what's going on... did I ask about it's importance or it's relevance to whether it needs oversight or not?

Then if she's wrong I guess we all have nothing to worry about do we?

Cmon GTech, sometimes you've gotta switch up with the pitches when you're facing a more skilled batter. Again you're trying to use conservative catch phrases used on the general liberal population and that's just not me.

Was I for it before I was against it... lol I admit I did laugh when I read that line.

You can't sit there and try to make it seem I was EVER stating I was against it. I asked that question because I knew you couldn't answer it..... I was right because in order to answer it you would have to show me where I flat out stated "I am against this" or even something remotely close. In fact I stated I was for it... just not without oversight.

I'll do you the courtesy of answering your question directly though you decided not to for me. If it has the proper congressional oversight you're damn right I'm for it. That means the administration is not running around wildly doing whatever the hell they wanna do but at the same time they are doing something that greatly increases our national security. Who could argue with that?

 

Quit pretending to be a moron already. You did this last time you were losing an argument.

I didn't change anything. The whitehouse representative saying that they're only eavesdropping on international phone calls doesn't prove that they are. And there's no way you can't see the relevance of them not having to define what makes a terrorist.

And, genius, what the hell is:

-Michael