President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed Monday that Congress approved the use of eavesdropping when it authorized the use of military force after Sept. 11. "Congress gave me authority," Bush said during a news conference. But most lawmakers likely have a different memory. As Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said on NBC’s "Today" show: "Nobody, nobody, thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror . . . that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
70 Comments
Can’t impeach me, wasn’t elected, I’m your NEW KING!
Dubya (UU)
This guy can’t think for himself, so whose behind him and why?
PNAC
Let’s see now, the president authorized the NSA to listen in on international calls between persons linked to international terrorists organizations and persons in the U.S. who may or may not be U.S. citizens……
Somehow this just doesnt bother me, as a matter of fact I would consider it incompetence for our government not to do this.
I hope whomever leaked this information to the press dies in prison at an old old age.
Heckler,
Good to see you back on the blog!
As for the thread topic,
Bush’s attempt to ignore the Fourth Amendment and invent law as he goes is the logical outcome of the free pass Bush has had from the press over the last five years. The fact that he thinks he can just make stuff up and have it be accepted is pretty breathtaking.
Oh, and as Doug Thompson of “Capitol Hill Blue” reports, here’s what Bush had to say about the Constitution:
“Some 10 days ago, we reported that Bush, angry in a meeting where reauthorization of the Patriot Act was questioned, called the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.””
If you’re defending Bush at this moment, you’re attacking the Constitution. Simple as that.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7841.shtml
Heckler,The problem is that for the paranoid right, it isn’t much of a stretch to assume that your political enemies are just as dangerous as international terrorists. Nixon did that, and look where it got him!Bush is headed down the same path, but he lacks Tricky Dick’s political finess, not to mention anything resembling intelligence. It won’t be long now before he becomes a liability to his advisors and gets thrown to the wolves!
Hi CF, I’ve missed you, just been to busy to check in much.
I’ve seen that “just a goddamned piece of paper.”” quote several places over the past week. I hope it’s not true, because it reflects an arrogance that too often infects persons who attain positions of great power. From what I’ve seen though, the person who reported the quote has not been named, so I withold judgment for the time being.
The legalities of Bush’s actions are beyond me, it get’s into “war powers” and stuff like that. But if the operation works as has been described in the sources I’ve heard and read, I think that it is a moral decision.
Jed
So far I havent heard any reports of Bush using the NSA or the IRS to hassle any of his political opponents.
If this stuff really bothers you I would hope you would be concerned about the continuous leaking of classified info from numerous government agencies, apparently aimed at undermining the Commander In Chief during a time of war. If the Valerie Plame kerfuffle bothered you this should really give you the heeby jeebies, even if you dislike the president.
Heck,Not directly, yet, but he’s placed spies and provocateurs in various anti-war groups, and done his best to suspend or make end runs around the civil liberties of American citizens that the excuse of terrorism doesn’t explain.As far as “undermining the Commander In Chief during time of war,” by using intelligence he knew, or should have known was at best faulty to get us into this war, he did more to undermine the office than any leak could!
Well, its great to get back to work and get a chance to view the local left wing BLOG. Its comforting to know that in my absence some nitwit has filled in for me so the usuall nitwits could get their vitriol taken out.
As far as the president authorizing the NSA to monitor the terrorist’s phone calls, God bless him! Thank God we have a president that understands his responibilities and does every thing in his power to protect the American people.
e,So who’s going to protect the American people from him?
Jed
“So who’s going to protect the American people from him?”
The New York Times, if they don’t all end up in jail.
Attention right-wing idiots–
Bush or anybody else can monitor anything they want as long as THEY GET A SEARCH WARRANT FIRST.
Esod blithely bloviates how glad he is that BushCo has been illegally monitoring “terrorists.” Esod, if we know they’re “terrorists,” we should be dropping a bomb on them, not listening to them phoning home.
That’s the problem, isn’t it?
You don’t know if they’re terrorists until they engage in terroristic activities. And until they do, if they’re Americans like you and me, they’re protected by the Bill of Rights, that document Bush swore an oath to uphold.
The government of the United States can’t spy on its citizens without just cause. Period.
If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.
Gee, Galahad, don’t you get it? WE CAN TRUST THEM. They’re just doing their jobs, and aren’t wasting their time screwing with normal, law-abiding citizens!
Or MAYBE NOT:http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
Good link, Rage. “60 Minutes” interviewed some Arabic-speaking fellow who’d immigrated to Germany.
CIA picked him up, “rendered” him to Afghanistan, tortured him for a couple of months, then figured out he wasn’t a threat.
Well, hell, says esod, at least they didn’t kill him.
They dumped him in Albania and walked away without explanation or apology.
Ah Galahad,
Amend the constitution? Are you serious? That’s what we have activist judges for!
Look in the constitution, duties of the president. What Bush is doing is necessary, timely and legal.
I saw that 60 minute piece, that German raghead looked pretty healthy to me!
Esod–as dependable as my need for a toilet first thing in the morning . . .
Don’t square Bush’s illegal actions with the 4th Amendment guarantee against search and seizure without cause or anything.
Don’t explain how the gov’t can distinguish between “terrorists” and ordinary citizens without providing evidence to a judge which would then be a legal search.
No, just reiterate what you already said, with conviction.
No wonder people like you support the BoyKing. He asks no one to consider rational argument, and Lord knows what a relief that is!
“German raghead” – that explains it all. Just like when I grew up in the old Jim Crow South and they explained away racism by the police by saying “that ni**** looks OK to me”
We’re a nation of laws. Just because it’s inconvenient for Great Leader doesn’t make it any less a violation of the law to spy on Americans. War Powers may give the president a lot of leeway, but it doesn’t give him the authority to trump statute by decree. To believe otherwise is to give our country over to monarchy. Bush isn’t a king, he’s the president, and he’s violated his oath of office. He SWORE to uphold the Constitution, not shred it. Yet he has the gall to refer to it as “just a goddamned piece of paper.”
If he did indeed say that, he deserves to be impeached.
Dear Galahad,
Actually the criminals that leaked the existance of this terrorist monitoring to the NYT are the ones that have a lot of explaining to do.
As usuall, the nuts on the left that hate America first, always seem to miss the point.
PS, that’s esod with a little ‘e’, thankyou very much.
Actually Ben,
Raghead is one of the nicer names I have for a bunch of Islamo facist terrorists that will use planes as guided missles against innocent civilians.
Deal with it.
Fascinating how there is huge uproar over “activist” judges by some here but not a peep about an “activist” president. At least courts begin with attempts at persuasion of their colleagues and majority votes. These votes involve justices with widely divergent views on the topics brought before them, so we can assume that a majority vote strikes home on a number of different legal fronts.
This executive branch seems to be of the opinion that “when in doubt, leave it out” is just fine when informing Congress – they even seem to think it’s fine to do an end run around a clearly worded 1978 federal statute allowing surveillance for up to 72 hours without a court order (or up to 15 days in times of dire crisis).
A bunch od Saudia Aribian terrorist on 9/11 and I kicked the assets of of Iraq. My Daddy didn’t like Saddam anyway!
Iran is developing WMD nukes and I’m gonna invade kuwait!
Its all about freedom! No it’s the terrorists. Why are we in Iraq? Who is protecting Saudia Arabia? Who is running America? In the ground?
Dubya (uu)
Dubya
Bush did good. Eavesdroping on KNOWN terrorists is a good thing particularly when the other end happens to be in america.Won’t do much good anymore thanks the the traitor who leaked and the NYT.
esod. When Galahad starts the name calling, you have won.
Brian: Damn, dude, sometimes you just take the words right out of my mouth.
(e)sod, I would absolutely LOVE to have a “serious discussion” of jurisprudence with you. I would even be patient with your obvious ignorance.
And since this is a message board, you wouldn’t even have to see me laughing at you.
Rage,
Brian DID put that very nicely, didn’t he? Didn’t leave much for the rest of us to say. Nonetheless…
The predictably fascist Wingnuts who post here have, true to form, breezily dismissed the stripping of Fourth Amendment protections and the Executive power grab. One of them even claims to find Constitutional justification which doesn’t exist. The delusions would be amusing if the Constitution and American liberty weren’t at stake.
I just think it’s funny to hear y’all go and on about pathological ‘Bush haters.’ I think you’re a lot sicker than I am. If this latest, flagrant, illegal, unmistakable power grab by Bush doesn’t raise your dander as Americans, nothing will.
Why is it that the Wingnuts who go on and on about freedom so much are the ones who can’t surrender it quickly enough?
Just sayin’…
I first read about the NSA (National Security Agency) monitoring international calls when I was in college in about 1977. It was a prominent story in that well-known political journal, “Penthouse” magazine.
Subsequent to that revelation, Congress passed the FISA law which allows the NSA and other law enforcement agencies to wiretap a suspicious source for 72 hours before they were required to get a warrant.
This was not good enough for “the constitution is just a piece of paper” Bush. He wanted to wiretap whoever, whenever, for whatever reason. Nevermind that this is illegal.
The idea that terrorists are so dumb that they didn’t know that their phone calls might be monitored until they read it in the New York Times is so stupid that only a conservative could think of it.
Terrorists will assume, rightly, that any suspected terrorist activity will be followed up on like white on rice by any means possible, i.e., what BushCo DIDN’T DO the first time around while he sat like a blinking idiot in a second-grade classroom while the second jet slammed into the second tower.
*****
And esod insists on a small “e.” Seems like a strange request for such a capital fellow.
That Galahad–always readin’ Penthouse for the ‘articles.’
Hehehe!
In 1979, I was tad younger than Galahad, and I obtained a Penthouse, ahem, “for the articles.”
In the music section was an article about some Milwaukee street musicians, fronted by some 18-year-old named Gordon. They were called the “Violent Femmes.”
I wish I remembered the exact date. Sorry for the extended OT post.
It’s comforting to know there’s people like esod and codie out there. They’ll be the first to spy on their neighbors and turn in family members, all in the name of fighting the “war on terra”.
Penthouse has articles?
P.S. Getting back to the subject:”The idea that terrorists are so dumb that they didn’t know that their phone calls might be monitored until they read it in the New York Times is so stupid that only a conservative could think of it.”
Yeah, no shit. Are Bin Laden’s people dumber than domestic drug dealers? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hah! Lawmakers don’t even read the laws before passing them. What idiots.
Well, it doesn’t matter. The can wiretap me all day if that’s how they want to waste their time. Waste of my taxes, though; but what’s new?
My favorite part of the conference was when a reporter asked this question. ” does that mean that we’re going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?”
ohyeah.. one more thing. The letter from Jay Rockefeller from 2003 shows how little Congress was allowed to be part of this decision. yes, I know it’s a democratic link.. Show me where even one republican site would post this letter.. truth hurts too much.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/senator_rockefe.php
Thank you Rage, CF..
I’m just trying to keep up with you guys…your comments ALWAYS make me stop and think.
esod – any evidence that the German who was kidnapped and tortured was an “Islamo facist terrorists that will use planes as guided missles against innocent civilians”? Or do they just all look alike to you?
Yea, I can deal with it fine – you are a racist.
For those of you who actually give a shit about battling terrorism I found this interesting and informative read.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
For those of you whose hatred of Bush, whose desire to see him brought down trumps all else, don’t bother.
Bush uses the NSA to battle terrorists and you call for impeachment. Clinton uses NSA to perform industrial espionage and you turn a blind eye.
There’s a reason Americans doesnt trust the left when it comes to national defense.
You like conservatives? You like national defense? Why are we Americans too broke to afford any new weapon systems if conservatives are conservative? Our cities are broke.Our national debt is breaking all debt records!Our jobs are offloaded to foriegn countries!Our trade deficit is at an all time record.The conservative message is ALL lies and disinformation!Our defence department is broke?Our b-52 bombers are 50 years OLD and planned to be in use for more decades. Our kc-135 tankers are 40+ years old. Our Space shuttles are obsolete and grounded most of the time. The Russians have a space station, China put a man in space this year. We are broke and full of conservative crap!
I’m really glad that Galahad is looking out for my interests.
Heckler–I don’t desire to bring down Bush “above all else.” I just want a president who make our country better instead of one who makes it worse.
I would support Bush if he simply made America better: helped create good jobs instead of McJobs, help stop terrorism instead of creating it by invading Iraq, help develop new sources of energy instead of making us more dependent on foreign oil, help stop pollution and global warming instead of making it worse . . .
*****
Steve, I don’t know what your obsession with me is, but I’m not gay, okay?
So go play with yourself someplace else.
Thank you,
The Management.
How on Earth did I confuse that empty-headed insult machine with the erudite Steven E., even for a moment? Blech.
Steve, say something or go away. Your choice.
Galahad, if you drop anything, kick it over by the wall and put your back to the wall before you pick it up.
(Looks like you have an admirer, lol).
I’ll bet Ian cuts quite the dashing figure in his jackboots, jodphurs, and totemkopff SS hat.
Galahad
Neither Bush nor the government can “create” jobs. All they can do is get out of the way.(reduce taxes,reduce regulations) Al Qaeda leaders themselves have stated that they will make a stand in Iraq, they know themselves that if Iraq becomes a representative democracy that their own cause is doomed.
As for enery, what do you want Bush to do, pull a bunch of gas out of his butt? Economics will dictate the timetable for new technologies, if they are to be found. The govt. cant research it into existence if it doesnt exist.
Global warming, if it is occuring, is totally natural. The ground on which Chicage stands was once under hundreds of feet of ice and man burning oil had nothing to do with it.
HecklerI appreciate your battle against the low life bush bashers. Without you and esod the lurkers of this blog would thing very unkindly of the Wichita mentality.The president did good. Thank God the opinions of the dumb shits on this blog were not the rule of the day. I suspect, although it will forever be top secret, many attacks were stopped by this method that was practiced be all presidents. The Damnocrates that object are the worst form of traitors. One of them is the leaker.
So let’s see…
The government supports crop prices. The government pays to keep land out of production. The government pays big bucks for weapons systems. It also backs small business loans to entrpreneurial start-ups. It formulates tax policies that influence many decisions businesses make – for example, a higher minimum wage puts people out of work while a stable minimum wage keeps people employed.
It deficit spends in times of economic hardship (like the depression) to keep people employed.
The Fed sets interest rate policies that influence home mortgage rates, credit card rates, etc., etc., etc.
I guess the government really doesn’t have any effect on employment, business climate, or economic activity in general. Boy, was I fooled.
CNN showed footage tonight of Bush saying a year and a half ago that a wire tap required a court order. This was after he signed the NSA order. What a lying bastard.
codie,
Call me and my Democratic pals traitors, will you? Well, you’re the one shitting all over the Constitution, supporting a would-be dictator from Texas who refers to the Constitution as a ‘goddamn piece of paper’. Who’s the traitor here, codie?
I don’t lurk. I’ll tell you to your face: you’re a fascist pigfucker.
Impeach Bush NOW. And once again, codie, fuck you.
In other words Ian – White Power! I was right, you’re a KKKer. Probably a follower of Ayatollahs Phelps and Fox as well.
Ian Santiago,
Boy, that Evo Morales sure stomped Jorge Quiroga in Bolivia! For the first time in 500 years, Bolivia has an indigenous person in charge.
Vive La Coca Campesino Revolucion!!
Brian
Who said govt. has no effect on business? They have an enormous impact. What they CAN’T do is CREATE jobs, real sustainable jobs. By reducing regulations and taxes they make it easier for a startup company to make a profit.
It can be argued that when they buy a jet fighter or tank or aircraft carrier they are creating jobs, but those dollars they took out of the ecomony in the form of taxes would probably have been spent on a good or service or been invested in a business. It can be argued that those jobs were created at the expense of jobs elsewhere.
Heckler,
I think you put too fine an edge on it. Both government and industry can cooperate in creating jobs or they can be on opposite sides of the various issues.
The laissez faire type of capitalism that you seem to espouse has been a dismal failure. I only need point out that the booms and busts of the late 19th century and early 20th century – culminating in the Great Depression – have progressively become milder and shorter with the involvement of government economic policy makers. The idea that everything would be better if government would just butt out of the economy is contradicted by the evidence.
Taxes have their role to play in economic productivity, as do interest rates, deficit spending and the rest.
For example, it has been found that expenditures on R&D within a corporation should be about 2 to 3 % of sales. This amount seems to maximize patent activity without resulting in wastes of R&D effort on silly or unproductive ideas.
Taxes also have an “optimum” value that government should look for (even though it’s a moving target). Business can’t thrive without infrastructure, essential services, a proper legal system preserving property rights, etc. Ditto interest rates and all the rest.
It’s too simple to split the employment picture into “businesses employ people…government doesn’t” type of picture. I have my job because my employer needs my skills, but he wouldn’t need my skills if he weren’t in business in the first place – which he is because of government loans and the availability of highly skilled workers – trained to a great degree at public high schools and universities.
“It can be argued that … ” … ANYTHING. Heckler, that is really all you say. I’d like to take Brian’s comments about R&D a bit further. BASIC research is difficult to fit into an individual corporation’s strategies. However, the National labs and Universities are perfect places for such research. It has been shown over and over again that such research pays for itself many times over.
Infrastructure is another such item. It is not logical for each business to try to have its own water and sewer for example. Add to that the environmental degradation that we have with extreme laissez faire and we can clearly see the need for some sort of public-private cooperation.
Vaclev Havel of Czechoslovakia, who fought valiantly against Communism, also warned against the extremes of runaway corporatism.
Heckler,That Opinion Journal article merely demonstrated the moral bankrupktcy of the lunatic right. Here’s what the FISA court actually said:———————————-The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power.
In approving the district court’s exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government’s investigation became “primarily” driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted’primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” Id. at 915. Targets must “receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution.” Id. at 916. Although the Truong court acknowledged that “almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal” ones, it rejected the government’s assertion that “if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 916.———————————–http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf
And how do you explain THIS?:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1428853
Thanks Brian and BenH. Well said.
Heckler wrote–”Al Qaeda leaders themselves have stated that they will make a stand in Iraq, they know themselves that if Iraq becomes a representative democracy that their own cause is doomed.”
We can’t even FIND Osama bin Forgetten and Heckler is telling us WHAT HE THINKS! Amazing.
While you’re at it, Heck, why don’t you tell us his favorite color and his top pick for the Superbowl?
I haven’t heard any really good explanations of what motivates Al Qaeda, what their goals are, or what they plan to do in the near or long term.
Clearly, when the US stationed troops in Arabia and left them there (after then-Sec’ry of Defense Dick Cheney said they wouldn’t remain for one day longer than necessary [to get Iraq out of Kuwait]), the Al Qaeda attacks started: 1st WTC bombing in ‘93, the Khobar Towers in Arabia in ‘95 (?), the Embassy bombings, etc.
Galahad
I didn’t claim Bin Laden said anything. As usual youre reading comprehension needs some work. Read it again.
There have been several tapes released this year from several different leaders in al Qaeda, can’t remember their names, one is supposedly second in command.
And those leaders said on those tapes that “if democracy is established in Iraq, their cause is doomed?”
I agree that Al Qaeda leaders probably aren’t too supportive of democracy and probably want some kind of “Caliphate” like in medieval times, but I disagree that there’s any real evidence that the Al Qaeda cause (whatever it is) would be set back by democracy in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein, a strong secularist, was a major bulwark to Al Qaeda ambitions in the region.
Thanks to us, that obstacle is long gone . . .
Rage
What you posted appears to me to exonerate the president of breaking laws.
“the court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted’primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.” Id. at 915.”
If we snag an al Qaeda members cell phone and find an American phone number on it I think its a safe bet that the person on the other end of it is a “collaborator” with a “foreign power” ( I beleive that al Qaeda qualifies as a foreign power for this definition)
Should read a “bulwark stopping Al Qaeda ambitions in the region.”
Also, you gung-ho war backers should check out the election RESULTS before you start crowing about “victory” in Iraq.
58 percent was garnered by the Shia religious affilitated union. Awad Allawi, the US puppet of the moment, got only 14 percent. Ahmad Chalabi, the former US puppet, got less than one percent.
They’re voting alright. They’re voting for an Iranian-style theocracy, telling the Sunnis that they won’t compromise, and telling the US to go to hell.
Check this link by Alexander Cockburn–he’s a radical leftist to be sure so you can disagree with his conclusions and characterizations if you want, but his facts are accurate. And those facts tell a chilling story.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Galahad
So are you saying that the Iraqi people were better off with Sadam in power?
If Saddam were still in power, there’d be 30,000-100,000 less dead Iraqis. Arguably, they’d be better off if Saddam were still in power. I can think of a couple thousand Americans who’d be better off, too. I can’t see where we’re any better off by deposing Saddam, and maybe a lot worse off. The war in Iraq is burning our military up. I wonder what’ll happen if we’re called on to fight a “real” war.
The war in Iraq hasn’t gained us anything. And now that Iraq has seemingly elected a theocratic government, we may be in a spot.
CF:
What a class response, to heckler and codie. Must make you feel good, that you got to spout your venom at those posters, or for that matter, anyone that disagrees with you.
So,—-same to you, Big Shot!!
No, Heckler, it doesn’t. Read the whole passage again. I realize it’s a lot to digest, but I couldn’t have done it justice with anything shorter.
The Truong decision (which, as the Court noted, actually denied the government’s request) was decided on facts that occured FISA was applicable and, in fact, it was precisely the same type of abuses of this presumed authority–especially spying on American citizens–that lead to the enactment of the FISA statute in the first place.
In Re: Sealed Case dealt with the issue of whether foreign intelligence information can be used in domestic criminal prosecutions. It was a rather chilling–albeit limited– reversal of a previous decision where they had said “No.”
But neither the FISA court nor the 4th Circuit envisioned a circumstance where surveillance would take place with no judicial oversight at all, in violation of the law.
The distinctions being made were between “foreign survelliance” and “domestic law enforcement” have been deliberately blurred recently, but they nonetheless exist. Contrary to recent creative lawyering, Americans have inalienable Fourth Amendment rights, and if any court decision rendered them moot, I think someone would have noticed before now.
Oops.
Correction: “BEFORE FISA was applicable.”
As an aside, I find it fascinating that someone named “Ian Santiago” is so big on “white power.” Maybe he should lynch himself. . .
Rage
It seems to me this whole argument of legality comes down to whether the NSA is doing foreign surveillance or domestic law enforcement. Since we are doing surveilance based upon information gained from foreign terrorist suspects in other countries to prevent attacks here it falls under the categorie of foreign surveillance. I have no doubt that any information we garner from this program would be deamed inadmisable in US court against a US citizen. But my assumtion is that the primary goal of these wiretaps is to prevent attacks against US interests and gather intel on foreign terrorist networks. If that is the case is seems from what I’ve read to be both a legally and morally correct thing to do.
If you’re arguement is that we are using this for domestic law enforcement, I think you’re wrong, I’ve heard no one make the assertion that that is the case.
Heckler–
Uh, to tell you the truth, I don’t give a damn about Iraqis. I’m not one. I don’t live there. Saddam was their problem, not mine.
Isn’t it the Conservatives who are always saying people are responsible for their own success and happiness.
Well, hell, megadittos, Rush.
I’m saying IT WAS BETTER FOR AMERICA WHEN IRAQ HAD SADDAM.
And that’s obvious. We didn’t have 2500 American soldiers dead (and that’s just the soldiers, it doesn’t count the civilian carpet-baggers) and we didn’t have a “failed state” in the making ripe for terrorism.
Oh, and we didn’t spend half a TRILLION dollars screwing it up either.