Cynical Nation

The most interesting result of the Rasmussen poll is the Strongly Disapprove numbers. They were over 40% just a few months ago, now just 35%.

One HUGE problem for those opposed to these intercepts is that they only occurred on calls into the United States from terror hot spots (like Afghanistan) and from various targeted (al Qaeda) numbers.

There is NO and can be NO expectation of privacy when calling, or getting a call from such places, let alone from a number suspected of being an "al Qaeda number."

Another problem is that "Every President since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Gorelick was right and four federal courts have upheld that view.

Do Americans want the NSA snooping around on calls between Mary down the block and her Grandma?

Of course not, but a huge majority certainly approve of the government intercepting calls to "American citizens," like Jose Padilla and "the Lackawanna Six" from Afghanistan. Hell, a substantial majority support tracking and intercepting calls and emails between home-grown and suspected, or "would-be" pedophiles and their targets. Even "Perverted Justice," a group the ACLU calls "a vigilante mob" enjoys broad support in their internet trolling for pervs and setting up evidence gathering stings, that are turned over to local police for prosecution.

It's no longer even OK to say such things are "theoretically wrong," because most people, quite frankly, put the well-being of their children and their community's safety from terrorist attack ahead of any "theoretical" discussion of these folk's perceived rights are.

Aldrich Ames (CIA Traitor) was arrested (2-21-94) and subsequently convicted on information gathered by the Eschelon Program, in which frmer President Clinton allowed the NSA to wiretap the calls of American citizens and, in Ames' and some other's cases, conduct warrantless searches for evidence under Executive Power.

The Eschelon Program was NOT a "wartime program," as our involvment in Bosnia didn't begin until 1996 and none of those wiretaps or searches was ever connected to our future action in Bosnia.

There's no way to oppose the Eschelon Project based on some silly theoretical grounds - it produced results and uncovered at least one traitor, and many other "enemies" of America and also helped Bill Clinton do some "economic spying," some of it, for personal gain.

Again, nothing wrong with any of that, in my view.

Now, if you can't oppose that, and why would anyone, then you can't honestly oppose the current tapping of incoming calls to "American citizens" (yeah Jose Padilla, the Lackawanna Six, and the Portland and Detroit cells were technically "American citizens," and as such TRAITORS to this country) from targeted al Qaeda numbers from various terror hotspots, like Afghanistan, the Sudan, etc.

And even if you naively claim to now oppose the Eschelon Project as well, then at least the inane argument that "this is an unprecededented violation of Civil Liberties" is now completely and utterly dispelled.

I don't think Americans have any right to privacy, or really any rights at all. Our forefathers died so that our government could "do what's best" for us by any means necessary, especially during petro, er, I mean police actions!

FOUR different federal courts have ruled (and rightly so), that the Executive Branch has the right to order warrantless searches and wiretaps when gathering foreign intelligence.

That's how Clinton's Operation Eschelon caught Aldrich Ames (with a warrantless search conducted by the NSA) and that's what allows the current administration's listening in on calls from targeted al Qaeda numbers, in various terror hotspots like Afghanistan and the Sudan to various "American citizens" (like the Lackawanna Six, the Detroit and Portland, Oregon terror cells, etc) - "collecting foreign intelligence."

We allow individual citizens (ie. "Perverted Justice") to troll the Web for pedophiles, lure them into traps and use that evidence, garnered without any warrant, or even legal authority, against pedophiles in a court of law.

WHY?

Because most rational people have no sympathy for pedophiles and want them locked up for good....same with terrorists. In fact, if anything, an Islamo-cultist terrorist rates even lower than a baby-raper in most American;s eyes.

This is why I'm often ashamed I'm still a registered Democrat (hoping that the likes of Zell Miller take back that Party), the Liberal-wing always wind up finding themselves in the unenviable postion position of defending pedophiles and terrorists, with lines like, "Today it's some suspected terrorist or pedophile, but tommorow, it could be you."

You know why that's a loser?

Because nobody has any sympathy for, nor compassion for terrorists, pedophiles or their defenders for that matter.

I'm praying that the Liberal-wingnuts keep cutting themselves deeper and deeper with such tactics, making it easier for the old Blue Dog and Boll Weevils Democrats to take back that Party andrestore some sanity to that once proud Party.

MAJOR Problem for JMK:

The "intercepts" were illegal.

Bush has every right to go to the FISC and request wiretaps, he does not have the right to order or put them in place without court approval and a warrant.

He has no excuse; FISA statutes allow him to install them IMMEDIATELY, and gives him 72 hours after to get the FISA warrant.

WHY would Bush choose to not use the FISC which had basically rubber-stamped his requests for years?

Maybe because the requests were made to wiretap AMERICAN citizens, foreign governments, the UN, journalists, Liberal activists, and as I think we will find out, anyone Bush operatives deemed an enemy of the Administration.

That's why Rasmussen has Bush down to 47% approval again today, and why USA Today/CNN went down a point as well.

JMK, by all means: It does not appear at all that you stand for anything the Democratic Party believes in: You should find yourself another registration, or join Zell Miller and Joe-mentum Lieberman in the GOP wing of the Democratic Party.

Hey, it was criminal, but some DEMOCRAT did it back when, so it's OK!

Maybe if the crazed lunatic Repubs hadn't been nose-deep in Clinton's ass over a blowjob, wasting $60 million to irritate the best president in modern times, they would have had time to notice actual violations of the law. Ah, but Ken Starr's pornography publishing house, the Republican Party, was asleep at the wheel.

Or was it simply that once again you are all lying, and that the two things aren't equivalent.

FOUR separate federal courts have upheld that "warrantless searches and wiretaps can be authorized by the Executive Branch when collecting foreign intelligence."

That's why Clinton's Operation Eschelon, which authorized warrantless physical searches and wiretaps of "American citizens" (like the traitor Aldrich Ames) was perfectly LEGAL, and it's why warrantless wiretaps and email monitoring calls/emails to/from various targeted/known al Qaeda numbers to/from various "American citizens" (like the Lackawanna Six, etc) is also LEGAL, under the very same purview of "collecting foreign intelligence."

Operation Eschelon, which authorized warrantless SEARCHES and wiretaps of "American citizens" was legal, as its goal was "collecting foreign intelligence," and the current monitoring of targeted/known al Qaeda numbers to/from various "American citizens" is legal for the very same reason.

It's understandable why the Liberal-wing of the Democratic Party is so excised over this - Lynn Stewart (American traitor) is a Liberal Democrat, John ("Taliban Johnny") Walker-Lindt and family are Liberal Democrats, and at least half the ACLU is in bed (no pun intended) with the pedophiles, so it's only natural that the Liberal Dems would defend their own - pedophiles and terrorists.

As the heading of this piece suggests, Please, by all means keep this tact up, it's akin to dousing oneself with gasoline, before lighting up a smoke.

God damnn you're stupid. It isn't FOREIGN intelligence we are debating. Bush is spying on AMERICANS, that makes it DOMESTIC spying.

If Bush gets his way, you could be the next Goebbels.

Apparently you don't understand even the basics of this issue.

Let me try and help.

A phone call or email from a "targeted/known al Qaeda portal in Afghanistan, or the Sudan to various U.S. "citizens" (like the Lackawanna Six, for instance) on American soil," which is what the NSA program does, IS collecting "foreign intelligence," just as the warrantless wiretapping and physical searches of Aldrich Ames' property (an American citizen, on American soil, under Operation Eschelon) was ALSO "collecting foreign intelligence.

That's an obvious fact.

So long as ONE side of the transaction is a foreign national, overseas, the entire transaction falls under the purview of "collecting foreign intelligence."

The NY Times has backed away from its idiotic first account that suggested that the current administration was eavesdropping on calls made by Americans opposed to the war to other Americans all on American soil. Never happened.

It's had to admit that yes, the program is, as described, one that monitors calls to & from various "American citizens" to/from various targeted/known al Qaeda numbers in places like Afghanistan and the Sudan.

Now if someone would say, "Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant on calls to and from other Americans, in the U.S. requires a warrant," I'd agree, BUT that's NOT what anyone has stated. Those opposed to the NSA program are saying that al Qaeda representatives (presumably those behind all those "targeted/known al Qaeda numbers") have some right & expectation of privacy when calling American citizens in the U.S., which of course, they don't.

The NSA program is clearly limited to calls to & from various American citizens to & from various targeted/known al Qaeda portals...and NO WARRANT is required to "collect foreign intelligence" (four federal courts have upheld that).

As I said, so long as one side of the transaction involves a foreign national, that entire transaction falls under the legal purview of "collecting foreign intelligence."

There is no right or expectaion of privacy when making or receiving calls from targeted foreign sources.

Anyone who seeks to claim that such transactions are protected, even to the extent of requiring a FISA warrant is, in effect, defending terrorists and seeking to deliberately undermine our rightful and necessary war on terrorism.

I want those in the security sector to know who those "Americans" are who are making or receiving calls from targeted/known al Qaeda portals.

Like I said, an Islamo-cultist is lower than a baby raper to me and I openly question both the motives and the Americanism of those who don't view them that way.

"As I said, so long as one side of the transaction involves a foreign national, that entire transaction falls under the legal purview of "collecting foreign intelligence."

Wrong, as long as it involves an 'American Person' it is domestic.

"Anyone who seeks to claim that such transactions are protected, even to the extent of requiring a FISA warrant is, in effect, defending terrorists and seeking to deliberately undermine our rightful and necessary war on terrorism."

By refusing to obtain a FISA warrent the POTUS is not 'defending and protecting the Constitution', he is treading on it.

I am in full agreement with JMK.
Let the NSA do their job protect our nation from those who wish to do us physical harm (terrorists) and make fervent efforts to intercept their communications and catch them, before they execute their plans.

Why are the liberals so afraid of that?