Page 14 of 28 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 546
  1. #261  
    Same talking points - now in numbered list form! We've already dealt with most of those arguments here and will continue to.

    The bottom line is what I said in my previous post. If we aren't allowed to gather intel to prevent attacks, the cost will be more smoking ruins of American landmarks. Getting warrants for intelligence gathering is simply not practical in many cases. Do you have a better idea how to do this or do you simply wish to damage Bush politically with no regard to the consequences?

    BTW, your cite is a tax-exempt group??? Can I assume they claim to be "non-partisan"...
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No. Actually repubs are trying to suggest the Times held the story until the Patriot act debate to cause it problems. If that were the case, why not disclose it during the 2004 election?
    So are you saying that they did not hold onto this story of a year? If so please cite because I have only seen it reported from just about every major news source otherwise.

    With the (apparently disputed) fact of how long the NYT times sat on the this story and given the timing of releasing it, there is little doubt that they are trying to play to their own tune for their own purposes. Whether that is promoting a book, selling more papers, or advancing a personal political agenda....who knows. But the fact is if their sole interest was to share news to enlighten the public, this story would have been published a year ago and given time to debate charges in it and to fix it prior to the voting for the Patriot Act again.
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That about sums that up. Turn the dogs loose!
    Here is some perspective on the other side of the fence:

    Powell Supports Government Eavesdropping
    Dec 26, 6:37 AM (ET)

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday supported government eavesdropping to prevent terrorism but said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants.

    Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President Bush authorized a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance operation after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

    Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Powell said he sees "absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions" to protect the nation.

    But he added, "My own judgment is that it didn't seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go get the warrants. And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it."

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051226/D8ENTC088.html

    Debate Rages Over Legality of NSA Wiretap Program

    "I think there's a very powerful case that the president has independent authority" to order surveillance without a warrant, said Robert Turner, a University of Virginia professor who specializes in national security law.

    -------------------

    Cheney repeated administration arguments that the authority is "absolutely consistent with the Constitution," is reviewed every 45 days, has been approved by the Justice Department and is known among top congressional members with security clearances.

    -------------------

    Added Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "In this war we don't have radar, we have intelligence." If one considers the "total set of tools that we have, whether it is the NSA monitoring programs, whether it is the Patriot Act, these tools are critical tools in defending this country against terror," Chertoff told FOX News.

    But alarming many critics is the president's decision to authorize surveillance without what is widely seen as a basic step to preserve constitutional rights: obtaining a warrant through the approval of a judge. In 1972, the Supreme Court punted on the question of whether the president is allowed to authorize wiretaps of foreign powers or their agents without a court order, Turner told FOXNews.com.

    -------------------------

    President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday cited three areas in which the administration has the authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance: presidential powers in Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; the 2001 congressional authorization for the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks; and the Supreme Court's decision in the 2004 case of enemy combatant Yaser Hamdi, a Saudi-American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan who was held for three years without being charged.

    ----------------

    "Under Article 2 of the Constitution, as commander in chief, the president has that authority. The president has the authority under the congressional authorization that was passed and clearly stated that, quote, 'The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force.' This was under Section 2 in the authorization for the United States Armed Forces," McClellan said.

    "It is limited to people who have — one of the parties to the communication [who has] a clear connection to Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations and one of the parties [who] is operating outside of the United States. And I think that's important for people to know, because there's been some suggestions that it's spying inside the U.S. That's not the case," the press secretary added.

    Gonzales told reporters that the Supreme Court decision on Hamdi reinforced the claim that the president was given wide permission in the Sept. 14, 2001, vote by Congress authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Gonzales said the congressional authorization did not specifically mention the word "detention," but in the Hamdi case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion "that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield ... had been authorized by the Congress when they used the words, 'authorize the president to use all necessary and appropriate force.'"

    "We believe the court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance," Gonzales said.

    --------------------

    In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... 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," wrote the court.

    "The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

    Cunningham offered several other circumstances under which FISA warrants would be unnecessary.

    "If the physical interceptions were done outside the United States and if it were the communications of the foreign person that were targeted, not the person inside the United States, or if the person inside the United States was not found to be a U.S. person — that is a citizen or resident or permanent resident alien — then those circumstances would potentially take this out of FISA, and therefore, not require a FISA warrant," he said. "It principally depends on where the collection is being done."

    ---------------

    Turner, who is assistant director for the Center of National Security Law at the University of Virginia, argued that history is on the president's side, especially before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 created a special, secret court to review surveillance requests.

    "To the extent that the first 200 years of our history — basically 90 percent of our history when FISA didn't exist — everybody seemed to understand that this was exclusive presidential territory ... that can't be taken away by Congress by statute."

    Turner said 1973's United States v. Brown and 1978's United States v. Humphrey — both appellate decisions — upheld the president's authority to perform warrantless wiretaps in foreign intelligence, but a 1972 case that reached the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of domestic surveillance related to "foreign powers or their agents.”

    "I can't say the Supreme Court would uphold what they have done," Turner said of the administration's decision. But "I don’t think the president clearly broke the law."

    Turner said he thinks the president was doing what he needed to do to protect the public.

    "This is a president trying desperately ... to find out what our enemies are planning and stop them," he said.

    ---------------

    Cornyn added that in May 2004, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA process had become too slow.

    "Speed is important when particularly you're talking about getting some surveillance of a cell phone conversation between an Al Qaeda operative here in the United States and their counterpart overseas," Cornyn said. "That's apparently the reason why this alternative procedure was used in a limited number of cases involving the agents of foreign powers, particularly Al Qaeda operatives."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The bottom line is what I said in my previous post. If we aren't allowed to gather intel to prevent attacks, the cost will be more smoking ruins of American landmarks.
    No one is saying that the government cannot gather intel to prevent attacks...simply that it must obey the law as it does so.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Getting warrants for intelligence gathering is simply not practical in many cases.
    I keep hearing this argument so let's assume it's true. If the warrant can be obtained retroactively, what's the problem? What's not practical about filling out the paperwork and having it signed off by a judge after the fact (I don't have a cite, but I think there has been 1 or 2 instances where it was ever denied).

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Do you have a better idea how to do this or do you simply wish to damage Bush politically with no regard to the consequences?
    We have some of the greatest minds in the country determining policy...surely we can do better. The burden isn't on the person who questions what we do to come up with a better way...if that were the case, many useful suggestions would never have been made (if that person had to come up with a better 'mousetrap'.)

    However, because you asked the question, I do think there is a better idea...how about following the FISA guidelines even if you are getting warrants retroactively?

    On the bridge question you raised earlier...I don't think anyone is saying that the gathering of intel does not prevent any attacks...and I am glad that they did. I just want them to file the warrant after the fact. It's about accountability...and no one has given a 'practical' example to show how they could not get the warrant after the fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    With the (apparently disputed) fact of how long the NYT times sat on the this story and given the timing of releasing it, there is little doubt that they are trying to play to their own tune for their own purposes.
    I agree. But from what I have read, Pres. Bush knew they had the story a year ago and the White House asked them not to publish it at that time. Pres. Bush knew they would publish it sooner or later, so he could have diffused a lot of this political heat if he revealed the program months ago (and could have dealt with it prior to any debate on the Patriot Act.) My point is that they knew it would be coming out and could handled it much better from a PRPRPR $perspective$.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    My point is that they knew it would be coming out and could handled it much better from a PRPRPR $perspective$.
    I think that is a pretty good criticism for the last 4 years of the Bush Admin. They have horrible PRPRPR.
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    No one is saying that the government cannot gather intel to prevent attacks...simply that it must obey the law as it does so.
    I feel that current law is not adequate for the current threat environment. Also the President has executive powers to conduct the war that seem to be impinged upon by some of the current law. It would be nice to create a new framework that would lay down boundaries for the executive branch as well as the legislative - this will require cooperation from the opposition party as well as a decision by the Supreme Court.
    I keep hearing this argument so let's assume it's true. If the warrant can be obtained retroactively, what's the problem? What's not practical about filling out the paperwork and having it signed off by a judge after the fact (I don't have a cite, but I think there has been 1 or 2 instances where it was ever denied).
    And I keep hearing that we should be getting warrants. Warrants against whom and for what??? Warrants will only be granted for searches of specific persons for specific items. It could take months to develop a significant lead. The investigator is supposed to go back months to get a warrant? C'mon... The reason only 5 warrant requests have been denied is because the "traditional" espionage case for which the FISA court was created is always built against specific individuals working for specific organizations are being investigated for stealing specific secrets for specific foreign governments. None of these specific suspicions might be present with regard to terrorism investigations.
    We have some of the greatest minds in the country determining policy...surely we can do better. The burden isn't on the person who questions what we do to come up with a better way...if that were the case, many useful suggestions would never have been made (if that person had to come up with a better 'mousetrap'.)

    However, because you asked the question, I do think there is a better idea...how about following the FISA guidelines even if you are getting warrants retroactively?
    I can't agree with you that the critic has no responsibility to offer an alternative. It is sometimes not possible to obtain a warrant during the course of fighting a war against an adversary such as we now face. The president has responded in a reasonable fashion - by using his executive authority to authorize warrantless searches of and for suspected terrorists in a program that is overseen by the Justice Department and which has been reported to the Congress. If one is critical of this means of fighting the war, then, yes, it is up to the critic to suggest a better way.
    On the bridge question you raised earlier...I don't think anyone is saying that the gathering of intel does not prevent any attacks...and I am glad that they did. I just want them to file the warrant after the fact. It's about accountability...and no one has given a 'practical' example to show how they could not get the warrant after the fact.
    Again, a warrant against whom and for what and with what probable cause? The government may feel strongly that they prevented an attack - that doesn't mean they ever had enough evidence to convict in court. We're really talking about two different standards.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #267  
    Shift in Public Opinion? Again, we will have to see what the investigations bring about.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904
    Source: MSNBC

    Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 159246 responses


    Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
    85%

    No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
    5%

    No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
    8%

    I don't know.
    2%
  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I feel that current law is not adequate for the current threat environment.
    I agree that it probably isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Also the President has executive powers to conduct the war that seem to be impinged upon by some of the current law. It would be nice to create a new framework that would lay down boundaries for the executive branch as well as the legislative - this will require cooperation from the opposition party as well as a decision by the Supreme Court.
    I don't think it will be definitively resolved until the S.C. hears the case. IMO-there appears to be 2 different arguments about the Pres. authority here:

    1. Some argue that the Pres. has this authority simply from Article 2 of the constitution. (This is what I think you are saying)

    2. There is an argument that in addition to the power to conduct war from Art. 2, the Congress gave the Pres. this authority through the Patriot Act and the vote to go to war (hence the White House is now arguing that Congress 'implied' the power to the Pres.)

    I don't see how these two ideas can be reconciled against your phrase that I underlined. Either the President already had the power to spy domestically (in order to conduct war) or he didn't have the authority under the constitution but now Congress and given him that power. The White House seems to be making the argument for #2. The problem that I have with it is that I am not sure that Congress can give the President that authority (even if you believe that Congress implied it through the Patriot Act.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    And I keep hearing that we should be getting warrants. Warrants against whom and for what??? Warrants will only be granted for searches of specific persons for specific items.
    Are you sure that this characterization is correct? You make it sound like the govt. would have to get a warrant for each phone call? Do you not think that the govt. has a list of people under surveillance? Do you not think that they could draft up a warrant with a person's name on it and be specific enough so that they could listen over a period of months? Im no expert on wiretaps but from my limited experience and the political climate, I don't see how they could not ask for a warrant.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It could take months to develop a significant lead. The investigator is supposed to go back months to get a warrant?
    How do you think they were gathering intelligence prior to the unilateral decision to tap without warrants? And why do you say that they would go back months to file the warrant? If they make the decision to wiretap, then *soon after that decision (not when they gather the intel), they file the warrant? What's so hard about that?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    C'mon... The reason only 5 warrant requests have been denied is because the "traditional" espionage case for which the FISA court was created is always built against specific individuals working for specific organizations are being investigated for stealing specific secrets for specific foreign governments. None of these specific suspicions might be present with regard to terrorism investigations.
    I don't know what 'probable cause' standard that the FISA court is using. But based on the number of denials, it's fair to say that they were being fairly liberal in their application.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I can't agree with you that the critic has no responsibility to offer an alternative. It is sometimes not possible to obtain a warrant during the course of fighting a war against an adversary such as we now face. The president has responded in a reasonable fashion - by using his executive authority to authorize warrantless searches of and for suspected terrorists in a program that is overseen by the Justice Department and which has been reported to the Congress.
    I can't agree with your characterization of reasonable. To me, it's not a reasonable decision if your authority has to be implied from Congressional decisions, you do it in almost complete secret, and there was already a completely legal way of accomplishing what you wanted. But, to each his own.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    If one is critical of this means of fighting the war, then, yes, it is up to the critic to suggest a better way.
    So your standard applies only if we are critical of fighting a war? So, if we start talking about border control, then if I am critical, then I don't have to come up with a 'better idea'?

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Again, a warrant against whom and for what and with what probable cause? The government may feel strongly that they prevented an attack - that doesn't mean they ever had enough evidence to convict in court. We're really talking about two different standards.
    Maybe, but I don't know hard it would be to convict someone of an act of terrorism if you had enough intel to thwart it. Plus, is it more important to you to thwart the crime or to get a criminal conviction for a crime after it has already been committed?

    My preference would be to stop it regardless if I ever caught the person responsible.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Shift in Public Opinion? Again, we will have to see what the investigations bring about.
    An internet poll? You're kidding, right?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Are you sure that this characterization is correct? You make it sound like the govt. would have to get a warrant for each phone call? Do you not think that the govt. has a list of people under surveillance? Do you not think that they could draft up a warrant with a person's name on it and be specific enough so that they could listen over a period of months? Im no expert on wiretaps but from my limited experience and the political climate, I don't see how they could not ask for a warrant.
    The government would have to show probable cause in each and every instance.
    How do you think they were gathering intelligence prior to the unilateral decision to tap without warrants? And why do you say that they would go back months to file the warrant? If they make the decision to wiretap, then *soon after that decision (not when they gather the intel), they file the warrant? What's so hard about that?
    Because it might be months (or never) before the government might be able to show probable cause to obtain the warrant.
    I don't know what 'probable cause' standard that the FISA court is using. But based on the number of denials, it's fair to say that they were being fairly liberal in their application.
    Again, the FISA court was established and has been primarily tasked with traditional foreign counter-intel investigations where the government knew who it was going after and for what. The government could much more easily establish probable cause against, say, a lone worker passing secrets on to the Soviets than members (and what's a "member", do you get a wallet card?) of an independant cell of a nebulous terrorist organization with no national base of operations.

    At any rate, I don't know that they're tapping specific phone lines - my understanding is that it is more of a data-minig operation where the NSA uses special software to search certain conversations (international calls and e-mails to certain countries) for specific words or phrases. How does one get a warrant for that?
    So your standard applies only if we are critical of fighting a war? So, if we start talking about border control, then if I am critical, then I don't have to come up with a 'better idea'?
    Of course not. A critic should be required to offer some sort of alternative in any case, not just this one. If you are critical of our border control efforts, you should be prepared to offer ideas that you feel are better.
    Maybe, but I don't know hard it would be to convict someone of an act of terrorism if you had enough intel to thwart it. Plus, is it more important to you to thwart the crime or to get a criminal conviction for a crime after it has already been committed?
    Obviously it's more important to stop the attack. That's why the administration is taking the route they have (I believe). I honestly don't know what if any prosecutions have come out of the Brooklyn Bridge incident, though I'd be curious about that.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The government would have to show probable cause in each and every instance.Because it might be months (or never) before the government might be able to show probable cause to obtain the warrant.
    The simple fact that the govt cannot show probable cause to an independent party (i.e. judge) is indication to me that no ONE person should decide whether to set aside established law.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    At any rate, I don't know that they're tapping specific phone lines - my understanding is that it is more of a data-minig operation where the NSA uses special software to search certain conversations (international calls and e-mails to certain countries) for specific words or phrases. How does one get a warrant for that?
    The simple fact that hardly anyone has any 'real' information on this program causes me to hesitate.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Of course not. A critic should be required to offer some sort of alternative in any case, not just this one. If you are critical of our border control efforts, you should be prepared to offer ideas that you feel are better.
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My position is that the critique is no more or less valid without an alternative. Is it more helpful to come up with a solution...yes. But it doesnt make the critique any less important. (and in some ways, your position would advocate limiting your 1st amendment unless you provided a solution. )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    The simple fact that the govt cannot show probable cause to an independent party (i.e. judge) is indication to me that no ONE person should decide whether to set aside established law.
    The issue is really: is this war-fighting or is it law-enforcement? The standards of "evidence" and what is "probable cause" are different in war than in peacetime law-enforcement. Unfortunately, this war is being fought in part on our own soil. Holding the executive to a peacetime standard during a time of war is potentially very dangerous. I am sensitive to the civil-rights concerns that others have, I just don't feel this is an unreasonable measure that has been taken to fight the war on this front.
    The simple fact that hardly anyone has any 'real' information on this program causes me to hesitate.
    I suppose. It's also an indication that the enemy was not not aware of it, but now is. Again, this is dangerous.
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. My position is that the critique is no more or less valid without an alternative. Is it more helpful to come up with a solution...yes. But it doesnt make the critique any less important. (and in some ways, your position would advocate limiting your 1st amendment unless you provided a solution. )
    It is assumed that the critic knows that the object of his criticism has some sort of flaw - otherwise what's the point? If one wishes to be taken seriously as a critic, one should be prepared to explain that flaw and why it is a flaw and why there is a non-flawed alternative. This is hardly a 1st amendment issue. No one is asking Congress to pass a law requiring non-constructive critics to shut up.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    The issue is really: is this war-fighting or is it law-enforcement? The standards of "evidence" and what is "probable cause" are different in war than in peacetime law-enforcement.
    I don't think that is really the issue here. I say that because generally the President cannot disregard the rule of law (even during wartime). There are exceptions and arguably you and others would say that this is one of the exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Unfortunately, this war is being fought in part on our own soil. Holding the executive to a peacetime standard during a time of war is potentially very dangerous.
    Arguably it is just as dangerous to allow ONE person to be above the law and not be held to the same standard (whether it be peacetime or war time.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I am sensitive to the civil-rights concerns that others have, I just don't feel this is an unreasonable measure that has been taken to fight the war on this front.
    I can agree...and I think this would have been much less of an issue if the Pres. came out 6 months ago and stated what we were doing and his authority for doing it. By letting the MSM come out and spring the story on the American public, it looks that much worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I suppose. It's also an indication that the enemy was not not aware of it, but now is. Again, this is dangerous.
    That is a downside to having an open society...

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    This is hardly a 1st amendment issue. No one is asking Congress to pass a law requiring non-constructive critics to shut up.
    No I am not saying that. But your position (i.e. don't critique something unless you can come up with a viable alternative) is a restriction on free speech. Basically you are saying that I can't complain about something unless I can come up with a better way and that is a restriction.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    No I am not saying that. But your position (i.e. don't critique something unless you can come up with a viable alternative) is a restriction on free speech. Basically you are saying that I can't complain about something unless I can come up with a better way and that is a restriction.
    First off, let me say this isn't directed at you personally, as I feel you have offered an alternative - I just don't happen to agree with it (well, in part I do, but not entirely).

    I'm not saying don't criticize. I'm saying criticism is more valuable when there is some alternative that can be offered. If someone criticizes and is unable (or unwilling) to offer a better alternative I can draw one or more of the following conclusions:

    - They really aren't that bothered and are debating for the sake of debating.
    - They really only wish to somehow damage the opposing viewpoint politically by taking potshots.
    - The best that can be done in an imperfect world is in fact being done.
    - They really haven't thought the issue through and are reacting viscerally to something.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  15. #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    First off, let me say this isn't directed at you personally, as I feel you have offered an alternative - I just don't happen to agree with it (well, in part I do, but not entirely).

    I'm not saying don't criticize. I'm saying criticism is more valuable when there is some alternative that can be offered.
    Fair enough.

    I just wouldn't want someone to dismiss a criticism out of hand simply because they haven't come up with an alternative.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #276  
    Just some perspective of why we need oversight.

    Mind you this was 8 months ago.

    Source: The Albuquerque Tribune

    Guv fears calls monitored
    By James W. Brosnan
    Scripps Howard News Service
    April 28, 2005

    WASHINGTON - Gov. Bill Richardson is concerned that some of his phone calls were monitored by a U.S. spy agency and transcripts of them were given to the president's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.

    Richardson called Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, to express his concerns after Dodd revealed that Bolton had on 10 occasions asked the National Security Agency for the intercepts of phone conversations involving Americans.

    An online journalist then speculated that Richardson's conversations with former Secretary of State Colin Powell and another U.S. official about North Korea might have been among Bolton's requests.

    "The governor is upset that his conversations with Secretary Powell would be intercepted since most of them were domestic calls," said Richardson spokesman Billy Sparks. "The governor felt his calls about North Korea were confidential."

    -snip-

    A vote on Bolton's nomination by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been delayed until May 12. That will give members more time to investigate allegations that he was abusive to intelligence agents who did not support his charges about the status of Cuban and Syrian weapons programs. But Democrats also want more information about the NSA-intercepted phone calls.

    -snip-

    Sparks said Richardson's call to Dodd was triggered when he read an online story by Washington journalist Wayne Madsen. The story said intelligence community "insiders" claim the NSA circumvented a ban on domestic surveillance by asserting that the intercepted calls were part of "training missions."

    -snip-
  17.    #277  
    Mind you there is no evidence that his conversation was wiretapped

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Just some perspective of why we need oversight.

    Mind you this was 8 months ago.
  18.    #279  
    No problem with anyone here having a problem with the Patriot Act, but you need to redirect your anger at Congress - they passed it not Bush. Bush does not tell the FBI to go to the library, the FBI does it with the laws under the Patriot Act. I like how your whacko linked site says Bush allows "to spy on ordinary Americans". If ordinary Americans means terrorists from abroad living in USA, I guess that's accurate

  19. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    No problem with anyone here having a problem with the Patriot Act, but you need to redirect your anger at Congress - they passed it not Bush.
    I agree but you aren't trying to make the argument that Pres. Bush is not pushing to have the Patriot Act extended are you?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Posting Permissions