Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

lorien what part of US SOIL did you miss buddy? Or was it since you had only 1 example of muslims killing 6 americans on US soil before bush came to office.. you had to go add misinformation and inflate the numbers?

Typical. so typical.

 

So you don't are if americans die, just as long as they don't die here? Military troops and other citizens can go screw themselves? Typical. Indeed.

Oh. That's right. I forgot the thread where you wished death upon as many soldiers as possible. Explains a little of it, at least

 

Hey what do you know.. it looks like seobook and threadwatch are "terrorist supporters" too

http://www.threadwatch.org/node/8223

 

Add them to the list

 

This post by 'Littleman' probably sums up the current situation best of all:

 

Poor, yo. Looking for absolution. No one goes quite so far to:

absolve hezbollah of crimes/murder against the US. which you have.
absolve hezbollah of killing israelis. which you do.
wish death upon american soldiers. which you do.
blame israel for defending itself. which you have.
blame the US for the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks. which you did.

and on and on.

Its not one event, but a whole series that lends credence to the argument, "Whose side is yo-yo on?"

 

NO one wants to "take the program away".

We just want it done legally, with warrants, OK'd by FISA.

 

If by your definition of "terrorist" means someone who is opposed to illegal domestic surveilance on American's and those American's freedoms and rights being subjucated to an increasing totalitarian regime led by a moron, then add me to the list.

I'm all for catching the bad guys before they act. Im all for active searching for them through all of our resources, however, a 5 minute call, or walk to a judge to get a warrant; even 3 days after the fact, is not too much to ask for. Spy on me all you want, just have a warrant with a clear justification on it.

 

Really? So you are not reading posts and speaking for everyone now?

 

So, you are looking for a rubber stamp? Since you posted:

So, you are just upset an unelected official isn't rubber stamping everything?

 

Gtech.. lorien... can you even source ONE time.. yeh.. ONE time.. this NSA no-warrant spy program was proven to catch a terrorist before committing terrorism?

 

I have made no definition of "terrorist," so you you've lost that point due to credibility right off the bat. The program targets terrorists, specifically mentioned was al qaida. If you are against targeting international phone calls of suspected al qaida terrorists, then be bold and proud and stand up for the terrorist's rights.

It's not you they are interested in, unless you are admitting you are associated with terrorists. Is that what you are doing here?

As long as they get a warrant, for international spying that was already legal in the first place?

Even the NYT, buried in it's original article notes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/p...2070df8d623ac1&ex=1292389200&pagewanted=print

So here we have uncooperative judges, stating not to bring information to her court for the very warrant needed under the program which was legal in the first place.

 

Yes, see my post above. This is one example. Iyman Faris. This program was used in detecting information regarding the recent arrests in the UK as well.

 

I'm surprised you didn't try to throw me in there but glad to see you're coming around...

So now that you can't just type cast me what the heck are you gonna do?

 

Does it say they didn't get a warrant?

According to wiki (which could be wrong?) he was only visited by the FBI after being snitched on by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.... so they might not have even needed to spy on phone calls? And were the spy calls only after someone snitched on him?

Is there any clear case... where the only way they caught a terrorist (and convicted him) was because of NSA spy calls WITHOUT a warrant?

 

You've refrained from stating whether you support it or not. Probably a smart thing to do, eh?

Continue watching the PGA tour on TV. It is a lot more interesting

 

I believe it eludes to the fact one wasn't obtained and they were worried that if they tried to obtain one, would have trouble because of the judge in questions. Is that not what you read?

I answere your original question. If you need more info, research it yourself.

Yes, noted above. On the other hand, let's suppose that I actually went out and spent time researching to find all the cases you've so narrowly called for, would it really make a difference to you? Would your opinion change? If not, then why pretend to care about it in the first place?

 

I want the excutive branch to follow the law, and get a warrant, signed by the judges of the FISA court. Yes, the judges are unelected, they are part of the judicial branch of the government.

See, there's the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch. They each have separate powers. It's usually reffered to as a system of checks and balances. OK, elementary civics lesson over now.

Yes, I want my government to work the way it's supposed to, don't you???

 

I simply think you are being dishonest; that's all. I don't think you have a problem with the warrants not being issued; I think you have a problem with the concept and are hiding behind the warrant (non) issue to cover yourself. As I noted in my original response, precedent says warrants are not necesary; but the "judge" didn't mention that at all in her decision and just decided to make it up as she went along. ACLU knew this; that's why they picked her.

 

No, I'm not speaking for everyone. But you knew that, didn't you?

I don't see any posts here that advocate no wiretaps at all. Some people want them done no matter what. Others want the FISA court involved.

We can and should debate this. But it's a waste of time to keep alleging that people who disagree with you are on the side of the terrorists. It's a waste of time to keep posting as if the people who disagree with you don't want any survelliance done at all.

I want it done. I want it done well. I want it done legally. And while we're at it, I'm angry that Bush has disbanded the crew in charge of finding Bin Laden.