Look at this spin...

[JohnnyBz00LS]

WOW! So the very people that fight for Liberty are un-deserving of it? .........speechless.........it is so profound and .........out there.

Shame on you, go back an read Ben's quote.

“Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”.

That would include BuSh and any of his supporters (i.e.: YOU RWWs here) willing to allow him and his administration to trample on our civil liberties in the name of "national security".

Stop being a pinhead.

 

[MonsterMark]

Shrub and his (athletic) supporters are un-deserving of the liberty for which our veterans have died for hundreds of years.

Shame ON YOU! I wasn't referring to Ben Franklin's quote knucklehead. Your comment was the truly shameful one.

And do you really think that Ben Franklin wouldn't have something MORE profound to say TODAY when faced with the prospect of annihilation by a nuclear bomb?

We're fighting for our lives and you're playing the fiddle. Figures.

 

[fossten]

Shame on you, go back an read Ben's quote.

“Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”.

That would include BuSh and any of his supporters (i.e.: YOU RWWs here) willing to allow him and his administration to trample on our civil liberties in the name of "national security".

Stop being a pinhead.

Shame on you, go back and read Bryan's post.

edit.

Bush touts poll that supports domestic spying


Hearst Newspapers
Jan. 4, 2006 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday touted a nationwide survey indicating broad support for the secret surveillance on U.S.-based terror suspects, including Americans, that was ordered by President Bush following the Sept. 11 attacks.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the survey, by Rasmussen Reports, confirmed the administration's repeated contention that "the American people strongly support the efforts that we're undertaking to save their lives."

McClellan spotlighted the survey, released Dec. 28, which said 64 percent of 1,000 adults questioned nationwide believed eavesdropping by the National Security Agency should be "allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States."

An additional 23 percent of respondents disagreed with that statement.

The survey had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

 

[MonsterMark]

An additional 23 percent of respondents disagreed with that statement.

Because these 23% think that somebody is sitting at a computer terminal with a headset on listening to them tell a friend that they have hemorrhoids or something.

The NSA is doing 'keyword' searches over millions and millions of calls a day. Don't want to be listened in on? Don't group together a bunch of terrorist non-sense. I won't pretend to know what the list of words are they look for but I can guarantee you the NYT and the other lefties have made our Country less secure for sure. I am sure the terrorists have devised a nice little set of code words to communicate with and now we have to try and determine what those are, making our job 100 times tougher. Thanks NYT. The blood of America will soil your pigeon dropping paper forever.

 

[97silverlsc]

Editorial
On the Subject of Leaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/opinion/04wed2.html

Published: January 4, 2006

Given the Bush administration's appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue.

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials. Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

The longest-running of the leak cases involves Valerie Wilson, a covert C.I.A. operative whose identity was leaked to the columnist Robert Novak. The question there was whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion, and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert operative. There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. The leak inquiry in that case ended up targeting the press, and led to the jailing of a Times reporter.

When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

100% agreement!!!!!

 

[MonsterMark]

CHENEY DEFENDS ACTIONS... YOU GO BOY!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney strongly defended a secret domestic eavesdropping operation in use since the September 11, 2001, attacks, saying it was not violating American civil liberties and has helped fend off potential terrorist attacks.

"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured yet it is still lethal and planning to hit us again. Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not," Cheney said in remarks prepared for a speech at the Heritage Foundation think tank.

Revelations that the National Security Agency was secretly monitoring phone calls between people in the United States and suspected al Qaeda followers abroad has sparked an outcry from Democrats and Republicans, with many lawmakers and rights groups questioning whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Cheney, in speech excerpts released by the White House, called President George W. Bush's decision to intercept "a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications" a vital step.

"There are no communications more important to the safety of the United States than those related to al Qaeda that have one end in the United States. If we'd been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon," Cheney said.

Cheney insisted that Bush was committed to protecting civil liberties.

"He has made clear from the outset, both publicly and privately, that our duty to uphold the law of the land admits no exceptions in wartime," Cheney said.

Cheney said as more time passes since the September 11 attacks, "some in Washington are yielding to the temptation to downplay the ongoing threat to our country, and to back away from the business at hand."

"This is perhaps a natural impulse, as time passes and the alarms don't sound," he said.

But he said "America has been protected not by luck but by sensible policy decisions by decisive action at home and abroad and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of people in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security."

 

[fossten]

Editorial
On the Subject of Leaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/opinion/04wed2.html

Published: January 4, 2006

Given the Bush administration's appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue.

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials. Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

The longest-running of the leak cases involves Valerie Wilson, a covert C.I.A. operative whose identity was leaked to the columnist Robert Novak. The question there was whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion, and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert operative. There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. The leak inquiry in that case ended up targeting the press, and led to the jailing of a Times reporter.

When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

100% agreement!!!!!

Phil, neither you nor your NY(DNC)Times buddy know the difference between a leaker and a whistle-blower.

Liberals=Hypocrites​

 

[Calabrio]

A democratic society can not continue to thrive if leaks are permitted to exist that are designed to advance political causes at the threat of national security. Also, important to note, noble whistle blowers don't time leaks to correspond with book releases.

And, to address an earlier point, I'm sick of liberals pushing that "sacrificing liberty" quote around like they mean it. If liberals honestly took that quote to heart, they would quickly abandon the failed social policies that they have embraced.

You sacrifice liberty in order to feel the security of programs like unemployment, welfare, social security,food stamps, and every other government hand out. You abandon liberty when you rely on agencies like the FDA to make sure what you consume is safe. And you abandon liberty when you look to the government to ban hate speech, or political speech that you find offensive to minorities. Somehow, these loses of liberty don't upset liberals, but eavesdropping on international phone calls to known Al-Queda operatives and domestic terrorist does.

 

[97silverlsc]

Phil, neither you nor your NY(DNC)Times buddy know the difference between a leaker and a whistle-blower.

Think you and your cohorts are the ones who can't differentiate- Plame was a leak, NSA and CIA torture camps were whistle blower.

 

[97silverlsc]

Also, important to note, noble whistle blowers don't time leaks to correspond with book releases.

The (alledged) whistle blower leaked the NSA info BEFORE the 2004 elections, the NYTimes held it till 12/2005, and one of the reporters involved in the story has a book coming out about it. Speculation I've seen is the Times didn't want to be embarassed by the revelation that they knew and didn't publish that would have come about when the book was released. I think it's a disgrace they didn't publish when first given the info.

 

[MonsterMark]

Plame was a leak, NSA and CIA torture camps were whistle blower.

This guy not only takes the bait, he swallows it hook, line and sinker.

Phil...Do you get a daily email with democratic talking points???

That is BY FAR the funniest thing I have seen posted in a political forum. You've spun this so much you must be dizzy.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Shame ON YOU! I wasn't referring to Ben Franklin's quote knucklehead. Your comment was the truly shameful one.

And do you really think that Ben Franklin wouldn't have something MORE profound to say TODAY when faced with the prospect of annihilation by a nuclear bomb?

We're fighting for our lives and you're playing the fiddle. Figures.

You think BuSh and co. is fighting for OUR LIBERTY? ROTFLMFAO, that takes the cake. Maybe for the Iraqis, but not the US citizens! Put down the kool-aid. We're fighting a war for our OWN freedom and you and your buddies are willing to roll over and let BuSh & co. give it to you up the poop chute w/ a jar of sandy vaselene. Hey, whatever floats your boat, but no thanks for me.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Bush touts poll that supports domestic spying

So now you advocate rule by poll rather than LAW?? What a friggin' hypocrite. Talk about a flip-flopper.

LOOK, no one here has a problem w/ spying on the ENEMY. The only problem we have here is UN-WARRANTED spying on US citizens. While you'll argue that it has yet to happen, the FACT that BuSh and co. THINKS that it's OK for them to circumvent the LAW and do it anyway should be sending off ALARMS!! But go ahead, I'm sure BuSh and co. and the rest of his freedom traitors have enough sandy vaselene to go around for you too.

 

[TheDude]

So now you advocate rule by poll rather than LAW?? What a friggin' hypocrite. Talk about a flip-flopper.

LOOK, no one here has a problem w/ spying on the ENEMY. The only problem we have here is UN-WARRANTED spying on US citizens. While you'll argue that it has yet to happen, the FACT that BuSh and co. THINKS that it's OK for them to circumvent the LAW and do it anyway should be sending off ALARMS!! But go ahead, I'm sure BuSh and co. and the rest of his freedom traitors have enough sandy vaselene to go around for you too.

It's maddening isn't it? The righties here are intelligent, educated people, but they'll turn a blind eye to the president putting himself above the law on the mere basis that he is 'their man'. I'm all for spying on the enemy and anyone consorting with terrorist, but if the law requires a warrant be had first, then get the warrant. Even when Powell basically said Bush over-stepped his boundaries, Powell suddenly became a liberal, weak etc. Crazy I tell you.

 

[RB3]

Editorial
On the Subject of Leaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/opinion/04wed2.html

Published: January 4, 2006

Given the Bush administration's appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue.

This Editorial adds fog, it doesn't clear it. But let's move on...

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials. Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

A whistleblower is one who discloses criminal activity. The persons privy to the NSA information would have had at least Top Secret clearance to have access to what is clearly classified information. The disclosure of classified information is a criminal offense, and those who possess the clearance must undergo annual training as to the steps to safeguard that information, as well as the penalties for violating the law. (I speak from personal knowledge, by the way.) This criminal act cannot be mitigated by the New York Times choosing to call it something else. Anyone who discloses such information knows they are subject to prosecution. Treason cannot be dismissed as whistleblowing.

The longest-running of the leak cases involves Valerie Wilson, a covert C.I.A. operative whose identity was leaked to the columnist Robert Novak.

Valerie Wilson was NOT a covert operative, and the Times knows this, so this is a deliberate misrepresentation of fact. Furthermore, Novak was by no means the first to know where Wilson worked, even Bob Woodward knew earlier, something the Times also knows.

The question there was whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion, and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert operative.

Relevant facts omitted by the Times: Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the Times which misrepresented his findings and attacked Bush. Then he went to work for the Kerry campaign.

There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants.

I agree, there is a world of difference. The Wilson case is a trumped up media manufactured mcscandal, the NSA case may be treason.

The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. The leak inquiry in that case ended up targeting the press, and led to the jailing of a Times reporter.

This is nothing more than spin and self-serving opinion.

When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House.

For the Times to arrogantly dismiss the fight against terrorism, probably the most important struggle of our age, as just the White House trying to keep from embarrassing itself is an outrage. It is little wonder the Times is beginning to get a reputation as the DNC Times. It is not for the Editors of the Times to decide what is and isn't classifed information, it is for our elected representatives and those in their employ. If the public doesn't agree with those choices, there is a remedy at the ballot box. We have no such remedy for the Times, which we can't vote out of New York. (As much as I'd like to.)

The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

The White House cannot show that without further damaging national security. The Times has presented NO evidence that the President operated outside the law, just their own opinion that it "seems" so.

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger.

In this instance it is to prosecute a criminal act.

Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

No proof, and no relevance. Perhaps its the Times trying to distract from the real issue.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

Treason is one of the most important investigations a nation at war will undertake.

100% agreement!!!!!

Once again, no surprise.

 

[fossten]

It's maddening isn't it? The righties here are intelligent, educated people, but they'll turn a blind eye to the president putting himself above the law on the mere basis that he is 'their man'. I'm all for spying on the enemy and anyone consorting with terrorist, but if the law requires a warrant be had first, then get the warrant. Even when Powell basically said Bush over-stepped his boundaries, Powell suddenly became a liberal, weak etc. Crazy I tell you.

It's maddening, isn't it? The Fiberals here are so unintelligent that they actually believe that Bush doesn't have the authority to protect our country DESPITE the FACT that the law clearly states that he does. These Fiberals talk out of both sides of their mouths and give lip service to defeating terrorists while crying about so-called abuses that there is NO evidence of.

 

[RB3]

A democratic society can not continue to thrive if leaks are permitted to exist that are designed to advance political causes at the threat of national security. Also, important to note, noble whistle blowers don't time leaks to correspond with book releases.

Well put.

 

[RB3]

:iconcur:

It's maddening, isn't it? The Fiberals here are so unintelligent that they actually believe that Bush doesn't have the authority to protect our country DESPITE the FACT that the law clearly states that he does. These Fiberals talk out of both sides of their mouths and give lip service to defeating terrorists while crying about so-called abuses that there is NO evidence of.

The President has broad powers under the constitution to repel foreign threats, and that power cannot be taken away by the Courts.

 

[fossten]

Phil, there's a word to describe the article you posted:

PROPAGANDA.​

 

[97silverlsc]

It's maddening, isn't it? The Fiberals here are so unintelligent that they actually believe that Bush doesn't have the authority to protect our country DESPITE the FACT that the law clearly states that he does. These Fiberals talk out of both sides of their mouths and give lip service to defeating terrorists while crying about so-called abuses that there is NO evidence of.

Once again, demeaning and belittling posters that disagree with you is ok when done by you but not when done by someone who disagrees with you. Change your name to HYPOCRITE, it's more appropriate.

 

[RB3]

Here's some additional commentary (from National Review online), on the New York Times coverage of this "scandal."

"How to Stoke a Phony Scandal."​

Plainly, the Times in particular is frustrated over the fact that the public is simply not up in arms over the unremarkable fact that we are trying to penetrate the enemy's communications in wartime. So the next move is to try to convince people that the "spying" is far more widespread than they've been led to believe.

The sleight-of-hand used to inflate the NSA program is to subtly shift from emphasis on interception of phone calls to, as the Times puts it, the "volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks." This, we are breathlessly told, is being done "without court-approved warrants" and in an amount "much larger than the White House has acknowledged."

There's only one problem. As a matter of law, all telephone/email information is not constitutionally or statutorily equal. The interception of content (what you say to me and I say to you in a call or an email) requires court approval based on probable cause in most (but, importantly, not all) instances. But other telecommunication data -- e.g., the fact that my phone number called your phone number at such-and-such at time on such-and-such a date, and that we spoke for seven minutes -- does not. The latter category of information does not implicate the Fourth Amendment at all because no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to it.

It is disingenuous to suggest, as the Times does, that court-approved warrants are required for the collection of such information. They are not. The government typically gets pen register orders or subpoenas data maintained by the telephone company. But such process is pro-forma, it does not require any evidentiary showing (much less probable cause, the court-warrant standard), the Constitution does not require even that such process be used, and there is nothing inappropriate about taking the information if it is volunteered by the phone company.

It is also preposterous to use the collection and analysis of this information to pump up the numbers and suggest to the public that Big Brother is listening in on more of their conversations than POTUS has been letting on. Looking at data about the calls is much different from monitoring the calls themselves. For our own protection, we should all hope the government is collecting as much of this data as possible (since it affects no one's legitimate privacy interests), and comparing it to other known information about al Qaeda to develop leads. That's how a country manages to go four years without a domestic terror attack that kills 3000 innocent people ... or more.

 

[fossten]

Once again, demeaning and belittling posters that disagree with you is ok when done by you but not when done by someone who disagrees with you. Change your name to HYPOCRITE, it's more appropriate.

Aww, po wittle Phil, did your wittle feewings get hurt? Boy you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

I iterate, go back to cut/pasting, it's your gift.

 

[RB3]

Here's how the Congressional Record describes a "whistleblower," and the purpose of the law:


Congressional Record: March 9, 1998 (Senate)
Page S1561-S1564



CLASSIFIED AND RELATED INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1668, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1668) to encourage the disclosure to Congress of
certain classified and related information.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 20 minutes of debate on the
bill, equally divided, with no amendments or motions in order.
The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the passage of S. 1668, the Disclosure to Congress Act of 1998.
This legislation directs the President to inform employees of the
intelligence community that they may disclose information, including
classified information, to an appropriate oversight committee of
Congress when that information is evidence of misconduct, fraud, or
gross mismanagement.
The committee is hopeful that this legislation will also encourage
employees within the intelligence community to bring such information
to an appropriate committee of Congress rather than unlawfully
disclosing such information to the media, as happens from time to time.

In other words, disclosure to the New York Times is not whistleblowing. It is a crime.

This became law in 1998.

 

[MonsterMark]

In other words, disclosure to the New York Times is not whistleblowing. It is a crime.

This became law in 1998.

Exact-a-mundo! Way to hit it out of the park again RB3. See, the left doesn't understand the little idiosyncrasies in the law, like what is actually law and how does one break it. That is why lefties prefer to have their own judges just for the purpose of making it up as they go along.

They can't understand why we cannot allow ANYONE in government with a classified ranking to run around telling secrets to the media. Why they cannot grasp that simple concept is beyond any sane person's comprehension.

 

[fossten]

RB3:

To quote Stuart Scott on SportsCenter:

"BOO-YA!"

Phil you are *owned* again!

Are you indentured?