Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

As we all well know, a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter (*cough*) has just made the act of intercepting terrorist communications within our country ILLEGAL.

I mean, so what - the government looks at phone records coming into the US to see if anybody is planning to blow us up. Apparently that's a BAD thing. If you guys don't want anybody spying on your phone calls (that is, if you live outside the US and call into it), you shouldn't be saying stuff you're saying, then, because all the government is interested in is tracking down terrorists, not knowing that Aunt Jenny is cooking pancakes for dinner or something.

So look: this liberal judge has just made our country MORE VULNERABLE to terrorist attacks. Do you liberals not think there are terrorists out there that hate us and want to kill us? Why would you think that defending our country is illegal now?

You all say you want FREEDOM - being "true" patriots - but there's no freedom if there's no safety. Safety buys the freedom now. In the 1700's it was not that way, it was freedom bought the safety. Now it's different.

I mean c'mon, these guys we're tracking aren't even American citizens, why are you so concerned if calls to the US are being monitored? Do you want an attack like 9/11 to happen again??

Well apparently you don't mind!

Treasonous, I think.So here we have the New York Times exploiting critical and top secret government operations to track down our enemies and then we have a judge by the stroke of her pen saying it is illegal to intercept enemy communications... it's almost as if they WANT this country to be destroyed. They're certainly making it easier for the terrorists to communicate. That is straight treason.

Dangit you liberals, we're at WAR. Maybe you forgot that. We are still fighting a war here, and the President should have the power to protect us. The government has justified the tracking of phone conversations, too, but proving it would release confidential state data, not to be known by the general public, as things SHOULD be (I mean confidential info should NOT be known by the public, contrary to the NYT)

So who's side are you on now?

 

Either you really are that stupid, or you're posting crap because you think it will generate controversy and therefore up your post count, which is stupid.

Do you know the difference between terrorist suspects and for real terrorists? Do you know anything at all about the phrase witch hunt? Or the McCarthy trials? Do you understand why we, as a country, believe in innocent before proven guilty? Why mob mentality must not under any circumstances prevail over justice? What the term "checks and balances" refers to? How many branches of the government there are, why they are what they are, what "separation of powers" means? Do you honestly think you have a clue how this all works?

Personally, I think you're probably too stupid to use the internet, one of the greatest inventions of our times, to bother to look up the meaning of those phrases or to do any research whatsoever before responding. If you answer my post in less than 1 hour then there's no way you did.

-Michael

 

Why thank you for your intellgent reply to my thread ... NOT.

And guess how we KNOW the difference ... We have to know what they're up to.

So how do we prove them guilty? Wait for them to kill themselves? lol, great idea... let them kill a couple hundred of our own guys in the process, help the overpopulation Is that you all really think?

I love seeing it at work but not like this. It still was up to one person to decide: this liberal and BIASED judge, caring about HER interests and not the interests of the majority.

Why yes I do! ^_^ Thank you for doubting my intelligence. -_-

LOL And thanks for posting another "very intelligent" remark in my thread.

And if I post an hour later, I'll... 1) Be more tired than I am now, and 2) show to you that I think slowly. I know how the government works, but ultimately the decision was still up to this one person. So, really, the system worked, but one biased person in authority is all it takes.

-Matt

 

Ok, remind me again, why was it called the "domestic" spy program...?

-Michael

 

Already a thread aboot this....

 

While I explain this to a mental child, please take some time and go through and reply to some of my other points... either that or say you agree with them, don't just ignore them! (THAT'S what being ignorant really would be; ignoring the facts.)

It's a domestic spying program because the spying takes place in this country, not in other countries. Yeah, it's communications from outside the US but only INTO the US, not outside US to outside US. So, it's in the US.

What's so complicated here?

 

Correction: a thread about a liberal celebrating another liberal's decision.

This is a thread about a conservative complaining about a liberal's decision. This thread brings the facts out a little more clearly.

 

It's not complicated, you're just wrong. That's not how it works. It's not just limited to incoming calls from outside the US.

-Michael

 

I didn't say it was LIMITED to that.

It's the same principle anyway: calls in the US might be terrorists IN the US already trying to blow us up. Actually, that would be a higher priority, wouldn't it now?

So why not go ahead and at least AGREE to the other facts and answers I've posted, instead of being ignorant about them...

 

So, if the FBI were monitoring your phone calls, and someone there thought that your mention of the phrase "wedding magazines" was actually a code, and they arrested you (you, Matt, not some unknown person), then threw you in jail for years without a trial, that would be ok, right? Because you "might" be a terrorist? Or have terrorist ties?

-Michael

 

I wouldn't mind as long as they were doing their job and eventually found out I was innocent. As long as it doesn't hurt my family or me (physically, mentally, or spiritually) I'm good w/ it.

Now will you stop ignoring my plea for you to either agree with the things I've said or to at least stop ignoring them (AND this plea) so you aren't officially ignorant? Again?

 

Ok, so you're trying to say, that as an innocent person, it would be ok for them to throw you in jail for 5 or more years without a trial, as long as eventually they found you innocent...?

And, if, say, instead of being you, it was your mom they threw in jail, it would still be ok?

-Michael

 

Is that exactly what the court order said? Or did Judge Taylor rule the "warrantless" part is what violates violates privacy and free speech rights. Conservative spin is legendary but you're taking it a bit too far.

Look, I'm one of those liberals that would actually like to see the government get more ability to fight terrorism. BUT.... they need to do it legally. They need to get warrants, blessings, a hail Mary, something! The day you start saying it's OK for the government to do "whatever it takes" WITHOUT getting the OK from the other houses is the day you open us up to potential dictatorship. Sorry. The actions of this administration broke the law. This judge saw that and ruled accordingly. You don't have to be a liberal to see that.

OK, as a government employee myself I could tell you a few horror stories about what happens to "private" information and the types of people that have access to it but I'll leave that to your imagination. Point is you don't want the government having access to any more private information about you than they need to. You're just gonna have to trust me on that one

No the administration screwed it up by not doing it properly and getting the OK through the proper channels in the first place. There's not a liberal politician in either house that wouldn't have signed off on it just like they did the Iraqi war.

A) yes they are, and B) Great fear mongering. You need to be some Republican's intern.

No argument from me there

Gotta get those facts straight about what this decision meant.

But not unlimited, unchecked power.

To who? You mean a room full of committee members with security clearances? Bring it back to reality partner.

Yours, you just don't know it.

 

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

 

I said as long as it does not harm my family or me in any noticable way, it is good. But, I wouldn't go saying stuff on the phone that sounds like terrorist code. The government was only tracking those people that were very possibly terrorists or were helping the terrorists. Not average citizens (in detail).

No, the court order was twisted liberally. She used the term "warrantless" to give the terrorists days more than without warrants to plan their attacks while our guys went to get an OK from the courts which would say NO anyway because it's a "violation of privacy".

It was the wire tapping that led us to the arrests in London this past month and saved hundreds of lives. But the media doesn't tell you that.

Yeah yeah, all that "political correctness" stuff. I'm against leading us to potential dictatorship but in times like these you don't know who are your friends or who are your enemies and every precaution has to be taken, regardless of politics. Remember that the government DOES have a way to prove it is legal but only by releasing confidential information, which it cannot do.

Most excellent.

Lol what do you do for a living?

Well yeah, I'm just saying that whoever doesn't need to know SHOULDN'T know.

I am fine with limits, but in this case the limits have to be lessened just slightly.

No, to the media like the New York Times. They've certainly handled info like that in the past very well before.

For the most part, I notice Good for you.

 

Ya know, maybe the whole "We are innocent, trust our word" thing is enough for some, but personally I don't think it's flown since the whole "I am not a crook!" days.

-Michael

 

Excellent point! Great find.

 

Okay, you've ignored my facts still. So when I say you are ignorant and you don't believe me, I get to refer to this thread, okay?

Besides, I never really trusted democrat presidents like Clinton who just kept lying and lying and lying and lying and lying... like the Energizer bunny, but a big bad one with horns

 

Thanks, had to make sure *some* had *their* facts straight. The liberal *feewings* tend to cloud judgement when it comes to giving terrorists every advantage possible.