Comments on: Deputy AG Had Doubts About Spy Program

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:56:15 +0000

Liberty v. security, 5 comments & counting.

Whether one should call Dick Clark "retarded," 182 comments & counting.

The Republic is dead!

By: jimbo

jimbo — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:14:15 +0000

We need to know a lot more before calling this a violation of the law. This article, by the not always objective NY Times, shows that the program was monitored and adjusted as objections were raised within the administration. Bush's defense of the program yesterday, "If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why," according to Reuters, is a political winner. More oversight is needed but, in an election year, the Dems are at a big disadvantage, and will have to rely on the GOP to come up with something. Those Democrats who are talking about impeachment have incredibly short memories or are incredibly stupid, probably both.

By: Small Town Veteran

Small Town Veteran — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:25:28 +0000

Jihadis and Wiretaps and Moonbats! Oh, My! -- Part 6

(Click here for some earlier related posts.)Justice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy ProgramEric Lichtblau and James Risen WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 - A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surve...

By: Jack Ehrlich

Jack Ehrlich — Mon, 02 Jan 2006 05:41:18 +0000

I don't know if any one noticed, but it seems that a radical group has declared war on the United States. Having done so, they have carried out acts of war against this country. As of 9/12/01, we have begun to defend ourselves. Given the war powers of the Presidency and with historical precidence, that is the temporary suspension of certain civil rights during war time, the relatively minor infringement of the 4th amendment by monitoring overseas telephone calls connected to al-Qaeda. Only those with ties to the enemy seem to be inconvienced. Seems funny how the left cries foul concerning violations of the 4th amemdment when nation defense is at stake, but see no foul when the 2nd amemdment is violated, daily, in every state, when personal defense is involved.

By: mycat

mycat — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 22:46:49 +0000

Well, no. Think about what you are rationalizing here. If the law says that a warrant is required for survelliance, and a new technology for survelliace comes along, then it is not ok to break the law on the rationalization that the law either doesn't apply or is an incovenience. Either the law needs to be changed or the survelliance not done.
Don't be so fearful. It really is ok to maintain such essential priciples as the separation of powers, the rule of the law, and the 4th Amendment. We do not need to discard basic priciples of this country out of fear of terrorists.

By: Ben Dover

Ben Dover — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:32:35 +0000

The most abused quote of the day:

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

When in fact:

The Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."

Ah, such selective reasoning..

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.