baff15493aec3801ff42…

Mark, how about if we just outsourced the task? That would be perfectly legal

That’s not legal at all.

Mark, Congress writes the law. If it is bad law, if that law allows terrorists, or terrorism to go unchecked, then someone needs to propose/push through a new law for national defence.

Well said. Agreed. Bush should have done this in 2001! Even Democrats back then were fairly strong on national defense. Bush could have leveraged it to get some legislation passed.

One, there was no actual wiretapping.

Fine. Communications interceptions of some sort. I don’t care if they’re bugging phones are intercepting cell phone signals, it’s the same principle.

Your perfect poster boy is Howard Dean.

Head over to

Hot Air

to see a great video of President Bush discussing US interrogation techniques with Matt Lauer. This is what we need to hear President Bush tell the Libs every day!

Technorati Tags:

President Bush

Matt Lau…..

Someone entitled the following You Tube video “Matt Lauer Corners Bush On Torture.” However, individual viewers might have a different take on the conversation. (HT: Hot Air)……

Would you prefer that?

Democrats who are obstructing the Senate are not helping this country. If they put out even 1/4th of the effort to propose alternate plans for keeping America safe that they do in attacking our commander-in-chief, then they would have some relevance. Instead, they are the anchor that keeps us mired in political debates that are all pretty much nonsense.

Today’s Democratic Party helps terrorists more than they do America.

There is are two problems with your argument.

One, there was no actual wiretapping.

Second, the FISA court said in 2002….

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.

Lets remember that it was the Carter Administration that setup the FISA court and it was also the Carter Administration that said it retained its inherent Constitutional authority.

Oh, and gee, that wouldn’t change the way terrorists operate, now would it?

Why should it? They don’t know anything more than they did in October, 2001.

Telling them that the program exists in the first might change the way they operate though … is that too difficult for you to fathom?

Bush told them in October, 2001 that he was going to listen in to terrorist communications. Any change in operation happened then. Finding out four years later that he followed through doesn’t tell them anything except he meant it when he said he was going to listen. Do you think they thought he was bluffing?

Did it ever occur to you that there might not be time to get a warrant?

It did. Which is why FISA allows them to listen anyway, and get the warrant afterwards.

Who, other than al-Qaeda and terror sympathizers wants that?

Those who hide behind the “civil libertarian” mantle because they are afraid to admit what they really are

Name someone. I certainly don’t want to make FISA more strict, if that’s what you were insinuating. It sounds fine, just the way it is. Hear it directly from the President:

Under the new law [passed in 2001 -- ed.], officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.

Sounds great. Note that no mention was made that fourth amendment compliance (proactive or retroactive) was a constraint. Why would it be? They can get the warrant later.

Mark Jaquith, what have democrats done to make it more legal?

To make it legal to violate the law? Nothing, I hope. It is already legal for the government to listen in to terrorist communications under FISA. They don’t have to wait for a warrant, they can get it afterwards.

I’ll be the first one to agree that the Democrats have few good plans for fighting terrorism (port security being one exception), but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong to insist that Bush follow the law whose modernizing amendments he signed. If he had a problem with FISA, he needed to ask Congress to amend it. He’s asking now, but only because he got caught violating it and court decisions are looking unfavorable.

I didn’t ask if there was anyone who wanted the NSA program to be conducted legally, I asked if there was anyone who wanted to shut it down, to prevent the government from listening in to al-Qaeda, as Bush accused.

Anna Diggs Taylor didn’t do that, and I haven’t yet found any Democrat who wants to do that. Bush says there are people who want to do that. Who?

ACLU.
Link

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.
Link

DailyKos
Link

Would you care for more?

.

The question I have for Matt Lauer is this. Matt, if you captured someone who had information of a plan to kill your family, what steps would you take to get the information from this person?

Matt would take no steps whatsoever – he would sell his family down the river to save his own sorry, cowardly a–.

The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated and bumped, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support…

Man he spanked Lauers butt didn’t he? LAUER has revealed himself to be a liberal punk ass! He’s out of the closet and the only thing he can do now is practice his SHOW TUNES! Boy, if this interview didn’t reveal Lauer as a mewling yellow belly, I don’t know what does!

In the chest of a liberal beats the heart of a coward. They’re all little nothings that got their lunch money taken as kids, they wouldn’t fight for themselves then and they won’t now. You think Maher and the rest of these liberals who’ve been floating the trial balloon of “why don’t we just convert to Islam” are kidding? They aren’t. These cowardly punk asses have been so “bent over” by their continued advocation of Sodomy that they are about as good in a fight as tits on a bull. So weak and spineless are they that they even seek to change the meaning of , RUNNING AWAY IN MIND NUMBING TERROR WHILE SHITTING THEIR YELLOW LIBERAL PANTS. They now want this to be called “RE-DEPLOYMENT”.

From SFGate…

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Like it or not, democrats hate the power the President has to wage war against America’s enemys, and rare is the day that they are not providing hope to the terrorists by joining in with the BDS crowds attacks.

The only thing that the NYT/WSJ story revealed to the terrorists was that the program was intercepting communications without giving notification to the FISA court. This doesn’t help terrorists… the FISA court is a secret court. They still don’t know which calls are being monitored.

Oh, and gee, that wouldn’t change the way terrorists operate, now would it?

Because people within the administration were likely feeling queasy about tapping phones without warrants, in violation of FISA.

Way to read minds, Bob Woodward.

There is also the possibility that the leak was politically motivated.

NO!!! GET THE F— OUTTA HERE!?!?!?!!!!!!!! YOU THINK???????

That they wanted to “telegraph” terrorists is absurd. If they wanted to do that, they’d publish a list of all calls that had been intercepted

.

Telling them after the fact wouldn’t be telegraphing. Telling them that the program exists in the first might change the way they operate though … is that too difficult for you to fathom?

The focus was (and is) clearly on the very questionable legality of tapping phones without a warrant when FISA says that’s not allowed, even during wartime.

Did it ever occur to you that there might not be time to get a warrant? Gee, maybe if they had a crystal ball that could see into the future, they might know when calls would be incoming and could pre-emptively get a warrant – I guess that’s what they should focus on, no?

Bush said people want to keep the government from intercepting calls from al-Qaeda. Who, other than al-Qaeda and terror sympathizers wants that?

Those who hide behind the “civil libertarian” mantle because they are afraid to admit what they really are.

Shortly after signing modernizing amendments to FISA in October, 2001, Bush announced to the world (and the terrorists) that the government now could intercept all modern forms of communication that the terrorists were using. He also said that the new abilities would be used.

The only thing that the NYT/WSJ story revealed to the terrorists was that the program was intercepting communications without giving notification to the FISA court. This doesn’t help terrorists… the FISA court is a secret court. They still don’t know which calls are being monitored.

If they didn’t want to shut it down, then why did they leak this classified program in the first place?

Because people within the administration were likely feeling queasy about tapping phones without warrants, in violation of FISA. There is also the possibility that the leak was politically motivated. That they wanted to “telegraph” terrorists is absurd. If they wanted to do that, they’d publish a list of all calls that had been intercepted. The focus was (and is) clearly on the very questionable legality of tapping phones without a warrant when FISA says that’s not allowed, even during wartime.

We’re getting off track though. Bush said people want to keep the government from intercepting calls from al-Qaeda. Who, other than al-Qaeda and terror sympathizers wants that?

I asked if there was anyone who wanted to shut it down, to prevent the government from listening in to al-Qaeda, as Bush accused.

Anna Diggs Taylor didn’t do that, and I haven’t yet found any Democrat who wants to do that. Bush says there are people who want to do that. Who?

If they didn’t want to shut it down, then why did they leak this classified program in the first place? Why did they telegraph our actions to the terrorists?

All military personnel do not have to undergo the waterboarding technique. Sheesh!