A. there is no law to my knowledge that protects the sources of a journalist.
B. Who ever leaked to the NYTIMEs about the wiretapping of terrorists, should be put in jail.
C. I guess democrats dont need lobotomies because they are already brain dead.
If there is a legitimate cause to initate a wiretap, or surveillance of any type, there is a step that must be taken. It's called a search warrant. Perhaps you've heard of them? They're described in something called the Constitution. And in some rather old ammendments called The Bill of Rights. And it's not terrorists, but everyone who values freedom that should be concerned.
I'll leave now.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There is a Supreme Court Decision, i cant remember the name or the year (1967 perhaps?) that said that if one party is outside of the country then there is no warrant needed. and yes i am familar with the bill of rights all 12 of them actually. And dont try to make me out to hate freedom. After all that freedom is what we are trying to protect. While, idiots like you think that if we stick our head in the sand and pretend that no one out there hates us, then no one will hit us.
There is a Supreme Court Decision, i cant remember the name or the year (1967 perhaps?) that said that if one party is outside of the country then there is no warrant needed.
That's not true at all. The Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act of 1974 clearly states that it is legal to perform a warrantless wiretap as long, and ONLY as long, as steps are taken to insure that no U.S. person is likely to be overheard. The definition of U.S. person is a citizen or LPR, lawful permanent resident. It is certainly not legal to wiretap a US citizen's phone calls overseas without a warrant. And that's assuming that that really is all they were doing, which according to the reports doesn't seem likely.
Quote:
and yes i am familar with the bill of rights all 12 of them actually.
There are only ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Quote:
And dont try to make me out to hate freedom. After all that freedom is what we are trying to protect.
We had to burn down the villiage in order to save it.
Quote:
While, idiots like you think that if we stick our head in the sand and pretend that no one out there hates us
Well, that seems to work for Bush. But personally, I'm more concerned about the relatives of the estimated 150k Iraqi civilians who have been killed so far--bereaved parents, siblings, children, cousins, all who know for damn sure that their loved ones wouldn't have died if the Americans hadn't invaded the wrong country. In 2001, Bin Laden (remember him?) openly bragged that he had forty men willing to die for him. That's all--just forty. How many Iraqis are now willing to give their own lives to make us hurt as much as they do?
There is a Supreme Court Decision, i cant remember the name or the year (1967 perhaps?) that said that if one party is outside of the country then there is no warrant needed. and yes i am familar with the bill of rights all 12 of them actually. And dont try to make me out to hate freedom. After all that freedom is what we are trying to protect. While, idiots like you think that if we stick our head in the sand and pretend that no one out there hates us, then no one will hit us.
Is it when your head was in that sand that you found those 2 extra Bill of Rights?:yelrotflm
__________________
012009
Sharp Zaurus 5000 > Sharp Zaurus 5800 > Casio E-100 > Casio E-115 > Dell Axim X-5 (forever lost To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) > Toshiba e805(Wifes "new" PDA) > Dell Axim X51v >+ Verizon xv6700
In regards to the domestic Sypying, as it has been called:
Quote:
The White House contends that Bush has the constitutional authority to order the eavesdropping as commander-in-chief, as well as congressional approval in the form of an authorization for use of military force against al Qaeda that lawmakers enacted on September 14, 2001.
Democrats and some Republicans contend the authorization was not meant to cover warrantless domestic spying and say the NSA program may violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain warrants for all electronic eavesdropping inside the United States.
It says "MAY violate", not does. This is just a case of news looking to sell a controversy and politicians stirring an anthill looking to see if the ants will do their work for them.
If you consider that there are more Iraqis killing Iraqis, Fighters from every surrounding nation streaming into Iraq adding their chaos to the picture, Infighting between various political/religious sects, Bombs blowing up in police recruiter lines, and Muslim Imams preaching intolerance and revolt; it is a sticky situation. One that will not go away peacably regardless of our withdrawl in the region.
Everyone likes to mention the now 2100+ US servicement that died in this conflict. Far more Iraqis were killed in insurgency related bombings and killings.
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with why or how the invasion occured, it happened and the only thing to do is to assist the new government to establish order as quickly as possible and resist "terrorists" and "insurgents" and "revolutionaries", especially those from neighboring countries. After all, Iran and Syria have the most to lose should Iraq settle down and become prosperous not under a totalitarian regime. Everyone is quite sure of how Saddam would have handled insurgency.
I doubt that Al-quida had 40 members, they are world wide. They were all over Afghanistan. They are all over the far east. They are all over the middle east. and we are trying to find the ones in the US. If he referred to "40 members" then he was probably referrring to people in position or ready to implement some act.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
