This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
WELL SORRY FOR PUSHING MY BOOK, WASNT REALLY TRYING TO DO THAT. JUST WANTED THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THAT PIECE IN "THE BLUE VOICE" TO TELL ME THIER OPINION.
NOW ABOUT YOUR. THIS IS AN INTERESTING TOPIC, IT NERVER ACURED TO ME TO LOOK INTO THIS ORGANIZATION. I HOPE TO FIND OUT MORE FACTS, ALSO I WILL LOOK INTO THOSE FILES YOU MENTIONED. SEE IF I CAN'T FIND SOME HELP IN THE BUREAU.
I AM NEW TO THE BLOG NETWORK, I AM FINDING A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT I WISH WAS SAID IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA. I WISH PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO MAKING THERE OPINIONS HEARD. EVEN IF I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM ALWAYS. I THINK PEOPLE SIT BACK TO OFTEN AND JUST DONT RISE UP AND SPEAK.
WELL ENOUGH FROM ME
THANKS
RICHARD
Welcome to the blogosphere Richard. Just a freindly reminder that there is no need to "shout."
PETA loves animals, especially with a little Barry White in the background.
BTW Jenn, Congrats! You are the latest right-wing terrorist to receive attention at a certain blog hosted by a certain mental patient.
You're such a neo-con.
Awwww, man I just love those PETA people. They are such a 'soulful', peaceful people or would the word 'animal' be better to put in place of the word 'people'. Hmmmm, I must ponder that one.
Yet they find it humane and ok to dispose of animal carcasses in dumpsters and to make empty promises to the previous owners of animals that they will find their pets homes. At least I hold a little burial ceremony even for a mouse my cat kills.
They are a crooked evil bunch who find very little value in human life unless it benefits them.
And yeah Jenn, you are being sought out by someone who just cannot stop with the childish bull! Truly amazing! Stalker if I ever saw one....reminds me of a Lifetime movie.
No thoughts on the PETA thing, but I just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year, Jenn.
Believe it or not, I've missed my republican righties on here. (But not too much.)
Aw, fuck it. I guess my take is that the issue isn't really who or why the government was investigating people. It's the fact that they were doing it without going through the proper channels and lying about it. Sure, PETA should be investigated if indeed your claims about their ties to violent activists (not terrorists) are true. But do it legally.
Can Will demonstrate where the law was broken or what lies were told?
If he can I would be very surprised, as no one else has been able too.
Teaparty, you wylie bastard, I've missed you, too.
The law and Constitution are both clear: the National Security Agency does not have the authority and the president cannot give it to them with the stroke of his pen. He should have sought Congressional authorization. According to the New York Times, even employees of the National Security Agency itself refused to follow the president’s order to break the law.
Oh, and about the lie part. Bush kicked off the new year by telling the press that his spying program was only used to monitor communications between members of al-Qaeda and people in the United States. He did not address the issue of why he found it necessary to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that had, for 24 years, been reviewing and approving such surveillance programs.
When the story first broke, Bush claimed to have done so because it took too long to obtain a warrant. This lame excuse fell apart within hours when it was revealed that the law already gave them the right to engage in surveillance for 72 hours without a warrant.
There's a couple right there.
Boy Will, you need new sources.
The program was reviewed every 45 days by key members of both the house and senate intel committees. (That's both parties.)
The program wasn't done with "a stroke of his pen," it was done with the approval of those committees and the Justice Department which audited the program on a regular basis. According to the NYT, those audits found nothing.
That review is not known to have found any instances of abuses.
It is not even clear at this point that FISA had jurisdiction over the taps in question.
Every circuit court we have basically has reserved the executive branches right to conduct surveillence for purposes of national security.
Bush has done nothing that every previous administration has done in its tenure.
This story wouldn't even be one were it a Democrat in office. Hell, alot of these stories wouldn't be. Because the media wouldn't care for one, and for two Republicans are probably the last people on this planet that understand what we are trying to do and who we are fighting.
If a Dem president were accused of this, I would back him 100%. It's NOT PARTISAN. IT'S COMMON SENSE.
BTW...Interestingly enough, despite their bluster, the NYT has yet to articulate exactly where a crime was committed. They have no idea.
I was hoping for more from you Will. Some articulation as to how the program was wrong maybe. Perhaps a quote from Bush that dealt DIRECTLY with this program. I guess I shouldn't expect you to know anymore than the Gray Lady, which is very little.
You know, while the left is out there ranting and raving, the right has been publishing things like court rulings, Justice Department findings, and even the opinion of liberal civil rights experts like Cass Sunstein, who believes the president is on very "firm ground."
This would be a really great story, if there were any evidence to back it up.
It will still be a great story though. It will further disintegrate the Democratic Party - The party which thinks terrorists civil rights hold priority over national security. The party who turned out to not give a shit about leaks at all.
The party that can't be bothered with things like precedent, even when national security is at stake.
Good luck in 06 and 08. I can't wait to hear the "nuanced" answer to this one. Maybe they can hold a summit and figure out the party spin. Maybe, unlike in Iraq, they can even reach a decision.
Here is Sunstein:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001248
Here is a complete review of court precedent:
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
012631.php
Perhaps you can find where the authors articulate any crime in this aricle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/
0...agewanted=print
And here is an excellent review of the situation as it stands:
http://www.captainsquartersblog....ives/
006053.php
Silly me, I forgot about the "lie."
Sorry. No dice.
Bush was talking about "roving" wire taps as they relate to the Patriot act.
Since we are not talking about the Patriot Act, and in fact are discussing a totally different subject, the information you provided is totally inapplicable.
Stop reading the lefty blogs Will. They have no concept of fact or context. It may not be bad for your health, but can be severaly damaging to your IQ.
Holy Crap, I go away for a few days and it's pandemonium.
I beleive the piece was about PETA, but I can certainly write something about the wire taps.
Yo, Rich, my main man, please, I'm not hard of hearing. Really.
Welcome back everyone, I hope you all had a good Christmas break. I'll be officially back tomorrow. : )
Teaparty, you're reading too many righty blogs, especially when you're posting links to blogs for support. You're forgetting that much of the criticism of the domestic spying program has not come from progressives or liberals, but from conservatives. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said, "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate" and plans to hold hearings, which Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) supports. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) expressed his concern over the legality of going around FISA, and conservative columnist William Safire said, "I'm with the critics."
You're completely off the mark here. And, just like you're far right pals, your main falling-back point is the scare tactic of bypassing what's right and legal for the purposes of security.
At this point, it's all still mostly a matter of opinion, but the exercising of executive power is not to be taken lightly, especially when the one who holds that power is a complete moron. Don't you think he should have a babysitter?
I don't care where the criticism is coming from. Did you actually read the links...or discard them out of hand because they are conservative?
I didn't ask you to read Powerline, just peruse the legal findings of the lower courts posted there. Is that too much to ask?
Perhaps if Slate were publishing that evidence I could have given you that link...but they are not.
Still awaiting evidence that a crime was committed, or evidence that Bush has done something that other administrations haven't. Apparently you don't have any such evidence.
Perhaps you should refrain from outlandish judgements until there actually is some evidence of something.
Your misinformation regarding taps and the Patriot Act also lends itself to the conclusion that you are uninformed...as usual.
My "fallback" position is that it is legal, according to every lower court in the land, the Justice Department, and the appelate court in charge of FISA. Not that it is illegal but necessary. I'm not sure how you could have missed that, and instead choose to spin my position as something that it is not.
BTW...Arlen Specter is no conservative.
Show me some evidence Will. Please. Evidence that the NSA program broke the law, or evidence that Bush lied about it. Please, I'm begging you.
It's no fun to argue with someone who has "feelings" but not one single shred of evidence that contradicts my conclusion on this matter. Should I expect that to change? Or am I debating in a vacuum here?
Look, all I was trying to say from the beginning is that whether it's Bush, or any other president for that matter, they should go through the proper channels (IE, getting a warrant) to eavesdrop on American citizens.
My position is that checks and balances were set up for a reason. Secrecy, whether for the sake of our security or not, is not beneficial to anyone.
President Bush and his aides have said his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to monitoring international phone and e-mail communications linked to people with connections to al-Qaida. What has not been acknowledged, according to the NY Times, is that NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects. They also spied on American political and human rights activist organizations.
Now, I shall write my opinion on the wire taps. Stay tuned.
It's about time, Jenn. Damn, girl.
Will...Have you examples of those activist groups? And, were those activist groups engaged in financing to supporting terrorism?
Secrecy, whether for the sake of our security or not, is not beneficial to anyone.
That is, by far, the most naive thing you have ever said. Frightening. Really.
NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects
What you are talking about is Eschelon. It was created and passed by the Clinton Administration, not Bush.
Are you saying that Bush should hold himself to a higher standard than the law set by the previous administration?
(Said with german accent) I grow weary of the double standard.
I really think you should read the precedents Will. You make it sound like we are dealing with some creation of the Bush administration. In fact, the executive branch has maintained these powers for itself for time immemorial. Bush is acting no differently than any president would in this situation.
Should I continue to wait for evidence to the contrary? Perhaps some quote you can provide that proves Bush mislead on this issue? Wiretaps of geriatric Norwegians for Kerry in Walnut Grove?
Or should I just give up?
Note to you: save the hysterics for after you have made some kind of case. The only case you have made is that you think its illegal but your not sure why except that tapping phones for national security must be wrong in some way.
Well...it isn't. It's prudent and a matter of survival. I would proudly stand up and say the same thing if a Democrat were in office. Would Schumer? Would Dean? Would Kerry? Pelosi?
Not likely. How about yourself Will. Would you feel more comfortable if a Dem were in charge of these "awful civil rights violations?" My money is on yes.
You know what pisses me off the most. I don't give two shits about Bush or his legacy, or anything else. I just want to win the war on terror. Period. It is the idiots on the left that force me to defend him constantly, against ridiculous allegations like this.
Get over it Will. Try this: Imagine all of the things your government does in your name that you have no idea about. Dem's and Repub's alike.
That should take your mind off the smoke and mirrors of the Idiotarian Community.
http://store.theworstpageintheun...heuniverse.com/
This is a link to Maddox - he's been around for a long time. He's really funny (vulgar, not for children), but his posts are screamingly funny.
I linked to his store so you cna scroll down and find the shrit that says, 'For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three' If you can find his anti-animal rights post, it's well worth the read.
This guy is genius.
Thanks for the visit and comment on my blog. I look forward to reading the rests of your posts!
Keep The Faith!
The eat three shit was funny as hell.
Just got you linked to my site. Thanks for visiting mine. You have a really good thinkg going on with your blog!
Happy New Year!
You too Pat, and Thanks!!!!
Commenting by HaloScan
