Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, August 31, 2007
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
Liberals Plan to Gut FISA
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The liberal Center for American Progress organized a panel discussion to criticize a newly-passed bill that expands the Bush administration’s wiretapping program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Wednesday.

“I don’t think the case has been made that this broad authority is necessary or even potentially useful to our national security,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center National Security Studies.

CAP, largely staffed by former Clinton administration aides, hosted the event to draw the battle lines over the upcoming fight to reauthorize a FISA modernization bill. Originally passed in 1978, FISA regulates how the government may collect intelligence directed at foreign powers or agents of foreign powers inside the United States.

Before breaking for August recess, the Democratic Congress narrowly passed the Protect America Act, which temporarily allows the Bush administration to monitor foreign communications carried on U.S. equipment through December 31, 2007. The Bush administration had requested a permanent change in FISA law.and is now pushing for renewal before the end of the year.

The CAP panel-- which included Martin; Mary DeRosa, chief counsel for National Security at the Senate Judiciary Committee; former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R.-Okla.) and Morton H. Halperin, senior fellow for the Center for American Progress--believes the Bush administration has gone too far in their surveillance measures.

Martin said Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell had overstated the case for expanded power.

“You have the DNI coming to the Congress and saying ‘unless we have the authority to do completely broad, unfocused surveillance of billions of communication in and out of the United States and around, we are going to be helpless and subject to attack,’” Martin said. “If that’s the level at which they are operating at trying to find suspected terrorists and people who are trying to get into this country to plant the next bomb, I think we are in trouble.”

Because of recent changes in technology, it is crucial that the law be updated, McConnell pleaded at a May hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“When the law was passed in 1978, almost all local calls were on a wire…[Today] most long-haul communications—think overseas—are on a wire—think fiber optic pipe. And local calls are in the air. Think of using your cell phone for mobile communications….In short, communications currently fall under FISA that were originally excluded from the act. And that is foreign-to-foreign communications by parties located overseas,” McConnell said.

FISA was created to give the government a way to monitor foreign communication, but requires the government to seek a warrant in order to monitor communications made by persons inside the United States.

There was no apparent protest from CAP panel members on the government’s right to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications. They just disagree how the Bush administration has defined foreign communications.

Martin said at the panel, “If we are talking foreign-to-foreign communications overseas, not involving U.S. persons, then, I can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t be a good idea.”

DeRosa, who was a member of the National Security Council staff under President Clinton before becoming chief counsel for national security on Capitol Hill, clarified the problem. She said current law requires that “procedures are reasonably designed to determine the interceptions are concerning persons overseas, not directed at persons overseas, but concerning people overseas.”

The new distinction that foreign communications need only “concern” foreign persons is what troubles DeRosa. “It’s really very unclear what that is intended to address and what its consequences are,” DeRosa said.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said new technology required a different way of defining “foreign communications” on July 26 before the House Judiciary Committee.

He said: “The ability in a variety of ways through digital networks, whether it by Skype, voice over IP, otherwise, the ability of persons to utilize communication capabilities across international lines has grown immensely over the years, and the statutory framework has not kept up with it….with internationalization, we have to be astute and flexible in understanding that those who wish to do us harm from overseas can quickly cross borders with the click of a mouse or come into the country.”

Regardless of Democratic disagreement with the Bush administration on this issue, DeRosa said it would be in the Democratic leadership’s interest to vote on FISA reauthorization quickly, before the sunset date approaches and presidential primaries begin.

The Washington Post reported on August 30 that Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said a private conference call made during August recess that they would “confront the president next month over his wiretapping program” as well as “also push legislation to restore habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects and may resume an effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Let's face facts
The largest, if not the only reason why the Democrats are against renewing the FISA Act is because President Bush wants it.
They know that it works. They know the program just collects numbers of calls going from one point to another and flags certain numbers that it's programmed to catch, as well as the number of the party at the other end of such calls. They know that even when flagged numbers are found to be in use, no phone calls are monitored without a warrant.

But as with everything else they do, thisis just another attempt to discredit the WOT and President Bush.

ditto, CharlieS
Moreover, this is just another attempt by the left to scare the public and civil libertarians into paranoia over those horrible, awful Republicans who will trash your civil liberties if you vote for them so you'd better wise up and vote for your friendly leftie who will protect you from all those bogeymen on the Right.

Meanwhile, the left could give a tinker's damn about your security -- just as long as they get the power they need to trash the Constitution and remake America in their own evil socialist image, courtesy of George Soros and Co.


for darcy
darcy writes: "Moreover, this is just another attempt by the left to scare the public."

Is there ANY limit on surveillance powers you would insist on? Would you draw the line anywhere short of what Bush wants?

It seems that you are so terrified by the threat of terrorism that you are prepared to give the Executive Branch virtually unlimited power with no checks and balances, no oversight and not even much debate:

You're perfectly happy if Bush can send the Air Force to bomb whatever countries he wants, no questions asked.

You're perfectly happy if Bush can authorize any domestic surveillance whatsoever, no questions asked.

You would prefer that the courts and the Congress and the media just shut up and go away and stop interfering with Bush's War on Terror, right?

To you, safety from terrorism trumps every other consideration, to the point where you don't mind having a Chief Executive with no constraints on his warmaking and surveillance powers.

Not to me. The terrorists cannot destroy America even if they nuked us.

But if we start trashing our Constitution and especially our Bill of Rights, we will have destroyed America all by ourselves.

And war is no different than any other government function: ALL THREE branches of government have important roles to play.

SteveL writes
"Not to me. The terrorists cannot destroy America even if they nuked us.

But if we start trashing our Constitution and especially our Bill of Rights, we will have destroyed America all by ourselves."

Bingo!

Steve, Ever heard of RICO?
SteveL wrote to darcy:
"Is there ANY limit on surveillance powers you would insist on? Would you draw the line anywhere short of what Bush wants?"
"You're perfectly happy if Bush can authorize any domestic surveillance whatsoever, no questions asked."


Steve,
Your arguments are specious to say the least, totally disingenuous and false to say the most.

The FISA act IS NOT about "Domestic Surveillance(spying)."

But you, like all the other libs posting here, already know that, so don't even go there.

The purpose of the act is to gather intelligence on suspected and/or known enemies calling into this country to plan further mayhem.
NO calls are listened to unless a warrant is obtained and any information that is not useful in locating terrorists is discarded without being examined any further than looking at the phone numbers involved, at the very most.

Aside from that, we've had a smaller version of the USA Patriot Act in effect in this country for at least two decades. Used against the mob.

It's called the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations(RICO) Act, and it has done the exact same thing as what the FISA act does for a long, long time. But just as the FISA Act, NEVER without a warrant when needed to preserve the validity of a case.

For all the talk of shredding...
the Constitution, you never hear Liberals complaining about gun bans (2nd amendment) or banning what they consider "hate" speech in places like schools (1st amendment), or infringing on people's right to practice their religion in public areas (1st amendment).

In each case Liberals twist the words of the Constitution and claim that it allows them to do those very things. Yet they've created a shield around the made up right to "privacy," except in the case when a well known Conservative is passing through Customs with a bottle of Viagra prescribed to him under an assumed name. Then it is important that the man's privacy be violated so that he can be thoroughly embarrassed about having to take an impotence drug.

Right on Steve. Ignore Darcy and Charlie
There government plants anyway. Everytime I read what they write in any blog its usually against America and the Constitution.

This gives unlimited power to the government to do what they want no matter what. Remember..its easier to fight to maintain a right then it is to get those rights back after you have given them up. Government, once they convince you to give up that right for the greater good, will fight to the death before giving up that power.

Can anyone say Sheepel?

PS
I forgot to tell you to go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com and see his library there with all of his views in it. He is the only candidate that can save us and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Vote Ron Paul in 2008!

Liberal Whine pt 1
Good old SteveL taking another liberal position while still attempting to convince TH posters that he is a conservative. All of you people who constantly whine about FISA and exhibit the typical liberal foaming at the mouth syndrome about Bush should remember what the "F" in FISA stands for. It stand for FOREIGN. You ask what monitoring that we as conservatives would be opposed to, well how about this?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

First off, the people refers to American people or foreigners located inside the U.S. It applies to the people themselves, their house, their papers, and their "effects". The "effects" part is what has finally brought in telephones. Note that originally the SC said that telephones were NOT protected, however thanks to not following Stare Decisis like Ted the swimmer wants, telephones were added.

It does NOT apply to monitoring enemy communications occurring outside OR inside the U.S. It does NOT apply to enemy communications involving American citizens inside or outside the USA as long as one of the parties is a foreign enemy. The recent FISA rulings only served to update the law for cellular phone communications. IF any of you slugs have any evidence or links to ANY evidence that conversations between American citizens inside the U.S. have been monitored without a warrant please post them. In other words, put up or shut up.

Liberal Whine pt 2
Another thing, ya’ll all whine about the Patriot Act but the major losses of civil liberties that have occurred in the last 20 years have been part of the war on drugs. Things like RICO and civil forfeiture which I hold to be unconstitutional ya’ll don’t seem to have any problem with. Could it be because you don’t give a rat’s *ss about the constitution and just want to whine about Bush?

Not the same one though
I am so glad that I am not the other SteveL. He must really get tired setting up strawmen and knocking them down. His entire rant is premised on people giving President unlimited powers of surveillance. Not one single time, anywhere did anyone advocate that position. The only thing anyone has said on that issue is that the current powers given the President are not unreasonable.

Grown-ups understand that life is about trade-offs. Everything we do is a trade-off. We trade our leisure time to a company in exchange for money. We trade our independence for the joys of marraige and family. Sometimes, we trade a little of our freedom to ensure that we don't lose all of our freedom (and our lives for that matter.)

To the left, we have gone too far. I can understand their position. They just need to remember, when the next attack comes, that they were the ones who demanded that the President not use everything available to keep us safe.

Darn Liberals, one party rule! GOP
"Revelations" says that one of the signs of the apocalypse, second coming is a "Common Language". That common language? WWW, HTML, HTTP

I get sick of all Townhall articles starting with "Liberals"...blaa blaa suck.

Ms. Amanda Carpenter, what are you talking about? Liberals (what ever that means). The WWW and internet/satellite/cell phones can be used to pass data by our enemies? Yea it’s always the Liberals fault, not keeping up with technology, because republicans are so competent? NOT

You can't make your point with out invoking the word "Liberals" and demogoging. Facts Mam, just the facts.

The problem, conservatives (code for republicans, corrupt, incompetent, perverted, lazy and stupid), THEY ARE NOT TRUSTED by the people to do the right thing. Oh yea you forgot about the people. They get to vote and are watching; we are not impressed with GOP whining and crying.

Republicans are screw-ups, secretive jerks, so America and the world does not trust them. DEAL WITH THAT! The jig is up, America sees the GOP is full of it. Independents will decide the next election.

SURE the dems want to write their own bill. Why? Bush's bill is screwed-up, like every thing he touches. It would be no surprise if Rove sneaked in an amendment so the National Republican Party can spy on the DNC. (I wish I was totally kidding, but they do things like that, ref Oklahoma US attorney crony appointment.) ROVES DREAM to have 100's of little Gonzalez's all over as US attorneys and political operatives of dirty tricks.

Talking points that Dems are weak is pure bull. They got to be better than the incompetence we got from GOP 2000-2006. You don't have to be macho, bloviate and bombastic to be strong. Republicans, all talk, no action. Heck Obama is nuking Afghanistan and invading Pakistan. ha-ha.

PS CharlieS Bush does not need any help to be discredit. He and the GOP did it all their self.

jetpilot
I know this will be hard for you to understand, but try.

Just step back and think about all the things that you support politically and all the thngs that you are against politically. Keep the individual politicians and Parties out of the picture. Once you have arrive at what you like and don't like write it all down.

When you have done that write the next sentence which says

People who have these attributes, like me, are liberals.

Liberals gutted FISA once
What's to stop them from doing it again. The Clintons set up the wall that blocked the various agencies from communicating and sharing info on terror activities. Which by the way caused 9/11. They are too worried that someone will hear them talking to their commie friends around the world.

Why wouldn't the libs gut it a second time. When it comes to U.S. security nothing is to weak and thin for the Democrats. And they have no leg to stand on if they want to talk about Constitutional rights being trampled. They do it every day with the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments and more that I may be missing. There is no sacredness to the Constitution where liberals are concerned that's for sure.

By the way
Good one vic. Jet pilot take note.

Libs. weak on defense
Libs., once the bastion of foreign relations and defense (Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson) have turned into wimps. The next connet-the-dots disaster will lead directly to them.

When the caiphate takes over, there will be no free press, no privacy, and no women's or any one else' rights.

As to oil, have you stopped driving, flying, heating or cooling your house or place of business, stopped using wrinkle-free clothing, given up plastic, or socks and stockings? If not, you are a rabid oil and oil product user.

Liberal Whining
Good comments Vic. I come from a liberal family and I am a conservative. I have been a gun owner for over twenty years and relocated to Arizona from California because in that liberal bastion, I am not allowed to use deadly force in the protection of my own family if needed - And it once was.

Liberals like to claim to be defenders of the Bill of Rights, that includes a criminal's right to survive an assault so he can go to court to be sentenced to counseling by a liberal judge.

Let's jump from the liberal position on gun control to their 'attitude' on FISA. Same exact thing, just a different platform. It's not security or the Bill of Rights they are concerned with, but 'who' is in charge of our security. It's because these 'global' terrorists represent their same global attitude that you will find them in bed with Jimmy Carter and weak home defense.

Response-Phylo Se Fizer
Your logic is ill. We are not dominated by a dictator so China invading us would be an act of war and we would be patriots fighting back - Unless of course there was a Democratic administration in charge. Then we would not be labeled patriots, we would be terrorists.

When was the last time you visited a Mosque to pray. You sound ready to surrender.

Invest in our own oil
If the libs. would stop fighting exploration and drilling of our own oil, we could be much less dependent on unstable areas of the world like the Middle East and S. Am.

ALtho' approved for drilling off AL, now environmentalists have gone to court to stop the gov't-regulated oil production. There's oil off NJ, but our lib. senators campaign on STOPPING any drilling offshore. They ought to be forced to walk everywhere.

Lib/enviros spent a decade fighting Army Corps of Eng. attempts to work on N. Orleans canals, levees, and locks from 1976 into the 80s, DIRECTLY CREATING the debacle of Katrina (which would still have been bad; N. Orleans is below sea level). they were concerned with bird nesting and migratory flight paths. How many birds did Katrina kill?

But libs. are never held accoutnable for their mistakes and lies.

Fear of the government
more than the real threat of Islamic terrorism is the common denominator of all the Left as evidenced by several of the frenetic posts in this thread. Their illogical extrapolations would be comical if not frothed by a true believer in the governmental bogeyman. Some day they might actually learn that their bogeyman is "watching out for them" rather than "watching them."

Take the "oil" presumption and illogical extrapolation about "profits." First, even the looney Europeans recognize strategic interests in the Middle Eastern oil supply. They hate to admit it but they depend on the USA to secure those interests. Second, the government profits more from oil via excise taxation than any oil company. Of course the Left loves the power of government to tax. They gladly pay 40 cents plus per gallon into their socialistic dream pool but deny the supplier one cent per gallon profit. That is the Left's concept of fair.

Funny
I love how liberals all scream about our rights being taken away and the constitution being shredded.

I'd like one of them to name one single freedom they've lost due to FISA or even the Patriot Act. Just one instance where someone was dragged off to be tortured over an e-mail.

Also
Man, Amanda Carpenter is HOT!!

Liberals are Parnoid
Vic your post at 5:23 above is dead on. Man they way the libs talk in here you'd think the police are going to come crashing through the doors and arrest them at any second over one silly phone call. Do us all a favor a quit your damn whining and start acting like adults instead of some spoiled child. Your arguments are baseless and just based on emotion. I second Hemi-Cuda's post above and show us some prove. If you can't then don't even bother posting in here because it makes you look the fools you are.

Idiocy
If anyone should be for FISA and the Patriot Act it is liberals. Since they don't like to fight wars an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Instead they would rather bury their heads like an ostrich. They really are clueless about what the Western World faces.

Creeping Totalitarianism
How ironic that it is now liberals who insist on assuring constitutional protections to Americans, while conservatives (not all, but many) show their willingness to surrender such protections to "Dear Leader" whenever he asks.

Yeah!
It's good to see that conservatives have come full circle from their Clinton days when they regularly denounced even the most minor infringment that administration took on civil liberties.

It's comforting to see that at last they've given up their delusions of smaller government (and even anti-government) beliefs and have embraced our wonderful National State as the benevolent entity it is.

I mean, really, who cares if because of unclear language in the law, the government arguably has the power to monitor our calls, emails, library book checkouts, and bank transactions.

And really, why should it worry anyone that the president or his functionary could potentially declare a man an enemy without providing proof and make them disappear for years without redress or trial.

I mean sure, other people's leaders have abused power like that in the past, and we all know that power is corrupting, but surely none of OUR leaders would ever think of abusing those abilities.

Besides, if you're really a good patriot, you will nod approvingly of anything your government does.

Your government always knows best.

Why liberals are really against FISA
All governments traditionally had the right to guard the borders. The only items not subject to a search were items under diplomatic seal. All correspondence could be read by Customs on your person or sent via mail. No warrant was needed and this was included under the constitution as the federal duty to secure our border. New methods of communications and correspondence are not excluded. So why liberals are against this traditional government power recognized by our founding fathers for the safety of the nation? Well if you think communism/socialism is dead you are having a fantasy. They are still at it and the old agents are still in communication with Russia. This power could be used to stop liberals and their foreign allies. If Bush had guts he could let Americans know the true level of treason and terrorism committed by liberals with this ability.

Aw come on
Any idiot that thinks our government would be interested in listening to me talk to my sister in California about how our day went, what television shows we watched, or our thoughts on government issues, is really a basket case.

There are many many millions of phone calls made each day. We don't have enough government agencies to do the normal eaves dropping as it is, much less on the conversations of ordinary citizens. And who in their right mind would listen to some of the moonbats posting here?


Watch your friends and .....
Your Enemies will never harm you .
That old famous quote is pretty much how I see Pacifist Liberalism in this country and Europe .
When any either party in Washington or Europe plays to what Al Quada plans on doing to the Free world they hate ..who would dearly Love for us not to"listen in instantly " to their plots on any country .I without question know who our home enemy indeed "is ".
It is the 99 % of the time pacifist left already questioned on their No war tactic's worth fighting fore since WW 2 .Yet they are fore Human beings but where ? Oh that right whales and seals ..silly me .
There has never been a Enemy living among us ever in world history that could possibly push a button or spray GAS'S from a plane and "Murder"many innocent souls .
Any Attack would start WW 3 not end a long draw War like the two Atom bombs did on Japan since I know you Liberals would shout America bombed many in JAPAN "ending ' a war not starting one now........God forebid .
Let Al Quada do one more 9//11 and see what happens to your so called Civil Liberty's .
You would be hung from a Lamp post or near by tree if you said ..I know we were BOMBED AGAIN but you still need to get a FISA Warrant ..B/S

johninoregon
You need to study history.

Progressive Logic of Liberals
__The speculative ideals of the liberal ideology cannot proceed with the threat of checks, and balances. One only need to view past legislative acts of the left, and you see lax enforcement of regulations, state by state. The majority of Americans have no idea how various states implement federal legislation, and the distribution of federal dollars. The left worries that there are parts of this "Surveillance Act" that might impede their connections with activist groups outside of America. This act might impede their supply train, and it doesn't even need to be connected with the evil of terror we fight today. The left knows the definition of terror, terrorize, goes far beyond individuals who use threats of bodily injury. You do not need explosives to terrorize! It's only logical they want to gut this legislation.

johninliberaloregon
Ditto what Lolo said. If you libs are soooo bully to preserve the Constitution why are you ALWAYS trying to erase the second amendment. Why do you trample on the freedom of religion even going so far as to make up the "separation of church and state". It may come as a shock to you but that phrase isn't in the Bill of Rights. It is the libs that stock the Supreme Court with judges that find new, exciting nuances, emanation and penumbras hundreds of years after it was written. They also try to use foreign case law to change ours. So, nice try, come again. Work on your obfuscation and lies and see you next time.

phylo
Man, you have had some doozies but that post was the absolute stupidest, most immature one yet. You just can't be that dumb. Can you? Phylo? Hello?

cuda
Absolutely. I don't think that any one of her articles gets discussed without someone noting what a hottie she is. She seems to be pretty darn sharp in the brains dept, too.

phylo
I concur with CVN65...you're dumber than a bag of cut hair.

Democratic Party Infiltrated
Muslims will vote 100% for Democrats.

The Democrat Party is the Terrorist Party of Choice.

Islam is a Terror Organization.

The Democrats are torpedoing FISA, ROTC, Homeland Security, and everything else that has to do with our security. Traitors!


They will destroy the services as they will let in Gays and no one else will join and want to be in barracks with these people. Gays already are taking over public rest rooms for their HIV sex. Now they will have there own sex clubs and get paid. These homos made the Priesthood there profession and the military better learn from that experience where they sexually abused the Catholic Kids and changed the liturgy. What a filthy bunch of sicko's.

The Democrat Party is the Party of Death. It is the most disgusting of any party in U.S. history. Its special interests are nothing but filth based.

Yep
"Any idiot that thinks our government would be interested in listening to me talk to my sister in California about how our day went, what television shows we watched, or our thoughts on government issues, is really a basket case."

Yep. If they’re not interested in the mundane details of life, surely, they wouldn’t be interested in anything you do at all even if you were a political opponent.

Sure past government agencies abused their power, but that's all in the past now. Can't we all just let bygones be bygones and trust our leaders unconditionally?

And I’m equally certain that all of our future leaders will be just as disinterested in our activities as our current leader.

Besides we all know that if you’re not doing anything they think is wrong, you have nothing to fear. In fact, it would be a really useful tool in the War on Terror if we mandated that surveillance cameras had to be installed on our streets and in every room of our houses.

Just to satisfy the liberal and libertarian whiners, we could require a warrant before the FBI could actually look at the constantly streaming images that would be available with a click of the mouse.

“Let Al Quada do one more 9//11 and see what happens to your so called Civil Liberty's .
You would be hung from a Lamp post or near by tree if you said ..I know we were BOMBED AGAIN but you still need to get a FISA Warrant”

Absolutely! We need to become less democratic in order to spread democracy! Just because statistically terrorism has killed far less than common traffic accidents doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t live in abject fear of terrorists.

It’s long past time to get over this ‘freedom’ thing. Freedom doesn’t mean being free from government interference. It means being free to obey your leaders!

Paul
"The Democrat Party is the Party of Death."

You know the motto of the Dhimmicrats...

"Killing America's future, one baby at a time."

What?
What? I'm just agreeing with the other posters and making helpful suggestions.

Why just stop with only slightly violating the spirit of the constitution? That's for nambie-pambie liberals and libertarians.

The courageous conservative should go even further and demand that we have cameras everywhere including our bedrooms to keep us all safe and find out who's plotting against our noble leaders?

Or do you WANT terrorists to sneak into your home, replace all your clothes with turbans or burqas, burn your bibles, kill your puppies, and make you learn Arabic?

Dread
You really do need to wake up or get medication. Did you miss the fact that FISA requires a warrant? Are you really sure someone wants to listen to you? Because if the govt. gets caught with it's pants down again and another attack occurs because they were listening to you don't ya think all H-E-double hockey stick would break loose? Your punishing people for something that may happen. If they abuse it toss them in the hoosecow. But first they must abuse it.

Dread
You cannot violate something that will no longer exist. We must first preserve it's existance. It has been done before in a time of war. Sometimes you gotta take one step back to get two steps ahead. I would rather catch them before they commit a heinous act than after.

Lolo2
Great point on FISA and one that the libstains just can't get past that dense layer of bone surrounding their walnut-sized brains.

Law Enforcement can enact a "rolling" wiretap but it still has to pass judicial review or NONE OF IT gets admitted into court.

I guess FISA and economics are just two things that the libsquirts cannot wrap their tiny brains around.

EICHELAN PROGRAM
Like REAGAN used to say, hear you go again, you whinning arse LIBS. Did you not hear of the EICHELAN SPY PROGRAM that BILL(THE SCUDSTER) CLINTON had on this country. They listen to everyones TELEPHONE and read even your E-MAILS. The reason you didnt hear of it because it was a SECRET from the American people. To bad the DRIVE BY MEDIA likes the DEMS or they would have put it out everyday after day after day. At least BUSH is telling Americans what he is doing, BILL AND HITLERY were spying on all of us and we didnt say a word. Now we are at WAR and everyone is whining, It makes you wonder what you are hiding, because if you had any intellegance at all you would know that if you have a SSN card or even a DRIVERS LICENSE the government has everything they need to know about you already. Get off the internet and go whine somewhere else
The LIBS even want to give more rights to the TERRORIST than the Americans have. Now that is what I call LOVING AMERICA dont you(LIBS).

Not really...
Due to the vague language, hasty drafting and passage by Congress, the warrant aspect is debatable. Per a congressional report on the reauthorization:

"It also creates a mechanism for acquisition, without a court order under a certification by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General, of foreign intelligence information concerning a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States."

Also, note the vagueness of 'reasonably believed'.

It's really a quite beautiful piece of legislation that with a signing statement or two added on can probably give our good leader the near unanswerable surveillance power he so rightly deserves.

Oh sure, there's also a few things in there about possible court review, but that can take years and I'm sure all the related documents can be withheld on national security grounds.

"Your punishing people for something that may happen."

Well, sure. I'm merely advocating that the government truly have unlimited surveillance power by putting cameras everywhere to protect us all against the possibility that the terrorists might attack again.

But I wouldn't call it a punishment. It's more of a privilege to know that the government cares so much for our well-being that they could watch over all always like God.

"If they abuse it toss them in the hoosecow. But first they must abuse it."

Exactly. I mean, if you can't trust Federal judges to guard against abuses by the Federal government that supplies their livelihood, why, who can you trust?


Agreed
"You cannot violate something that will no longer exist. We must first preserve it's existance. It has been done before in a time of war."

Which is why we should just go all the way and ban the Constitution and just hand over all power to the Federal government for the duration of the War on Terror.

And I'm equally sure that once the War on Terror has ended, our leaders will gladly and happily give up that awesome power and reinstate our civil liberties.


SSGTRET + eloquent G man.
__GunnyG's graceful barbs are a delight to read. He is so generous to give 'um a whole walnut, when I thought it was only the shell. A barricade to protect the empty promises.

Whining wussies
It is simply appalling that some leftist socialist pacifist org. or Congressional Dems can once more mouth the Hiss-Quisling type of fears over America's attempt to protect our citizens from the real enemy: the Islamofascist jihadists. For the Left, as Kirpatrick avered, 'they always blame America.' For generations now, the Left is more worried about the perps that hurt people than the victim, unless of course, they decide that their pet protected groups are made all to be VICTIMS. They have always blamed America during foreign policy challenges: The Cold War was their bete noir when they favored the Chi-coms, Castro, and the Soviets. Yet, their treasonous mind set blaming America is never punished except sometimes at the voter polls. Now they want to do away with FISA so that some mystic right they fear is being blasted right here in the USA domestically. They use the same old game plans each time America tries to protect our citizens. It is always Reagan-Bush is evil but remember, it is American policy that creates, creates our enemies. Those national groups, states or murderous thugs that we see in Islamofascism today are just put upon by American values and we must be tolerant. Frankly, it is liberalism that must not be tolerated!

for CharlieS
CharlieS writes: "The purpose of the act is to gather intelligence on suspected and/or known enemies calling into this country to plan further mayhem."

I know that,
so stop changing the subject.

The question I asked was a GENERAL one not specifically about FISA: Where would YOU draw the line on RESTRICTING the powers of the Executive Branch in the War on Terror?

Are you prepared to give the Executive Branch a blank check on war? Are you prepared to give the Executive Branch a blank check on domestic surveillance? Are you prepared to give the Executive Branch a blank check on detentions of suspected terrorists?

If not, then where would YOU restrict the powers of the Executive Branch?

Don't limit that discussion to FISA. Let's talk about Iran, for example. Would YOU support Bush bombing Iran without formal Congressional authorization?

for fsudenny
fsudenny writes: " Some day they might actually learn that their bogeyman is "watching out for them" rather than "watching them.""

That answers that: You just trust the Government to always use its powers solely for your protection and never to restrict your freedom or privacy.

Sure, if conservatives have this blind trust in the Government (which is quite a switch for them), then sure, give Bush every power he asks for and then some. No limits. Tell him to bomb Iran and Syria and put Nancy Pelosi in jail and mandate national ID cards for all citizens, so what? Bush is a good guy, he's a CHRISTIAN, he's one of us, so we have nothing to fear--he would just go after the terrorists and liberals, right?

That's how you think, isn't it?

You are a poster child for an "It Can Happen Here" scenario.

for Hemi_Cuda
Hemi_Cuda writes: 'I'd like one of them to name one single freedom they've lost due to FISA or even the Patriot Act."

Your freedoms have ALREADY been shredded in a thousand little ways: When you have to take your shoes off at an airport check-in line. When you can't take backpacks to a concert. When the Freedom Tower (replacement for WTC) is designed like a military blockhouse with two-foot thick reinforced concrete walls and NO WINDOWS in its first ten stories. When you're constantly looking over your shoulder at whether they have signaled an Orange Alert or a Red Alert. When the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are turned into armed camps, with SWAT teams and snipers on rooftops and barbed wire and metal detectors everywhere.

Little by little, Americans are being taught to accept living in fear of terrorism as "the new normal." Instead of holding out the hope and promise that we can win the War on Terror and be able to go back to living the way we were living before 9-11.

Will Someone Please
Give me one example of how the Patriot Act or FISA have infringed on their rights?

Just ONE example to support all this liberal hysteria is all I ask....

SteveL
Pure hysterics. So I'm inconvenienced, big deal. Besides, air travel is not a right.

Every single concert I went to as a teenager (WAY before 9/11) I was searched. Also not a right.

Nothing you've said constitutes the flat out falsehoods being spouted by Bush-Haters.

Again, give me an example of a right that's been lost due to FISA or the Patriot Act...

for Dread
Dread writes: "I mean sure, other people's leaders have abused power like that in the past, and we all know that power is corrupting, but surely none of OUR leaders would ever think of abusing those abilities."

These conservatives trust Bush implicitly on the War on Terror because he's "one of them"--a born-again Christian social conservative who is against abortion and same-sex marriage. And because 9-11 shook them to their roots and they instinctively rallied around Bush as their hero who would keep us safe from the terrorists.

And you cannot break through that. No evidence, no logic, no dissection of their arguments will change their minds. Rove did a great job on them; on the War on Terror, Bush owns them and he will own them right till he leaves office in January 2009.

Oh C'mon
"These conservatives trust Bush implicitly on the War on Terror because he's "one of them"--a born-again Christian social conservative who is against abortion and same-sex marriage. And because 9-11 shook them to their roots and they instinctively rallied around Bush as their hero who would keep us safe from the terrorists"

You're nothing but a bigot. You think all conservatives are really like this??

You have some growing up to do...

SteveL
"against abortion and same-sex marriage"

I'll have you know that I too am against gay marriage. Gays can't produce children thereby meaning that the filthy Muslims will outbreed us, take over and make us all shoot our puppies!

And they're depriving my glorious of both a future taxpayer to provide welfare for all and a potential soldier to be used in the War on Terror!

Plus... two guys... it's just icky.

As for abortion. It creates a culture of death and again, it deprives my glorious leaders of one possible future soldier that can be sent overseas to die.

for Lolo2
Lolo2 writes: 'You cannot violate something that will no longer exist. We must first preserve it's existance. It has been done before in a time of war. Sometimes you gotta take one step back to get two steps ahead."

Well, here's how to do it: If Fred Thompson becomes President, he can pack the Supreme Court with more judges in the style of Scalia and Bork. Then send up a test case to have the new right-wing Supreme Court vote to suspend Articles II and III of the Constitution, put the Congress on hiatus and give President Fred Thompson the power to rule the country by Executive Order for the duration of the War on Terror. (Which is actually similar to the Continuity of Government emergency program in case of nuclear war.)

Would you go for that? Why not remove Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid from ever interfering with a Republican President again? Why not just arrest the New York Times editorial board so they can't interfere with the Thompson administration? Declare Pelosi, Reid and the editor of the NYT to be "enemy combatants" and they will disappear from public view indefinitely.

Any of this sound appealing to you?

Bman1
Of course it's because Clinton was in office!

Just look at SteveL's last post, it's from The Liberal Talking Points Handbook, page 52. "Labeling All Conservatives: And How to do the Double Standard Hokey-Pokey"

He's the primne example of a non-thinker, just regurgitates what he learned from Huffington or KoS.

Bman1
Before I came to Bush, I was a libertarian, and I was foolishly complaining about Clinton, his rampant abuse of authority and his DoJ's near complete distain for the constitution.

But since Bush has come into my life, I've seen the light, and now I love, nay worship and obey my government unquestioningly and gladly pay my yearly tithes to the IRS knowing that my money goes to help the lesser peoples of the world see the light too.

Well, at least once the smoke from the bombs clear.

Bman1
"Shut up. You know it's funny."

Yes. It was. You win the thread. ;)

for GunnyG
GunnyG writes: "Great point on FISA and one that the libstains just can't get past that dense layer of bone surrounding their walnut-sized brains."

It's remarkable to me that you fought for this country, you've been in other countries and seen what they are like, yet you so cavalierly dismiss how precious our freedoms are and how we must guard them jealously against every excuse to impinge on them.

Remember Wendell Phillips' famous exhortation, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Don't stop being vigilant about an over-powered Executive Branch just because you trust Bush so implicitly to fight terrorism.

Even if you're a Republican, your duty as a tax-paying citizen is to be a watchdog over what Bush is doing. Not a cheerleader.


Oh C'mon 2
Your post to Lolo2 is completely unhinged. Where in god's name have you ever heard anyone ever mention doing any of that nonsense on any level?

I could say that once Hillary got into office, she could do away with term limits like her hero Chavez. She could mount a huge celebrity ad campaign to push this down everyone's throats and liberals would "applaud her courage".

She could shut down FOX news and Danny Glover and Sean Penn would be throwing millions of dollars her way to continue her socialist agenda.

None of that's true, it's just hysterical BS, sound familiar??

SteveL We rallied around our Republic
__You write, "And because 9-11 shook them to their roots and they instinctively rallied around Bush as their hero who would keep us safe from the terrorists." Hook, line, and sinker! 9/11 shook the trunk of Americas tree, and the main root held it upright. Those of this deep, and strong, root rallied in providing needed nutrients to the main trunk It was not born again Christians, and social conservatives who rallied. It was Christians, and Americans, of this trees root. It was not instinctively, it was naturally. The birth of this Republic still lives in those that protect this nation. We have prospered well according to its principles, and we fight anything that tries to abort the truths.

Well...
"I could say that once Hillary got into office, she could do away with term limits like her hero Chavez."

Well, actually, if she were president and she imposed martial law, she probably could stay in office for the duration of the crisis, however long that would be.


for Expound Truth
Expound Truth writes: "Those of this deep, and strong, root rallied in providing needed nutrients to the main trunk"

So if America is like a great oak tree, you see Bush as "the main trunk." That's interesting. I would have said Bush is a few leaves fluttering near the top. So would our Founding Fathers.

steveL and hyperbole 1
Hyperbole is thy thy name. First, we can survive being nuked? I suppose if nuked in the nevada desert, no big deal. But you lack specificity. What about Wash DC, New York, LA. IF course, we can survive; bushmen are surviving; the homeless are surviving. But to assume it would like a scratch on the arm is reverse hyperbole. What would happen to the stock market and retirees etc. Totally irrrespnosible comment.

Secondly, we have survived real limitations on our freedom as opposed to your theoretical concerns. We survived the Alien and Sedition Acts in the first Adams admi. We survived during the Civil war suspension of Habeus and martial law. We survived the Red Scare after WW ! and the McCarthy Period. I hope we survive the biggest threat to free speech which is PC in the society and especially on campus I forgot we survived the Japenese Internment in WW II. We shall survive being locked up for possible flirting as was Craig. If Craig followed some university codes on sex harrassment he should have asked first if he could put his foot next to the other person's foot.

Y

steveL and hyperbole 2
our concern is totally theoretical; yet you make it sound as if Big Brother is about to pounce. Your kind of hyperbole after the Nixon fiasco was one of the factors that were likely responsible for 911 by preventing common sense communication between various agencies. Your kind of hyperbole led the NY TIMES to print information valuable to the enemy.

We have a very active press and blogosphere. If there begins to be any abuse it will be all over the place. Given the threat we face with rogue terrorists and technology which make us more vulnerable than we have ever been(who could have imagined 911) it is amazing compared to other wars how little restrictions on civil liberties as a result of the war; the restriction on civil liberties mentioned by others are regnant, not the wartime measures. In conclusion, you are the master of hyperbole both positive and negative. We can survice being nuked!!! You might want to take that back. I am sure you can survive if you wer e wife and children and and grandchildren were murdered. Just what do you mean by "survive"?

SteveL
Your post to me was ridiculous that this all of the response you will get. I guess I'm just not stupid enough to lower myself to your level.

steveL and bombing Iran
Bombing Iran. Prior to WW II which you favored but many did not at the time, FDR wnet around Congress and "deceived" the American people in the election of 1940 by promising peace while at the same time laying the ground work for involvment which he believed was inevitable. And there was considerable opposition to the war by both left and right. You have written about that with severe criticism of that opposition. So, I gather you did not object to FDR doing theoretically unconstitutionlal measures where there was not great support for entering the war.

Since WWII, we have been involved in wars without any Declaration. Berlin Blockade, Cuba,Korea. VIetnam. There is no declaration now. But as you may recall, the congress authorized the President to take all measures against any country involved in terrorism. Iran declared unofficial war on us when they took the hostages. We declared economic war by freezing their assets. They are currently subverting our efforts in Iraq and have harbored terrorists. Their possibility of their nuclear capability poses a threat. The President now has the legal authority to intervene in Iran by the resolution following 911 and resolutions prior to Iraq War.

steveL and bombing Iran 2

The real issue here is whether there will be public support for such. He has the legal authority but that is not sufficient. It will depend on the mood of the public and the behavior of Iran.

MAny mistakes have been made in dealing with terroroism and rogue states like Iran. It beings with Carter wringing of his hands when Iran declared War in taking our embassy. It continues in the Reagan admin by the pullout in Lebanon when we got a blood nose. Reaan compounded this by dealing with Iran for hostages. We then had the mistake of Bush Sr not finishing the job with Iraq. We then had Clinton not responding appropriately to small terror attacks. Appeasement and waiting for the enenmy to call the shots does not seem the wisest policy.

steveL and rhetoric flourish
SteveL writes
That's interesting. I would have said Bush is a few leaves fluttering near the top. So would our Founding Fathers.
____________________
The founding fathers during ADams admin passed the Alien and Sedition acts. Much more restrictive of freedom than your hypothetical concern about limiting freedom here.

The founding fathers were not able to deal with slavery question and left to future generations. Times change. Nothing is static. The only limitations on freedom since the Constitition at this moment in time are in the economic sphere with expansion of the meaning of ICC clause, drugs. Personal liberty, including abortion, equal rights for homosexuality, have only expanded. What do you think the founding fathers would say.
Totally irrelevant; different times. Your great father would have his eyes ogle out if he went to the beach and saw the dress. So what are to make of that. Disaster around the corner. Rhetorical flourish is what you offered with that statement.,



fos SteveL
Your illogical extrapolation of my post is proof positive that you are fixated with fear of your government.

Regarding the "It can happen here" remark it has happened here as well as 67 other nations in the world. Tell the victims of Islamic terrorism that "vigilance always" is nonessential government intrusion.

Is the DNC assigning debaters?
Van was taking all comers over on the homosexual-related threads the last few days.

Now SteveL is taking all comers on this.

Is the DNC assigning all-day debaters?

For all the liberties claimed to be lost
I don't see one single poster who is actually afraid that they will be "silenced" by the government.

I don't see any Muslims afraid that they will all be rounded up and sent to special camps as were the Japanese-Americans in WW2.

I don't see any of the MSM afraid that they will even be kicked out of the combat zone, except unless they report troop positions.

I don't see anyone actually afraid of being silenced or put on trial for printing National Security secrets.

I don't see anyone afraid that the President will declare Martial Law.

I have seen Liberals allowed to unabashedly criticize and slander the withot fear of reprisal except in the few cases where they talked of him being assasinated, and then it only investigated to make sure the speaker wasn't actually serious. The worst an anti-Bush, anti-War Liberal has had to worry about is being called unpatriotic or traitorous.
-Liberals even made a movie involving the assasination of THE sitting President.

I have seen non uniformed combatants afforded more "rights" than they are actually given in the Geneva Conventions.

I have seen a few American citizens actually consort with our enemies (Sean Penn) or even fight with them (John Walker Lindh) without fear of being brought up on treason charges.

Yet, Bush is just shredding the Constitution... Uh Huh, right.

Okay...
“We survived during the Civil war suspension of Habeus and martial law.”

Actually, we really didn’t. Lincoln’s usurpation of the constitution and denial of the right of self-rule pretty much paved the way to the end of the Republican, Federalism, and the supremacy of the National government. By crushing the final check on Federal dominance in the form of State Secession, he opened the door to the Progressive Socialism that would follow.

If it wasn’t for the end of slavery, not nearly as many would look so favorably upon Lincoln.

“yet you make it sound as if Big Brother is about to pounce.”

And you make it sound as if Osama is around every corner just waiting to put us all in turbans and burqas and only the National state can possibly save us. If anything, the National state has made the situation far worse by dithering regarding border and port security while hundreds, perhaps thousands of non-Mexican illegals cross over into the United States from Mexico.

“I don't see one single poster who is actually afraid that they will be "silenced" by the government.

I don't see any Muslims afraid that they will all be rounded up and sent to special camps as were the Japanese-Americans in WW2.

I don't see anyone actually afraid of being silenced or put on trial for printing National Security secrets.

I don't see anyone afraid that the President will declare Martial Law.”

First, just because the government hasn't exercised its power yet, doesn't mean it won't. And it doesn't make it right.

Second, if there is another terrorist incident stateside, I do expect this will happen. And I fear that the United States will never be the same.

Alternatively, if the President ends up bombing Iran and things escalate into World War III, I fully expect all of the above will happen.

If the world doesn't go up in a nuclear conflict.

Correction:
Should read: Lincoln’s usurpation of the constitution and denial of the right of self-rule pretty much paved the way to the end of the Republic and Federalism, and directly lead to the supremacy of the National government.

What makes my blood boil...
...is the arrogant, absolutely false PRESUMPTION on the part of liberal shills like SteveL that the liberal point of view is the one that defends the Constitution, and that anybody who takes a different POV is required to defend their Constitutional bona fides.

This, of course, is a rhetorical trick. The simple fact of the matter is, the Left doesn't give a tinker's damn about the Constitution, and never has. They routinely ignore Articles II and III when it suits them, they entirely approve judges rewriting the Constitution to mean whatever the Left says it should mean in the modern day, and they've already done everything they (falsely) claim frightens them that the current administration is doing.

So this is all just a trick to make conservatives seem like anti-Constitutional slobs... mostly in order to make it possible for the liberals to do whatever they like.

The truth is, the Bush admin is not violating the Constitution in any way. So far, every test of the admin's claims regarding the Patriot Act and the wiretaps has come down on the Administration's side.

dread
I guess you are upset that we are not hunter gathers anymore. Nothing remains statis. Necessity is the mother invention and evolution of govt.

Who knows what would happenned if no civil war. One thing for sure, we would not have the same kind of govt functioning that we had in 1850 regardless of civil war.

War always leads to some curtailment of rights; i guess if terrible permanent for 39 years, we may have unpredictable problems.

But right now, relax; you are the freeest in the world.

Dread...
Using critical thinking term, your argument is a "slippery slope" fallacy. There is no evidence to support your claims of what "could happen." So your arguments are true "fear mongering," unlike Liberal claims of Terrorism which actually has years of evidence to back it up.

dread
It is noteworthy that you blame Lincoln as if out of nowhere he came. Afterall the South started the war; after all, the South was not prescient enough to see it was neanderthal about slavery. Or suppose, Lincoln if could allowed the South to secede. Then how would be today. I dont know.
So stop blaming the past; things happen. But everyone wants to put blame as if something criminal occurred.

Better yet if we developed like bonobos then we settle all disputes with sex and everybody would be happy and no war.

Dread
Interesting intepretation of history you have there.

Folks...
"I guess you are upset that we are not hunter gathers anymore. Nothing remains statis. Necessity is the mother invention and evolution of govt."

No, len, but when we depart from a strictly limited national state with weak officers and embrace a greatly empowered national government that has extra-constitutional authority over our lives with little redress, I think that is something to be mourned for.

"There is no evidence to support your claims of what "could happen.""

Well, except our own past during wartime, and the history of many nations that started out 'free' and 'democratic' and eventually fell into tyranny and despotism for a variety of reasons, including because people looked to their leaders for security and accepted usurpations of power that they would have rejected under less difficult times.

And our own history shows what len referred to as an evolution. We've gone from a loose confederacy, to a federalist society with a weak federal government, to a strong National government, to a National government that, if it chose to exercise its authority, has control over nearly every facet of our lives.


Lolo2
"Interesting intepretation of history you have there."

Yeah, I know. I'm sorry, I'll recant my heresy and return to the schoolbook version pronto:

- Lincoln was a saint.

- The war was fought purely over slavery and the South was completely, irredeemably evil and always would be.

- And the Constitution always meant for a strong National government led by a powerful executive.

This is all off topic anyway.

Dread
I never said Lincoln was a saint. However your history intepretation is incorrect, but just out of curiosity if you were Lincoln what would you have done?

Duck, dive, & cover!
When WWIII comes, remember what I learned in grade school: duck, dive & cover! It'll save your life if the paranoia doesn't get you first.
"FISA regulates how the government may collect intelligence directed at foreign powers or agents of foreign powers inside the United States."
Sounds like a good plan to me! Unless of course the "constitutional rights" of these foreign individuals are being violated!
"1984" is just a book as was "Catcher in the Rye". Now go watch "Taxi Driver" and let the government get the jump on these terrorist bobos.
Remember: duck, dive, & cover!

Lolo2
Well, hypothetically, if I were Lincoln:

I'd let them go. If I truly believed in 'government by the people, of the people, and for the people', I'd kind of be a hypocrite to force people to belong to my Union who did not wish to be governed by it.

Then unite what's left of the country and try to establish peaceful relations with the South.

Let any slave that crossed into the North stay as a free man, which, I imagine would make the job of maintaining slavery in the South difficult.

Dread
Actually that point of view was argued very vociferously. Thanks for answering me!

Opponents of wiretapping are oddly often
proponents of big government control and intervention in areas such as health care and education. If the invasion of privacy by a "big brother" entity is such a threat, why entrust the same body with much more important enterprises? Why trust the nasty eaves droppers with up to half of our incomes? This is a glaring incongruity.

Frankly, I hope someone from the government listens to my conversations every day, all day. It may be offer some chance at being heard.

SteveL, Read post title
__We Rallied Around Our Republic. The trunk is the Republic, the people. President Bush is doing what should be done, instead of ignoring the threat. Our foundation is not of those who ignored threats, it's of those who faced them with the strength of the people. Its not my fault those strengths are lacking, and, I believe, the terrorist played their cards gambling on those weaknesses. We can fall back into that trap, or we fight to defeat its cause. Who are you betting on? Those of uniting the Republic, or those of dividing the Republic? I'm placing my bets on those armed with this Republics truths.

Personally,
I don't have much of a problem with the wiretapping for now, because Republicans will use it reasonably. I fear however, when a Democrat takes the White House, that it will be used against Dems perceived "domestic" enemies, i.e. Conservatives. Back in the 90's, they employed the IRS to harass anyone who spoke out against them.

I'm so far behind here
That it'll take a miracle to catch up so I'll start here.
-----------------
SteveL writes: Friday, August, 31, 2007 2:40 PM
for CharlieS
CharlieS writes: "The purpose of the act is to gather intelligence on suspected and/or known enemies calling into this country to plan further mayhem."

I know that,
so stop changing the subject.

Are you prepared to give the Executive Branch a blank check on war?
If not, then where would YOU restrict the powers of the Executive Branch?

Don't limit that discussion to FISA.
===========

SteveL,
FIRST, the topic of the discussion IS FISA, so let's stick to that, ok. I know you want to go off into your BDS Conspiracy theorys' but try to control yourself.

First, I WOULDN'T restrict the powers of the President to run the war as he sees fit, as long as HE is making the (RIGHT) decisions, and not 535 busybodies that DO NOT have that authority.

Q. Are you prepared to give the Executive Branch a blank check on domestic surveillance?

A. YES, until it can be PROVEN that he is violating his authority as Clintoon did.


Q. Are you prepared to give the Executive Branch a blank check on detentions of suspected terrorists?

A. YES, THEY ARE NOT COVERED by the Geneva Conventions, so they are not entitled to, nor should they receive, the protections of them.
Further, THEY ARE NOT common criminals, nor, in most cases American citizens, so they also don't qualify for, nor should they receive the protections of OUR Criminal Court system.
To try them there would mandate the exposure of intelligence secrets that could then be used against us.



I'm so far behind here, Pt. 2
SteveL,
In answer to the rest of your questions, the answers are below;
==================

Q. Would YOU support Bush bombing Iran without formal Congressional authorization?

A. Most assuredly so. Ahmadinejad is a maniac.
If he gets nukes HE WILL either use them himself, or supply them to others who would, or both.
I wouldn't support the use of nukes right off the bat, but I would support taking out Irans' ONLY oil refinery and blockading their ports to keep oil from getting into or out of the country. If that doesn't bring him into compliance with the will of the world, then GRADUALLY step up the pressure until he does.

I agree with Hemi_Cuda
Hemi_Cuda writes:
SteveL
Pure hysterics. So I'm inconvenienced, big deal. Besides, air travel is not a right.

Every single concert I went to as a teenager (WAY before 9/11) I was searched. Also not a right.
=======

SteveL,
Hemi is exactly right.
Besides that SteveL, if it wasn't for Richard Reed, or his handlers, proving that C4 can be moulded into the shape of a shoe, we wouldn't have to take off our shoes, so balme HIM, not the president.

Also like he said, I was searched when going into a concert. Also LONG BEFORE the WOT.
Another reason that they do now, and almost always have, banned backpacks at concerts is because they can be used to sneak in cameras, Camcorders, tape recorders, drinks(usually booze) and any other number of things that can cheat the performers or the promoters out of the profits they are entitled to for the effort they put out.

FINALLY, as Hemi did, I'm also demanding that you give proof of ONE right that was denied or violated but either of these laws.

Paid Liberal Debaters
Just caching up this evening!

To Expound Truth - You gt 'em dead to rights.

Hey Nanna - They aren't interested in common calls but only trigger words from calls outside the country. I'm sorry, but it's just not about you!

Hey Dread. Just who are you in contact with outside of the USA that you don't want exposed? Sounds like you have something to hide like the rest of the Libs. You might want to consider counseling with a strong Rx of thorazine - A known antipsycotic.

To Inkling Revival - Yes there are "paid" DNC debaters. Yes they are on these conservative sites. If you read Hillary's senior thesis you will find that in creating this kind of conflict they will spring fourth "new" solutions that will require 'more' power for their leaders. Check your history, they have always done it.

SteveL: limits to wiretapping me
SteveL writes: Friday, August, 31, 2007 1:23 AM
for darcy
darcy writes: "Moreover, this is just another attempt by the left to scare the public."

Is there ANY limit on surveillance powers you would insist on? Would you draw the line anywhere short of what Bush wants?

Yes, SteveL, I don't want him listening to ME and MY Aunt Gertrude discussing her petunias! Other than that, George Bush (but not Dick Cheney), can wiretap any of my phone calls. Any.

for Watchman
Watchman writes: "Hey Dread. Just who are you in contact with outside of the USA that you don't want exposed? Sounds like you have something to hide like the rest of the Libs."

Right, and as long as Bush only uses his domestic surveillance powers on liberals, you're happy.

In sum, you wouldn't lift a finger to defend the rights of your political opponents if those rights were threatened. Just as long as the Government promises that they won't go after YOU.

You're another poster child for an "It Can't Happen Here" scenario.

for CharlieS
CharlieS writes: "Q. Would YOU support Bush bombing Iran without formal Congressional authorization?

A. Most assuredly so."

Just as I thought. The only solution is to get all of you out of political power, because you no longer care about anything but blind obedience to Bush's policies on the War on Terror. You see yourselves not as watchdogs or informed citizens but as cheerleaders clearing a path for Bush to wage the War on Terror any way he wants. So the only solution is to defeat you all.

I very much doubt you will put the same blind trust in President Hillary's warmaking and surveillance powers that you put in Bush. The day Hillary takes the oath of office you're going to become a born-again civil libertarian.

Line is drawn
FISA is now limited to listening to calls within the US with suspectred foreigners or monitoring foreign calls that are routed through Am.

Actually, the Const. does not limit the pres.' powers to conduct foreign affairs, save where the Senate gets to vote for war.

Even Jimmy Carter said in 1978 that the FISA law (another Watergate leftover) could not limit the pres.' powers. Congress may limit what courts can consider through the Const., but not the pres.

Cong. is not the Constitutionally superior 1/3 of the tripartite power sharing the Founders set up. If Cong. wants to limit the executive, it has to pass a Const. amendment.

Otherwise, Cong. gets to advise and consent on certain app't's, it submits a budget, and it can conduct limited investigatios, but all the rest that they foul up (highway leg.) now sneak in through the exec.'s commerce clause or defense.

The latter is the way Eisenhower offered the first college scholarships in 1956. Before that, NO FED. monies went to any education, as EDUCATION is not in the Const.

Hillary and Trust in the same sentence?
SteveL: How quaint! Listening to you I would assume President Bush is the terrorist. Maybe we should back off and those poor little Muslim extremists will see we're really all about love, flowers, LSD, whatever! Having served in the most powerful military in the known world, you fight a war to WIN it, not lose. You don't prosecute war with worries that we'll offend some poor little terrorist b****rd. Man in society today is slowly, so slowly, becoming emasculated by you touchy, feely types. Sorry for you, but I prefer to meet threats to my country (bombings, planes crashing into buildings, holes made in the USS Cole, etc.) head on and with EXTREME prejudice!

Phlyo; out of his mind
Phylo Se Fizer writes: Friday, August, 31, 2007 8:28 AM
Republicans, please, just shut up
This is getting to be sickening.

.....
And it's not just oil we're fighting for. It's profits for oil companies.


Phylo out."
OR IS IT
"Phylo out of your gourd?"

Well I have the perfect solution to the problem of oil company profits.

SHUT them all down! (By the way, Phydo, you must believe that freeeee speech does not apply to anyone but those who agree with you.)

Back to my solution.

1. Shut down all oil wells; we can do it!
2. Throw all the evil oilmen into prison for life.
3. Restart the PLANET; go back to real life!

Without oil we will be able to junk all our cars, planes, trains, etal.

We can begin to stop global warming (I know this will be an extra burden on Al Ghoul, and company, but they will understand.)

WE can start using non-oil products to heat our homes in the winter; ever used "cow pies?" The pioneers of the 1800's used them extensively, just a little messy!

We can save our water by reverting to the old fashioned, but useful, outhouses. Ever tried one on a cold winter night; it's exhilerating, believe me, I know.

We can go back to bathing using the family circular tub; after we heat the water using cow pies.

We can even use the cow pies for cooking stoves.

The problem is; where do we get the cow pies? We would probably need to have cows, you think? What about the methane produced? How will we solve that danger to global warming? Hmmmm!

The objective is to stop the war, right? Then by shutting down the oil, there would be no need to fight in Iraq, right?

Phydo, get your head out of the toilet. I'm a Republican; I'll shut up when the good Lord takes me; not before!

SteveL & The Rest of You Liberal Lugnuts
SteveL said:

"It seems that you are so terrified by the threat of terrorism that you are prepared to give the Executive Branch virtually unlimited power with no checks and balances, no oversight and not even much debate:"

If you're NOT terrified by the threat of terrorism, you've had your head in the microwave 2 seconds too long! Of course, if or when they do get here, you won't have to worry about your head any longer. It will be rolling in the streets.

You have got to be the most irresponsible, arrogant, ignorant bunch of lugnuts that ever came down the pike. Just reading your "thinking" causes me to question your sanity. God help us all if we had to depend on YOU and like lugnuts, to defend us or protect us from ANYTHING!

The day Hitlary
takes office, a lot of people will become revolutionists.

An unnecessary neocon blunder
If Bush/Cheney et al. had come to Congress to discuss the need, plan, and accountability for the NSA wiretap scheme, ways could have been found to reconcile it with FISA and keep everybody comfortable. But no, it had to be done on the sly, in keeping with the administration's obsessive secrecy and megalomaniacal mission to expand executive power at the expense of the political process. That Congress and NGOs tend to be suspicious of the administration's motives and methods is a direct result of Bushney's hubris, nothing else. It is the terrorists, not Americans, who ultimately benefit from the anti-constitutional trend towards closed government we've had to put up with since 2000, because that is precisely the kind of government they would impose if they had the opportunity.

What are you talking about?
The Democrats are gutting or torpedoing FISA??? And even if they are, isn't that what you conservatives want?

Let's see ... when the Bush administration first started wiretapping, many of its requests for warrants from FISA were turned down. So they simply did their wiretapping anyway, without getting (or requesting) warrants.

And now we have the so-called “Protect America Act of 2007." This act gives THE ATTORNEY GENERAL the authority to issue warrants for international wiretapping, with no FISA and no court review of any sort. As far as I know, it was mainly the Republicans who were pushing for this provision, to make Bush's warrantless spying legal.

Why, exactly, is Ms. Carpenter criticizing the "liberals" for planning to "gut FISA"? The Bush administration has been ignoring FISA for five or six years now. It seems to me that if anyone would want to gut FISA, it would be Bush and company, so they can do their spying without having to get anyone's permission. Wouldn't "the liberals" (or TH's distortion of liberals) want to make spying on our enemies more difficult? Wouldn't gutting FISA have the opposite affect?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.