First of all, I have to admit that I wonder if you are a schtick.
Seriously, I've never found anyone so completely blind to other viewpoints!!!
I thought I was partisan!!!
You are unbelievable!!!
OK. Let's roll.
"Wow. Where to begin.
The NSA program is NOT transparent (is this obvious or what). The president doesn't have authority to review or authorize the "taps" in the first place.
I disagree with you. Here is a nice summary.
I know you won't read it. However, I just wanted to let you know that relying on the nyt for your information is dangerously narrow.
It does a very nice review of the relevant case law.
I look forward to the Supreme Court ruling on this.
Your point of view will lose. No question about it.
Again, it's sad this program is being debated in the public forum.
"Acting attny gen. James B. Comey refused to give his approval when the Bush admin came looking for it over concerns of "legality".
They then went to the hospital to try to get Ashcroft to sign off. It's unknown if he did or not. but...
"But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation."
So you're just making stuff up here(still)."
I read your article. I'm not sure how YOU figure that article refutes anything I said?
Seriously, there are so many unknowns in that article as to make it worthless.
I'm not going to fall into your pattern of speculation.
I know that the nyt is trying to insuinuate that "the evil Republicans had to scurry to a sick man's bed to push their agenda. He probably was too sick to make sense." Blah de freakin blah.
How about the THIRTY OTHER TIMES IT WAS REVIEWED?
Do you want to make any predictions or wagers on the final outcome of this in the courts?
I'll go on the record and state that the Supreme Court will uphold the Executive's right to do this.
Finally, if you and your pals continue on this, you will further cement your reputation as the party that is weak on national defense.
"Congress also wasn't briefed as required by the Nation Security Act of 1947, as stated by congressmen from BOTH parties. Leadership was not fully informed nor gave their consent."
You are full of it.
Here is a nice little article from one of your liberal sources.
I want you to read that article and think about it.
Pay attention to exactly how many people were informed.
"The rest of your post is fake outrage."
Thanks. However, I want you to know that your ability to understand basic human nature is under considerable doubt.
"We easily can perform such tappings under FISA right now. Or we could get new statutes etc."
Just curious how we institute new statutes without the enemy learning of the taps.
Please enlighten me.
"Plus the FBI said the other day the program has not made us safer (maybe less so)"
Please provide a link. I'm curious.
"Then you type more fake stuff...about 9/11 families.
(uhmm the issue isn't intercepting, it's illegally intercepting--with no need)"
lumpy, I'm going to be gentle here: I doubt anyone trusts your judgement as to what is needed. Good luck trying to prove that this is illegal.
"Good to see you are fully MIS-informed as usual, we can count on you to know none of the facts!"
I enjoy proving you wrong. However, it is like picking on nationalistic germans (too easy.)
P.S. If you don't read the articles in their entirety, please don't bother to respond. Thanks!!!