Skip to comments.Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Po
Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
click here to read article
Why do you believe there is a distinction here?
Congress doesn't know it. Apparently, when they were directly asked to give this power and refused, they thought they were refusing to give this power.
No, I didn't say 'yes' to the statement you made, I said 'yes' to the question you previously asked. Why do you know feel the need to morph it?
The protocol was this. President determines who gets monitored based on national security threats. The Intelligence committees in the house and Senate are briefed every 90 days, and more if so requested. Do all 3 branches of gov't need to be involved in the CIC's decisions? Who has more authority during times of war regarding enemies and suspected enemies, the CIC or the courts?
To change the subject to Pakistan would allow you to get away with more generalities about our "perpetual, made up war" you think we're in.
Okay - just so I'm clear, you don't believe a warrant is necessary to monitor such people, right? So warrantless wiretapping is not only okay for 'those who call terrorists or are called by them' or for those with a 'serious indicator of belonging to Al Qaeda'? It is also okay for those US citizens who just happen to get caught up in some kind of data mining or other electronic surveillance activity, whether it be happenstance, or coincidence, or whatever?
If that's the case, fine - go forward from there. But in discussing this I wish folks would stop talking about wiretapping 'terrorists and those who call them,' because that is not ALL that is at issue here.
So...I say let em fight each other till the death.
I'll answer that question just as soon as you tell me who that enemy is. You already concede that we are NOT at war with all 'radical Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda,' which was your previous attempt at a definition.
Are we conducting military action against an enemy? Yes. Are we 'at war'? Not if we don't know who we are at war with, or where, or how we win. If we don't know these things, yet we use the 'at war' justification to adjust our domestic policies, we can consider them permanently adjusted.
And we elected them too........
This is not exactly true. According to NSA, the decision can be made by a shift supervisor.
No I didn't ever agree to that, you made that up.....and as far as I am concerned, you're not worth the time, you're simply irrational.
See ya, don't bother posting, I won't answer, cause you're not worth the time.
You tell me.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
For cowering before the executive? Absolutely.
Now how about answering my question, if you can. (don't worry about it if you can't; it's not like I had all that high expectations)
If not, what is your point?
It depends on how tangental it is. If its a caller who called a caller who called a caller and is 4 layers removed from a direct connection to the terror number, then its absurd and a waste of time for them to tap that line. But if you are 1 layer removed, and after every call that our direct link caller makes to Osama, he calls you a minute later, then there is reasonable cause to be suspicious. Should we get a warrant for you so we can see where else you are calling. No.
But go ahead and duck the question. Because I know you can't answer it and maintain any semblance of logical consistency.
I can't imagine that these fellows are so craven as to parrot the leftist media line that this was a "domestic spying program against citizens at home."
I think that when the true history of what and how comes under non-biased examination it will be clear the Bush would have been subject to claims of wrong doing IF HE HADN'T taken the course of examining foreign contacts.
And, just to be clear, I'm talking about the 'tangential' types we've been discussing. NOT those who called terrorists and are called by them. And NOT those who are called as a pattern right after Osama calls our suspect. Simply those who happened to get caught up in a big net.
Where the hell did that come from? Is it your usual habit to start talking about things that have nothing to do with the argument at hand?
what is your point?
I already told you what my point was. Congress has no more constitutional authority to transfer the war-declaring power to the President, than it has to allow lower military officers to second-guess his power as commander-in-chief. An act of Congress purporting to do that is void.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.