lsutiger on May 13, 2008 at 6:40 PM

If you “miss Jack Bauer” you might enjoy “The Company” by Robert Littell.

That novel is by fare more realistic.

There may have been assets like “Jack”; they’re few and fare between.

J_Gocht, can you name the Constitutional Rights/Personal Freedoms loss during the last 7 years? —el Vaquero on May 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM

FBI Tried to Cover Patriot Act Abuses With Flawed, Retroactive Subpoenas, Audit Finds… http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/fbi-tried-to-co.html

…and there are litterly hundreds of other examples!

He ought to give a speech, outline the issues, namely that Congressional Democrats and Pelosi want terrorists to be able to sue telecoms for helping the NSA eavesdrop on them, and tell the American people he tried but they’re now on their own.

That he can’t stop a terrorist attack because Pelosi and Dems took away the tools he needed. That he believes an attack will come, Americans will die, but Pelosi decided it was more important for trial lawyers to be able to sue telecoms on behalf of terrorists.

Refusing to play hardball is defeatist.

Go for it dems, you haven’t been able to pin anything on Bush yet.
Here’s your chance.

The Mau Mau have won, pass the Soma.

- The Cat

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.13/default.asp

The President could have vetoed the congresses’ action.

J_Gocht on May 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM

a true “Constitutional Originalist” finds the FISA courts to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the President has the inherent authority constitutionally. Whereas Congress overstepped its powers after Nixon and watergate seizing power.

Mistaking your opinions for facts is also a logical fallacy.
BD57 on May 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM

That program operated for four years without court supervision, until the Administration bowed to public pressure in January 2007 and allowed the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review it.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/court-ruling-th.html

you paultards are modern day Benedict Arnolds, and completely clueless as to why.

Mistaking your opinions for facts is also a logical fallacy.

jp on May 13, 2008 at 9:47 AM

George Bush’s illegal listening and George Washington’s illegal opening…Hmm?

Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.

Call the bluff.

If there is another attack, Democrats are gone for 100 years.

I’ve never understood this controversy. The president has the authority to have bombs dropped on somebody, but he needs a permission slip to listen to their phone calls.
trubble on May 13, 2008 at 8:03 AM

The controversy is around whether the President has an authority to listen to phone calls inside the US of A. No one questions his authority to bug phone calls abroad.

Which leads to an interesting question: No one doubts that the President has the authority to bomb Ramadi, but can he bomb Chicago? This question has been bugging me ever since I heard that on 9-11 the Air Force was on the brink of shooting down the airplane that ended up crashing in Pennsylvania. Doing so clearly would have made sense: the people on the plane were doomed anyway, yet shooting the plane down had the potential to save thousands more on the ground. But does the President have the authority to order a plane like that shot down?

There must be some constitutional middle ground

its not unconstitutional, every war time president through our entire history has done similar measures. but relax, nobody is listening to your phone calls unless you call overseas and talk about Jihad or something, espeically in arabic. Then the data mining matrix may pick up the phone call and record it so they can see what is going on.

George Washington intercepted US Mail headed for people he though might be british spies(without a warrant), Read the mail and then placed back into mail to be delivered undetected.

The Democrats want the contributions the trial lawyers will kick their way from the proceeds on the ‘class action’ suits that will follow.

tarpon on May 13, 2008 at 9:37 AM

I say let them do it as long as a provision that the families of future terror attacks like this can Sue Pelose and company with their own trial lawyers.