Big Brother is watching...

[America1]

1.) The spy revelations are only with those who were receiving calls from known Al Qaeda members, in which, I agree that they should have been looked into. Don’t forget we are at WAR. The Bush admin would have been remiss if they did not look into these calls and another attack happened.

You are at war??? Who with??? Bush said quite some time ago that the war in Iraq was over.

Is there another one I don't know of??? If so, who is the enemy???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess your not as informed as you thought.

Did you ever here of Al Qaeda? I don't think we ever stopped that one.

Bush did not say the was in Iraq was over, he said "major combat operations" were over. Now this is parsing words but, that's what politics is all about.

[BHS]

There's an entirely new paradigm working it's way to the surface here, that hasn't been fully absorbed or debated to the extent it needs to be.

According to the new paradigm, the old concept of war being a physical contest between the armies of two well defined parties (nation states, for example) has been expanded to now included both physical and idealogical bouts between both well defined parties and amorphous undefined groups (eg. terrorist cells).

Not everyone agrees with this new definition for what war is. People backing Bush's War on Terror tend to back this definition and believe we are currently at war, with a set of concepts as opposed to a country. People who do not back Bush refuse to believe we are at war, because they don't agree with the new paradigm.

I'm not sure that I 100% believe the new paradigm, but I think that terrorist organizations have proven their ability to wreak havoc and need to be treated as something more than mere a criminal element.

[America1]

Why? If this had come out before the elections last year, it could have hurt Bush's campaign. I can't think of any otehr reason why they would hold off on such a story than to help Bush (just like they helped spread Bush's WMD propaganda durin the run up to the Iraq war).

- On a conspiracy angle,,, the NY Times put this out the day after the Iraqi elections to possible squash any positive press that Bush might get from it (which he clearly has).

So lt me get this straight: you dismiss the notion that the Times conspired to hold the story when it could have really hurt Bush, but contend they conspired to publish it now (when Bush is already floundering in the polls)? How does that make any sense?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is further proof that the wire taps weren't illegal or unprecedented.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

[BHS]

BHS:

I came across the following while surfing around. I don't think it's related to the surveillance program in question, but it does raise some questions as to who the government is spying on:

Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

The DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center. One “incident” included in the database is a large anti-war protest at Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles last March that included effigies of President Bush and anti-war protest banners. Another incident mentions a planned protest against military recruiters last December in Boston and a planned protest last April at McDonald’s National Salute to America’s Heroes — a military air and sea show in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Other sources have indicated the OPentagon doucment also shows the Pentagon keeping tabs on GLBT groups oppossed to the military's ban on gays in the service.

Can you trust the government not to abuse their powers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The type of spying we're talking about is a very passive abuse of the government's authority. There's no indication that the government went any further than examining the activities of selected groups to ensure that terrorist activity was not being plotted. There's no indication that the black helicopters were about to swoop in and haul hippy dissidents off to the concentration camps.

Here's the conundrum: you can't prevent terrorism (or indeed crime) without knowing ahead of time that it's going happen. Data has to be collected one way or another. What Bush did was wrong on a legal procedural level, but could have been accomplished just as easily by following the "long established" procedures.

The people who are getting overwrought by all of this are missing the point that the only thing unusual about any of this is a difference of opinion about legal procedures, and if Bush had bothered to go back after the fact and obtain the warrants no one (outside of the NSA and people who are interested in spying )would ever have heard of FISA or it's particular requirements.

This situation is great for the Dems on a partisan, political, personal-destruction, win-at-any-cost war with the Bush administration, but doesn't add up to a hill of beans for the average American citizen.

[!!!]

Here is further proof that the wire taps weren't illegal or unprecedented.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

Nope.

First: the Clinton order. In 1994, physical searches weren’t covered under FISA. So, at the time, the ability of the president to authorize physical searches without a warrant was completely legal. That loophle was closed in 1995 by Clinton himself. At no time, however, has electronic survillance of U.S. citizens been permitted without a court order or warrant.

As for the reference to Carter's Executive Order of May 23, 1979, Drudge does a cute bit of selective editing. According to Drudge, the order read "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.” However, he omitted the rest of the order, which stated "but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section." The certifications contained in the Section in question includes ensuring that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." (In other words: no spying on U.S. citizens.)

The type of spying we're talking about is a very passive abuse of the government's authority. There's no indication that the government went any further than examining the activities of selected groups to ensure that terrorist activity was not being plotted. There's no indication that the black helicopters were about to swoop in and haul hippy dissidents off to the concentration camps.

Again, I guess it boils down to the matter of how much you trust the government to ensure its own activities are above board. Most freedom-minded peole would answer "not a helluva lot".

The people who are getting overwrought by all of this are missing the point that the only thing unusual about any of this is a difference of opinion about legal procedures, and if Bush had bothered to go back after the fact and obtain the warrants no one (outside of the NSA and people who are interested in spying )would ever have heard of FISA or it's particular requirements.

Um. It's not a "difference of opinion". If the Dems are right, then the president repeatedly and personally authorized the commission of a crime, not to mention violations of the Fourth Amendment. In other words the President may have broken both the law and his oath. I guarantee, if this was a Democratic President, the knives would be out on the right (and rightly so.)

This situation is great for the Dems on a partisan, political, personal-destruction, win-at-any-cost war with the Bush administration, but doesn't add up to a hill of beans for the average American citizen.

So basically: it was only a small vilolation of the law and the Constiution so no biggy?

[Renegade]

well, since his poll # have been going up over the last 2 months, I'd think he's in good shape. Regardless, Kerry has already proven he is a way to weak on national security, he is pulling his "we can't win" crap that he did after vietnam  again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are undoubtedly head of the Bush optimist club if your feeling of being in "good shape" is based upon a one month uptick. His approval rating has gone from 88% after 9/11 to 50% in Nov 2004 to 34% in Nov 2005.

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

[Renegade]

The American Constitution does not protect the right to privacy directly.  The ongoing debate about the abortion issue is deeply rooted in this concept. It is often argued from the strict Constitutionalist standpoint that the cases of Griswold v Connecticut and Row v Wade were improperly decided, because the right to first marital privacy, and later personal privacy, had to be contrived from a particular and selective reading of prior Supreme Court decisions and not from anything directly stated in the Constitution.

A peeping tom's activities are as much a violation of property rights and security of the person as they are a violation of privacy.

Not to worry, though. Hillary will be inaugurated in 2009, and she can undo all of Bush's evil, and then everyone will love the US and all of the terrorists will go away forever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BHS, I'm not an expert on the American Constitition, but I believe you are correct in saying that the Constitution does not protect the right to privacy directly, however the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to include this right.

"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."

I'm not enough of a constitutional expert to know if the Bush administration is violatiing the guarantees set up by the Fourth Amendment because the definition of "unreasonable" is open to interpretation.

What troubles me most is that this President has repeately demonstrated a lack of respect for individual rights and freedoms. It is clears that prisoners in Guantanamo have been detained without counsel and tortured. This is also true of the many suspected people with terrorist links in the wake of 9/11.

I value my rights and most Americans do too. Fear and the shock of 9/11 have convinced them to relax their viligence in protecting their rights. But this is a slippery slope. In time people will overcome their fears and demand a president who will respect their rights and freedoms again.

[PocketRocket]

You are at war??? Who with??? Bush said quite some time ago that the war in Iraq was over.

Is there another one I don't know of??? If so, who is the enemy???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess your not as informed as you thought.

Well, I never claimed to know everything.

Did you ever here of Al Qaeda? I don't think we ever stopped that one.

Oh THEM. But "war" traditionally is a word that described a state of conflict between nations. I wasn't aware that AlQaeda was now recognized as a nation.

Does this mean that the USA does not consider itself to be *ahem* "at war" with any other terrorist organizations???

Bush did not say the was in Iraq was over, he said "major combat operations" were over. Now this is parsing words but, that's what politics is all about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected. You're right. His exact words were, as you stated "major combat operations" were over.

But the funny thing is (you may have to correct me again, but I believe this is the case) more US troops have been killed since these "major combat operations" ended, than were killed when the "war" was still officially on.

Strange, that.

In any case, good post, and thanks for the correction.

BTW, I sent you a PM. Did you get it???

(Edited to say: Apologies to BHS. When I was writing this post, I had not yet got to yours wherein you defined "war" in a similar way)

[PocketRocket]

Getting back to the basic premise of the thread, I do not doubt that the motives behind this act are sincere.

My contention is simply this; power corrupts.

There are already people in government, and in law enforcement, who are less than honest, and who have a tendency to abuse their powers.

This is why there are so many checks and balances in law (Miranda rights, for example).

By putting MORE surveilance power into the hands of these people, and doing it in such a way that all they need to do is say "we suspected him/her/they of terrorist activities/affiliation", then you are opening the door to far greater possible abuses of the law than we've ever seen before.

Wasn't there something in the news a few months back about an abortion clinic that got in trouble as a result of this type of surveilance???

I tried, but couldn't find the story. Will continue trying.

As an addendum, since I have bashed Bush so much in this thread, I want to say this; I also have little doubt that Bush is (by and large) sincere in his desire to defend the USA. I do not question his motives (mostly) so much as his methods.

[newbie]

This has been repeatedly refuted. Bush DID NOT LIE in making the case for war to the American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq. You're suffering from false memory syndrome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a quick revisit. Remember Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. Do you remember what they said about finding all the WMD? Where was the immenent threat? Was it that urgent for Bush to go marching into Iraq when Bin Laden (remember him) was undoubtedly in Afganistan or Pakistan moving from cave to cave. Oh, and just what was the first thing the U.S. protected prior to the invasion. You got it. Oil wells, and not at the big cashe of weapons at Al Qaqaa, a crucial munitions dump, where most of the exposive material found its way into the hands of the insurgents.

[America1]

well, since his poll # have been going up over the last 2 months, I'd think he's in good shape. Regardless, Kerry has already proven he is a way to weak on national security, he is pulling his "we can't win" crap that he did after vietnam  again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are undoubtedly head of the Bush optimist club if your feeling of being in "good shape" is based upon a one month uptick. His approval rating has gone from 88% after 9/11 to 50% in Nov 2004 to 34% in Nov 2005.

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do feel Bush will go down as a great president b/c I firmly believe we will succeed and he will have been a rock when everyone else wavered (Regan was hated by many during his presidency but he held strong and was proven right in the end on many of his issue, know he is a held in great regard)

Well, almost no president ever gets to 88%, I think we both can say that's an un-maintainable %. The 34% is also his lowest and only stayed that way for about a month, which he has already rebounded to a "normal" range, most Pres range in the 40 - 65%. This however, does happen to 2nd term Presidents more often then the 88%. Clinton (the darling of the Anti-Bush crowd) found himself in the 30% range in his second term also.

[America1]

You are at war??? Who with??? Bush said quite some time ago that the war in Iraq was over.

Is there another one I don't know of??? If so, who is the enemy???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess your not as informed as you thought.

Well, I never claimed to know everything.

Did you ever here of Al Qaeda? I don't think we ever stopped that one.

Oh THEM. But "war" traditionally is a word that described a state of conflict between nations. I wasn't aware that AlQaeda was now recognized as a nation.

Does this mean that the USA does not consider itself to be *ahem* "at war" with any other terrorist organizations???

Bush did not say the was in Iraq was over, he said "major combat operations" were over. Now this is parsing words but, that's what politics is all about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I stand corrected. You're right. His exact words were, as you stated "major combat operations" were over.

But the funny thing is (you may have to correct me again, but I believe this is the case) more US troops have been killed since these "major combat operations" ended, than were killed when the "war" was still officially on.

Strange, that.

In any case, good post, and thanks for the correction.

BTW, I sent you a PM. Did you get it???

(Edited to say: Apologies to BHS. When I was writing this post, I had not yet got to yours wherein you defined "war" in a similar way)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree the AlQeada "War on terror" is unconventional, but since they have attackedand killed a great # of us in 1 shot, it must be considered a "war".

Yes, more have died since but, the US military isn't good at policing, we are much better at open combat. This seems to have been the case for a while now. nobody's perfect

Not yet, I may have deleted it as spam if I didn't notice the sender address.

[Riverwind]

I agree the AlQeada  "War on terror" is unconventional, but since they have attackedand killed a great # of us in 1 shot, it must be considered a "war".

You must be kidding. Al Queda is not a country - it has more in common with the mafia. A country cannot goto "war" against terrorists anymore than it can goto "war" against crime or drugs.

Terrorism is a policing problem and should have been treated as such. Calling it a war is simply propaganda used by the Bush administration to ensure its re-election.

[Argus]

Something all you outraged Bush bashers might want to toss into the discussion mix was a little tidbit I overheard on the radio this morning. It mentions a small item in today's Ottaw Citizen which says that while the Canadian media have joined in the condemnation of Bush for allowing electronic eavesdropping on Americans Canada's own CSE (whose HQ btw, is within walking distance of my house) has been doing the same thing here, very quietly, for years, without any court orders or warrants. As it is permited to do under law. And while they don't publicise it neither is it any great secret.

[!!!]

Something all you outraged Bush bahsers might want to toss into the discussion mix was a little tidbit I overheard on the radio this morning. It mentions a small item in today's Ottaw Citizen which says that while the Canadian media have joined in the condemnation of Bush for allowing electronic eavesdropping on Americans Canada's own CSE (whose HQ btw, is within walking distance of my house) has been doing the same thing here, very quietly, for years, without any court orders or warrants. As it is permited to do under law. And while they don't publicise it neither is it any great secret.

Indeed. I'd like to see this become a bigger issue in this country (and what better time than during an election campaign?). At least the U.S. has laws about this sort of thing (even if they are being broken). Canada is clearly in no position to take any moral highground on this issue.

Canada also allows spying on citizens

I do feel Bush will go down as a great president b/c I firmly believe we will succeed and he will have been a rock when everyone else wavered (Regan was hated by many during his presidency but he held strong and was proven right in the end on many of his issue, know he is a held in great regard)

Funny you should mention old Ronnie Reagan. This was the guy who's rhetoric more or less defined small-government (read: Republican)conservativism in the late 20th Century. Today, though, the party of the late St. Gipper can't get enough government.

As for Bush's legacy, this op-ed writer says it all:

"I have no doubt that one day the Bush administration's curtailment of civil liberties, especially the torture of prisoners, will be looked back on as a national shame."

[America1]

Something all you outraged Bush bahsers might want to toss into the discussion mix was a little tidbit I overheard on the radio this morning. It mentions a small item in today's Ottaw Citizen which says that while the Canadian media have joined in the condemnation of Bush for allowing electronic eavesdropping on Americans Canada's own CSE (whose HQ btw, is within walking distance of my house) has been doing the same thing here, very quietly, for years, without any court orders or warrants. As it is permited to do under law. And while they don't publicise it neither is it any great secret.

Indeed. I'd like to see this become a bigger issue in this country (and what better time than during an election campaign?). At least the U.S. has laws about this sort of thing (even if they are being broken). Canada is clearly in no position to take any moral highground on this issue.

Canada also allows spying on citizens

I do feel Bush will go down as a great president b/c I firmly believe we will succeed and he will have been a rock when everyone else wavered (Regan was hated by many during his presidency but he held strong and was proven right in the end on many of his issue, know he is a held in great regard)

Funny you should mention old Ronnie Reagan. This was the guy who's rhetoric more or less defined small-government (read: Republican)conservativism in the late 20th Century. Today, though, the party of the late St. Gipper can't get enough government.

As for Bush's legacy, this op-ed writer says it all:

"I have no doubt that one day the Bush administration's curtailment of civil liberties, especially the torture of prisoners, will be looked back on as a national shame."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess will have to wait and see.

Funny though, when you think of FRD, you only think of the great he did for us and you don't ever get much "how could he lock up the Japanese in camps during WWII" - So Bush's "legal wire taps" aren't really to much to worry about in terms of civil liberties being breached by Presidents.

[Black Dog]

Funny though, when you think of FRD, you only think of the great he did for us and you don't ever get much "how could he lock up the Japanese in camps during WWII" - So Bush's "legal wire taps" aren't really to much to worry about in terms of civil liberties being breached by Presidents.

See, a lot of people still point to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent as a blemish on the record of the nation and F.D.R.'s presidency. I guess it all depends on who you talk to. But the thing here is that the president breaking the law is a big deal. It's an even bigger deal when this same president has authorized torture, illegal confinement and started an uneccesary war that is still getting a lot of people killed. And those failures are just on the foreign policy front. It's hard to see how Bush will be remembered as anything but a dud, if not an outright embarrasment.

[America1]

Funny though, when you think of FRD, you only think of the great he did for us and you don't ever get much "how could he lock up the Japanese in camps during WWII" - So Bush's "legal wire taps" aren't really to much to worry about in terms of civil liberties being breached by Presidents.

See, a lot of people still point to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent as a blemish on the record of the nation and F.D.R.'s presidency. I guess it all depends on who you talk to. But the thing here is that the president breaking the law is a big deal. It's an even bigger deal when this same president has authorized torture, illegal confinement and started an uneccesary war that is still getting a lot of people killed. And those failures are just on the foreign policy front. It's hard to see how Bush will be remembered as anything but a dud, if not an outright embarrasment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could argue each point you put up but, at the end of the day, it's just your opinion and I disagree.

[BHS]

Um. It's not a "difference of opinion". If the Dems are right, then the president repeatedly and personally authorized the commission of a crime, not to mention violations of the Fourth Amendment. In other words the President may have broken both the law and his oath. I guarantee, if this was a Democratic President, the knives would be out on the right (and rightly so.)

This situation is great for the Dems on a partisan, political, personal-destruction, win-at-any-cost war with the Bush administration, but doesn't add up to a hill of beans for the average American citizen.

So basically: it was only a small vilolation of the law and the Constiution so no biggy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've written this without the benefit of having read what the Dem's own legal experts had to say:

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

Read the whole column, written by former associate AG John Schmidt published in the Chicago tribune. If you'd like similar sentiments expressed by other Democrats, I can link to them too.

[BHS]

well, since his poll # have been going up over the last 2 months, I'd think he's in good shape. Regardless, Kerry has already proven he is a way to weak on national security, he is pulling his "we can't win" crap that he did after vietnam  again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are undoubtedly head of the Bush optimist club if your feeling of being in "good shape" is based upon a one month uptick. His approval rating has gone from 88% after 9/11 to 50% in Nov 2004 to 34% in Nov 2005.

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just sharing some ideas that have been bantered about on right wing blogs:

The difference between 84% and 50% can be explanined by a comparing a country coming together in the face of the worst attack on American soil in nearly 200 years, versus a more complacent country sharply divided by partisan politics.

The difference between 50% and 34% can be explained by non-core Republican righties who're pissed about the Republican spending spree and the nomination of Harriet Myers (keeping in mind that his numbers started to really plummet immediately after that nomination).

I think Bush is falling into the same trap as his father: taking his strong support in foreign affairs as license to bungle domestic policy and get away with it.

[BHS]

What troubles me most is that this President has repeately demonstrated a lack of respect for individual rights and freedoms. It is clears that prisoners in Guantanamo  have been detained without counsel and tortured. This is also true of the many suspected people with terrorist links in the wake of 9/11.

You've made a leap here that I can't let pass without comment. This thread is about protecting the privacy of American citizens from potentially illegal intrusion. The prisoners at Guantanamo are enemy combatants (illegal or otherwise - let's not get into the legal status issue here) of foreign nationality, captured in foreign countries and kept in a detention facility on foreign soil. The American President is under no obligation to respect their rights or freedoms.

I object to the word torture being used to describe interrogation techniques that until the McCain amendment were legal under both American and International law and which do not result in serious injury to the detainee.

It's true that many people were "detained", some for extended periods of time, immediately following 911. I'm sure you'll agree this couldn't be helped and that no administration, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise would have acted any differently. Perhaps it's my persistent naivete showing through, but to my knowledge only Jose Padilla is still being held. I don't know of the friends or families of other detainees coming forward to ask why their loved ones are still being held, and I can't believe that if there was a story there the New York Times et al wouldn't be all over it, unless they'd been privately convinced of the merits of keeping certain people locked up.

I value my rights and most Americans do too. Fear and the shock of 9/11 have convinced them to relax their viligence in protecting their rights. But this is a slippery slope. In time people will overcome their fears and demand a president who will respect their rights and freedoms again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As has been mentioned by others in this forum, Canada is no slouch in monitoring communications, except that up here it's all completely legal and no one has ever really made an issue out of it.

My contention since the 2004 election has been that Bush has more or less expended his party's political capital as far as the Presidency is concerned. I firmly believe that if the Dems nominate Hillary or a governor of similar stature and politics they won't have a problem reclaiming the Presidency. I'm interested to see how a Democratic President will act in the job post 911.

[BHS]

This has been repeatedly refuted. Bush DID NOT LIE in making the case for war to the American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq. You're suffering from false memory syndrome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a quick revisit. Remember Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. Do you remember what they said about finding all the WMD? Where was the immenent threat? Was it that urgent for Bush to go marching into Iraq when Bin Laden (remember him) was undoubtedly in Afganistan or Pakistan moving from cave to cave. Oh, and just what was the first thing the U.S. protected prior to the invasion. You got it. Oil wells, and not at the big cashe of weapons at Al Qaqaa, a crucial munitions dump, where most of the exposive material found its way into the hands of the insurgents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're using the words "imminent threat" in the context of the much-debated State of the Union Address, I suggest you go back over the text of that message. Bush clearly stated that he wanted to prevent Iraq from becoming an imminent threat, which means that in his opinion it had not yet become an imminent threat. This miscomprehension of Bush's meaning by the Left his been repeated and re-repeated, but no matter how many times it's said it's still not true. Iraq was not, in GWB's words, an imminent threat.

Scott Ridder is hardly a sympathetic character outside of hard-core anti-war circles. To say his views have been a source of controversy is an understatement. That being said, there are stories he himself told about Iraqi intransigence during the inspections years, of how Iraqis more or less moved materials out of inspection sites right under the inspectors noses. Hans Blix, on the other hand, is viewed as a self-contradictory, if well intentioned, buffoon by those of us in favour of the war. Unlike Ridder, it didn't appear to bother him that the Iraqis were playing the inspectors for patsies.

The intervention in Afghanistan was Phase I of the war on terror, an immediate military response intended to kill or capture those directly responsible for 911 and their Taliban supporters. The intervention in Iraq was the beginning of Phase II of the war, the dismantling of state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq's support for Palestinian terror and approval of the works of Al Qaeda was well known, and his quest for regional domination and WMD (as well as it's central location) made it the primary target in a part of the world viewed as a hotbed of terrorist activity. If it were merely about invading a country with lots of OILLLLLLLLL! that supported islamist extremism they would have gone into Saudi Arabia. Except, of course, that they were already there (but in a more limited capacity than what Phase II required). Make no mistake: Phase II is not yet over, and won't be over until the bulk of the Middle East has been dragged kicking and screaming into the democratic 21st century. American political sea changes are not likely to affect this process, so don't get your hopes up that the Dems will take over in 2006 and the troops will be quickly withdrawn, no matter what they say now.

Finally, Osama is contained in his mountainside hidey-hole. Both Coallition and Pakistani forces are in the process of hunting him down, though I suspect that their lack of enthusiasm stems from a belief among those involved that he's been dead for some time now. I'm confident that either he or traces of his DNA will be located eventually, and that in the mean time he's got way too much on his plate to be plotting terrorist attacks.

[Black Dog]

Read the whole column, written by former associate AG John Schmidt published in the Chicago tribune. If you'd like similar sentiments expressed by other Democrats, I can link to them too.

Schmidt is confused, spending the bulk of his time trying to prove what is already known: that the President can authorize foreign intelligence survillance without a warrant.

Yet he completely ducks the issue of whether the NSA's surveillance of U.S. persons is illegal.

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens.

If the program is directed at or includes U.S. persons, then it is illegal.

The fact that he cites Gorelick's testimony (which dealt with physical searches, which were, at the time, not covered by FISA's warrant provisions) and also falls back on the ridiculous defense that the 2001 Afghanistan resolution gave the executive branch expanded powers shows (which is dealt with by Tom Daschle (here shows he's reaching.

[PocketRocket]

I agree the AlQeada  "War on terror" is unconventional, but since they have attackedand killed a great # of us in 1 shot, it must be considered a "war".

I'm just not sure if I agree with the term "war".

There is definitely some sort of conflict here, but is "war" the right word for it???

I'm not so sure.

But it certainly makes great political currency for Bush.

Yes, more have died since but, the US military isn't good at policing, we are much better at open combat. This seems to have been the case for a while now.

To tell the truth, I don't think your troops are doing such a bad job at it.

Tough to police a country when there's a considerable segment of the population that simply don't want you there.

nobody's perfect 

I hope you mean nobody aside from myself, for ah is perfeck in evry whey

Not yet, I may have deleted it as spam if I didn't notice the sender address.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's okay, we seem to have gotten that in hand now.

[PocketRocket]

I agree the AlQeada  "War on terror" is unconventional, but since they have attackedand killed a great # of us in 1 shot, it must be considered a "war".

You must be kidding. Al Queda is not a country - it has more in common with the mafia. A country cannot goto "war" against terrorists anymore than it can goto "war" against crime or drugs.

(With apologies to America1)

It must be an American thing

After all, they had a "war on drugs" just a few years back

Never heard who won that war, but there's still plenty of drugs around.

Maybe there's something in the American collective psyche that just likes the word "war".

Maybe all those leftist protestors down there are having a "war on war"

Terrorism is a policing problem and should have been treated as such. Calling it a war is simply propaganda used by the Bush administration to ensure its re-election.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well of course it is. That's what politicians do; turn every possible thing to their advantage, use every possible thing as propaganda for their party.