We've had this conversation so many times in the past, what's point? I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change my mind.

Right! Translated: I have no facts, and you will not buy my opinion.

Tell that to Ken Starr with respect to Whitewater!

Did he convict anyone? Oh, wait! he did!

The "they" I'm referring to are the democrats and the left in general! As far as me using quotation marks I guess you don't do a lot of blogging, do you? Or would you rather I use caps, LIKE THIS FOR EMPHASIS?

ok, not that we have defined who "they" are. What do you propose they do? They don't control the Justice Dept, or either houses of Congress, so what can they do?

Try using bold or underline.

Right! Translated: I have no facts, and you will not buy my opinion.

For one...I don't need you to "buy" my opinion, I don't really care what you think. Also, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, so I don't need you to translate anything for me.

Did he convict anyone? Oh, wait! he did!

Yes--and the wife jailed for refusing to testify--but the culprit was not connected to Clinton wrong-doing. The greatest wrong was Starr's spending $50 mil for nothing.

Republicans assume guilt in the Whitewater business. Democrats assume guilt in the Plame business. All just a matter of who's horse is being gored, whether a dollar is well-spent or wasted.

They want lots and lots of hours of them standing there banging their fist and talking about how bad Bush is.

---Baker

This is because bitch sessions are all they really have.
"If we complain enough, maybe somebody out there in the country will finally start listening". But we won't, thank God, because most of America still has common sense enough to realize that the Dems have pretty much nothing to offer in the way of anything, other than waving white flags and giving understanding, welcoming hugs and kisses to our enemies.

Nutty Nancy Pelosi has said, now, that she doesn't feel that censure is the right move at this moment. +LOL+

They spend six years yelling and crying and wringing their hands so melodramatically, and now even start to whisper the "I" word (that would be "Impeach", Asway,---as if it would stick. But then, we tried it with their boy, and I guess payback is everything when you have nothing; even if it damages the country in time of national crisis).
But then, in a desperate, attention-grabbing political move, "Look at me, look at me!" Feingold says "censure", and they all stop in shocked silence and say "whoa---waitaminnit now---all we really wanna to do is complain; we really dont want (can't--we really haven't the legal grounds) to do anything so drastic"

Aswayopens, welcome to Washington politics.

ok, not that we have defined who "they" are. What do you propose they do? They don't control the Justice Dept, or either houses of Congress, so what can they do? Try using bold or underline.

Sorry to disappoint you but I will continue to use quotation marks for emphasis! I have enough difficulty typing as it is.

Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans :

MYTH: This is merely a "terrorist surveillance program."

REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.

MYTH: The program is legal.

REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.

MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows this.

REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan doesn't mention wiretaps and doesn't apply domestically, but FISA does--it requires a court order.

MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the military to spy on Americans without any court oversight.

REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration's claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to "condense power into a single branch of government," contrary to the Constitution's checks and balances.

MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.

REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.

REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.

MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.

MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.

REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

MYTH: FISA takes too long.

REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.

MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.

REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president's claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.

When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.

The thing that triggers the electronic monitoring is contact with or by a person outside the US considered to be a terrorist or legitimate terrorist suspect. The program does not "spy upon" people randomly. That contact creates the suspicion. I'll grant you that the content of such conversations could be preserved, unheard, pending a FISA warrant. I don't know enough about the logistics to say whether that could constitute an exploitable weakness and create enough of a delay for a terrorist plan to be activated, despite claims that FISA warrants are granted instantaneously & without question (which raises the corollary question, "What's the point of a FISA court?).

REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.

It would certainly chill "free speech" with terrorists, which in my view is the same kind of "free speech" as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's legality in the context of the war on terror is yet to be determined.

MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is. REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that "myth" to be true, except the President's opponents in the course of mischaracterizing the program and his intentions.

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you. REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.

Aside from the physical impossibility of doing so. And for the further fact that any such taps would be useless to the feds since they would be inadmissible as evidence for any domestic purpose. Unless it's usable, it's pointless and, dumb as the feds are, they're not completely stupid. Your reality here is itself a counter-myth.

MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.

This oversimplifies the character and extent of our foreknowledge and conveniently ignores the blinders we had intentionally put in place to be sure the left hand did not know what the right hand knew (remember Jamie Gorelick). There is no certainty that any program would have prevented 9/11, but having such a program in place would have made detection and preemption of the 9/11 attacks much more likely. That very unwillingness to even inadvertently expose our citizens to monitoring was one of things so spectacularly exploited by Bin Laden on 9/11.

REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

Can you give us the name of a single individual, just one, who's individual rights have been "trampled." Any completely innocent Americans who have been harmed?

MYTH: FISA takes too long. REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.

This criticism is legitimate, but only if it is assumed that the President's power during time of war remains subject to FISA. I would have expected a firestorm of MSM coverage of that Supreme Court ruling you referred to in another Myth point, so I don't know whether this question has been answered.

REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president's claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.

The President has never claimed the unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans - he's claimed that the power to conduct electronic monitoring of contacts with real or potential terrorists in limited circumstances as part of the war on terror is legal. He swore to uphold the Constitution and I don't believe he'd knowingly and willfuly defy it.

Thanks for sharing the DNC talking points.

You know, I really wouldn't mind all that much subjecting myself to wiretapping, if it will save the lives of Americans, This is mainly because I'm not planning on blowing up any buildings or killing any innocent people. If the NSA wants to hear me tell my stepmom or best friend about my week, they can listen in all they want.

Perhaps you can explain, though, why it didn't "chill" free speech when Clinton did it, or Bush 41, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon......especially Nixon.
Even Roosevelt, for example, used this kind of power during WW2----hell, he even controlled the Press to a certain extent, for God's sake, and with their blessing----to keep an eye out for enemy saboteurs and spies.
But then, back in the day, both sides of the aisle understood that sacrifices had to sometimes be made in order to safeguard our freedoms from foreign threat and aggression.
They somehow got the funny, dangerous idea that sometimes those freedoms had to be sublimated a little in order to do so. They also understood that any partisan differences should be put aside in the face of that threat, and that our government should work together for the good of the nation. Everyone did.
See, back then, they were less spoiled and more willing to put aside their fear of authority in the name of a greater good and saving lives.

Your side doesn't seem to care about outside threats, or saving lives, or greater good, so long as they can nail Bush any way they can. Way to go.

Perhaps you can explain, though, why it didn't "chill" free speech when Clinton did it, or Bush 41, or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon......especially Nixon.

If you do a little research you will discover that the circumstances involved in the other Presidents were quite different.

So you're saying that if it's done for the "right" reason (in your judgement), it doesn't chill free speech?

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you. REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies. Aside from the physical impossibility of doing so. And for the further fact that any such taps would be useless to the feds since they would be inadmissible as evidence for any domestic purpose. Unless it's usable, it's pointless and, dumb as the feds are, they're not completely stupid. Your reality here is itself a counter-myth.

Daiwa,

Yes, such evidence would be inadmissable, but the possibility of citizens being under surveillance under this program is not beyond the scope of possibility. As not only a registered Libertarian, but one that could easily be rooted out because of 1) my wife's position as county chair; 2) my current candidacy for a major office, I could very easily be ferreted out by anyone with the inclination to do so. Because the surveillance is happening without my knowledge, I can't very well file an injunction against it now, can I?

Are we expected to file preemptive injunctions to protect our rights? No; in fact, the Bill of Rights ARE a "preemptive injunction" that should be respected by those charged with the enforcement of our laws.

I will give President Bush the respect his office deserves, but I will NOT extend that respect to include allowing him unlimited authority, as he has claimed.

So you're saying that if it's done for the "right" reason (in your judgement), it doesn't chill free speech?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they did not conduct electronic eavesdropping without warrants and outside of FISA.

Much has been made of the Clinton administration's use of the Ecelon program. What most people don't realize is that there is no evidence that they ever monitored a US citizen without first obtaining a warrant through FISA.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they did not conduct electronic eavesdropping without warrants and outside of FISA.

---davad

So.....when presidents use it in peacetime, and with proper warrants, it's okay. But in wartime, when time is often of the essence and the situation desperate, they still should go through proper channels and red tape, often perhaps even facing hostile judges? Bullshit, davad.
When you're going up in a mushroom cloud from a suitcase nuke planted by Abdul the Tentmaker (and supplied by Iran, no doubt), will your last thought be "I hope they apply for the proper warrants when they go after whoever did this"?

Like most things started and implemented by liberals and leftists, FISA was a something that probably appeared good idea at the time and in the short term, but that is counter-productive (and even dangerous, given the current world situation) in the long.

If Roosevelt had had to deal with FISA, everyone east of the Mississippi would be saluting with a straight arm, and everyone west would be bowing to the Emporer.