Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., argued in a commentary in Sunday’s Eagle that the National Security Agency’s secret wiretapping program is needed to protect homeland security. But why can’t the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court oversee the program to make sure the wiretapping is legal and justified?
Five former FISA judges argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week for just such a role, The New York Times reported. The judges also warned that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps. And Harold A. Baker, who served on the FISA court until last year, said the president was bound by the law “like everyone else,” and that “the president ignores it at the president’s peril.”
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
110 Comments
That of course has always been the ten thousand dollars question? Why did Bush&Co. feel it needed to break the law? On the face of the law it covered such a need, yet the President basicly said he is above the law.Which of course makes anything that is done about it a mute point. Since by his thinking this makes him above all other laws too!
The spying isn’t about criminal prosecution, or even keeping Americans safe.
The spying is about keeping tabs on their opponents.
Bush has formed a pack with Israel and wants to emerge as a dictator.
Congress needs to cut-off money to Israel and this clown Bush needs to be impeached { as in “you’re fired” }.
He’s trying to take-over, even the soldiers know this whole Iraqi thing is a scam and want to come home now.
This administration is not listening to the American People and is putting the United States at grave risk. We can not defend our borders, therefore we do not need to be making trouble.
When the Bush/Israeli cabal goes away the so-called “terrorism thing” also goes away with it.
Peace with the Arabs is the last thing they want.
I believe the reason why was because of time. The Terrorist tend to switch phone lines all the time to try to avoid detection.
The President wants the NSA to capture these phone calls immeditally, but going through FISA usually can take weeks a few days at the most expediate, but during that time, the terrorist switch up.
If you think its breaking the law, take it to court and prove it. Also! Ask any Congressional member, Democrat or Republican who feels that this surveillance program is not a bad one, but actually needed. It’s just who wants to use anything politically to gain an advantage.
This program wouldn’t even bat an eye, if it weren’t for leftist Democrats thinking they can use it to make Bush look bad and hopes of gaining back the House and Senate, which is a pipe dream.
Williams, as usual, has it all wrong :)
The NSA has 72 hours to get a warrant AFTER the call is intercepted. There is NOTHING in the FISA law that slows the process. What part of AFTER the spying is so hard to understand?
The only reason to do warrentless domestic spying is to eavesdrop on people bush cant GET a warrent for listening.
Like, um, anyone who disagrees with him.
“I believe the reason why was because of time. The Terrorist tend to switch phone lines all the time to try to avoid detection.”
That does not wash Joe, 72 hours, seventy two hours to listen in, track, trace and record.No warrant needed for seventy two hours, he was not hamstringed. He was not stopped from following the terrorist suspect from one phone line to the next. Only after the seventy two hours of spying on the same suspect was he required under the F.I.S.A. law to get a warrant. If the NSA had heard something that needed to be continued observing then a warrant was need.
“ The President wants the NSA to capture these phone calls immediately, but going through FISA usually can take weeks a few days at the most expedite, but during that time, the terrorist switch up.”
There was a judge on call twenty four/seven, the paper work for the most part is made except for filling in the blanks. They just needed probable cause, if they had enough probable cause to follow the calls they had the probable cause for the warrant. In those immoral words “ it will be a slam dunk!”.
“If you think its breaking the law, take it to court and prove it. Also! Ask any Congressional member, Democrat or Republican who feels that this surveillance program is not a bad one, but actually needed. It’s just who wants to use anything politically to gain an advantage.”.
Joe there is a law in place to cover such spying with in the United States of the Americas.Bush admit he has broken that law, the court will decide upon the preponderance of the evidence and his admissions to knowingly violating the law. His and those in his accomplices guilt. There has been none, zero, zip whom has said at any time that they could see no need to spy upon those with in the U.S. that maybe in league with the terrorists. The point and rightly so it the violation of the law in doing so. this is not political spin, partisan politics or mud slinging…. It is the knowingly violation of the law by the President of the United States of the Americas! If you see this as nothing more then as you stated, then I would suspect that your blind to the welfare of this country.
“This program wouldn’t even bat an eye, if it weren’t for leftist Democrats thinking they can use it to make Bush look bad and hopes of gaining back the House and Senate, which is a pipe dream“.
As to the leftist Democrats, they could not hope for a better Republican then G.W. Bush and company, nor a better group backing them then the PNAC and Religious Right. The Democrats can just set back and watch the above implode. Bush&Co. are the best the Democrats could hope for to win back control of the House and Senate, even the White House.
I have little to add to what folks have already said. This is an Administration power grab–obviously–and really needs to be understood in the broader context of the Constitutional separation of powers. Does the Administration have the right to make law?
That’s what is at issue, GOP efforts to spin the policy as ‘terrorist surveillance’ to the contrary.
The only way this Administration will listen to the people, is by illegal means!
steve ROCKS.
GOOD ONE steve!!
So, when the preznit breaks the law, when the preznit lies we call it leadership.
When immigrants break the law, we say “off with their heads”.
Can you say “lack of integrity?”
Nice of athe NYT to give us part of the news. These same judges testified that GWB was within his constitutional rights to intercept these terrorist’s communications by signing an executive order.
He didn’t break any laws!
Amazing that the democrats believe the way to sucess in the next election is to come up with a terrorist ‘bill of rights’!
Hank
The reason I think the administration circumvents FISA is the way they are collecting information.
Unfortunately, they will make you pay for the full article at this NY Times link.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40614FA3E550C718DDDAA0894DE404482
What they speculate in this article is that NSA is scooping up large amounts of phone calls, emails, etc. They are not, during the first wave, listening to what individual people are saying as in a traditional wire tap. They are data mining. They are looking for connections between communicators – a pattern that looks like a cell – once a cell is identified then they do more traditional wire-tapping surveillance.
Th methodology they are using does not lend itself to FISA approval. The data mining results in a great deal of chaff and very little wheat. This first phase is not very intrusive, either.
The above is my theory on why they are doing what they are doing. Bush is so inept at running the government, I feel pretty safe, actually.
Digressing – I read a Post op/ed the other day where the writer noted that when Bush screws up governing he paints himself as an outsider and claims it as a victory. He does tend to do that.
We just need to outlive this SOB and I think we will.
I hear you, DD. We need to have a HUGE party when he leaves the white house.
This is the op/ed from the post I was mentioning. It is entitled “In Charge, Except They’re Not”. I think he nails this administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301133.html
Hank, wanna provide a link for that?
Wanna show where any of us are advocating a terrorist bill of rights? Or is that more bloviating with little regard for the facts?
Just like his hero, the preznit.
Pretty sure that Hank is referring to the NY Times article linked by Phillip above.
I am going to vary from my usual “Leftist/Socialist” position and say that if Bush/NSA are doing what I think they are. It would make sense to not reveal the operational details to the public. Doing so, would compromise the methodology.
That’s cool. I vaguely remember the 72 hour leeway before getting a warrent.
Well! That doesn’t leave much excuse for the Bush Administration to use the time issue, which I heard about.
Thanks for the Information ksfarmgrrl and writerdog. That sets the record straight with me.
Yer cool like that joe :)
To elaborate a little. The NSA data mining process is looking for patterns, networks, in the communications they monitor. What they are doing is very similar to what happens with your credit card purchases.
If you buy a small amount of gasoline (say less than $5.00) and then make an expensive purchase at BestBuy, that is a pattern that is associated with the activity of a stolen credit card. The credit card company will likely contact you to check on the purchases. They are not watching ever little thing you do, but an empirically determined pattern or network is what they are concerned with.
While I think Bush, et al. are miserably inadequate when it comes to allowing sunshine into their processes, I think they would be responsible to not reveal how NSA is doing their job.
I agree, DD.
For me the issue is “did the president break the law?” If the answer is no, then no harm no foul. If the answer is yes, then impeach and convict him.
I am no lawyer, so I need a factfinding before I know which way to jump since the law is complex as hell.
Blogs on the right, like Powerline, have been arguing for the past several days that the NYT is slanting the story by telling only half. Hinderaker argues that Lichtabau’s reporting fails to include excerpts from the hearing that would exonerate President Bush.
Example from the hearing that did not appear in any of Lichtbau’s reporting so far:Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013588.php
I don’t know why the Bushytail bunch wants to wiretap anyhow. In the past they just manipulate the intelligence to suit their prefixed agenda.
Joe Williams,
Good on ya.
Hank Price,
The FISA judges said no such thing. The Washington Times and John Hinderaker at Powerline are falsely reporting that the judges approved of the legality of the Bush wiretapping policy. They did not. They specifically refused to address the question of whether the policy was legal.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-fisa-judges-really-said.html
Amazing that the GOP believes that the way to victory in the next election is to continue rubber stamping the illegal power grab being carried out by the Bush Administration.
Damoon, I saw your letter to the editor. Just wanted to say congrats and well written.
Hang in there, my friend!
Flike & others,This is Steven Aftergood’s take on the current situation and news. This is from his e-newsletter “Secrecy News” 03-30-06 – supported by the American Federation of Scientists.
FISA AND WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE NEWS
Must the President of the United States obey the law? Ordinarily, theanswer of course is yes, unless the law itself is unconstitutional.
It is “uncontroversial,” wrote then-Assistant Attorney General WalterDellinger in a 1994 memorandum for the Clinton White House, that”there are circumstances in which the President may appropriatelydecline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.”
See “Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute UnconstitutionalStatutes,” Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, November2, 1994:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc110294.html
However, the President does not have the last word on what is or isnot constitutional. That decision belongs to the Supreme Court.
A new bill introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) yesterday wouldset the stage for the Supreme Court to consider the legality of theBush Administration’s warrantless surveillance program by grantinglegal standing to litigants seeking to challenge the program.
“Did the President go outside the ambit of the law about asking for awarrant?” asked Sen. Schumer. “Some think yes, and they are prettysure of that. Some think no, and they are pretty sure of it. They arepretty sure that he couldn’t. Many are not sure at all.”
“The most logical place for this to be settled is in the U.S. SupremeCourt,” he said in his March 29 introductory statement on the newbill (S. 2468). See:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s2468.html
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on March 28 featuringfour former judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court andother expert witnesses who testified on issues surrounding thewarrantless surveillance program and Senator Specter’s legislativeproposal on the subject.
Prepared statements from Sen. Leahy, FISA expert Morton Halperin ofthe Center for American Progress, and former Justice official DavidKris (but not yet the statements of the judges) can be found here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html#nsa3
A rare interview with FISA Court Judge George Kazen of Laredo, Texasappeared in the Dallas Morning News earlier this week.
See “Judge juggles busy docket, secret duty” by Todd J. Gilman, DallasMorning News, March 28 (free but intrusive registration required):
http://tinyurl.com/f4vek
Dear CF,
Thank you so much for clarifying.
Now that I know a Bush hating; leftwing terrorist’s rights supporting BLOG has basically upheld the liberal, American hating, NYT’s version of the testimony and has explained how the Washington Times has completely got the story wrong I agree with you.
Now, when the incredibly incompetant Washington Times retracts the story I’ll apologize.
Hank
Damoon,Ditto what XXX said. Excellent letter to the editor.
Hank,
I neither hate America nor support terrorists.
Fuck you for saying that I do.
More to the point, the ad hominem “he’s a liberal so I don’t have to respond” response is no response at all. Either address Greenwald’s arguments substantively, or concede them. But don’t be an intellectual coward and try to argue dishonestly.
Like father, like son.
I thought that editorial looked familiar!
Well done Damoon!
Damoon hates America by the way.
Of course you hate America C F….. I do too
XXX hates America and Darwin also
KFG hates America
Proud Lib hates America
Anybody that doesn’t blindly toe the line that bush can do no wrong
or anyone who in any way ever questions bush.
They hate America.
Agreed, CF. Right-wingers like Hank play smash-mouth politics like this and then they shocked–SHOCKED I tell you–when people give it back to them.
Then it’s all, “poor pitiful misunderstood me.”
Listen, Hank, I consider the idea that we need to give up more rights now than the colonists did in 1776 or the Union did during the Civil War a cowardly and defeatist, even un-American notion.
However, I’m not going to call YOU a coward or un-American because you like what Bush is doing.
Play fair, or take the consequences of being an assh*le.
And speaking of biased news sources, since you like quizzing folks so much, Hank, here’s one for you:
who founded The Washington Times? who owns it?
Once you know that, you’ll know why it ranks only slightly above The National Enquirer as a source of news.
I’ll add my accolades, Damoon, though I suspect it won’t change much at this point. Amazing that we live in an nation that is terrified of (some) chemicals yet regards hot metal projectiles as completely safe.
The real America-haters are those who refuse to object when BushCo damages our country.
Dearest CF,
I don’t remember saying that you hate America. You like so many liberals take things personal that aren’t meant that way only so you can then ague and act upset about the percieved insult.
Greenwald has an extreme left-wing view of things. The NYT has a history of an anti-American editorial viewpoints. If you take my comments personnal you are either ignorant or disengenous. Adding profane to your resume helps neither.
I love ya, you make my point.
Hank
Dear ProudLib,
I think that the only thing you could ever do to SHOCK me would be to come up with an original idea, an idea that wasn’t so predictable.
Hank
Dear JR,
Look into yor heart. Do you really believe that I think you hate America? Really?
If so I’m dissapointed in you.
I still love ya,
Hank
Hank, it’s standard procedure to provide a link, particularly when you’re making a claim contrary to what the rest of the world calls “reality.”
The Unification, er, Washington Times, was it? Give us a link. Please. C’mon, dude!
And by the way, accusing those of us who actually believe in upholding the law as being “leftwing terrorist’s rights supporting” etc. is incredibly juvenile and really beneath comment. It is blogfarting.
I wouldn’t even talk about Sean Hannity that way.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20528
Good cartoon rage. Sums it up nicely.
rage,good one, too appropriate around here though :)
And now here’s the Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
Note the total abscence of support for Hank’s position. Maybe it’s out there somewhere. . .
he looks like bill clinton…
Heh, the fruit doesn’t fall far from the nuts . . .
did anyone else notice that??
Is the Washington Times still owned by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon, a “different kind” of “church” that was accused of luring young people into a cloistered environment, subjecting them to sleep deprivation and poor nutrition, and what some critics called “brainwashing sessions”? (They were called “Moonies”. )
Or did the Reverend Mr. Moon sell the paper to other parties?
Oops, I meant to say that Mr. Moon founded a “different kind of church” (70’s) whose name escapes me. I did not mean to imply that the Washington Times is a different kind of church, although perhaps it could be. ; )
Disclaimer: I don’t know offhand what changes they might have undergone since then but, yup, that’s the one!
Dear Rage,
Thanks for the link. I read Brian Debose’s column in the Washington Times yesterday. I think that he did a pretty good job of giving both sides.
I am pretty mainstream when it comes to these things. If you think the rest of the world considers Grenwald to represent ‘reality’ then it will be hard for you and I to find common ground.
I merely used a little sarcasm to demonstrate my opinion of the NYT and Grenwald. CF responded with profane and personnal attack. Since you seem to want to be the BLOG mommy, how does one respond to feigned indignation and profanity?
Hank
Hank,
Those are fighting words you uttered upthread. Don’t try to act as if you didn’t mean them.
When you slander my political affiliation, you slander me. For you to try to pretend otherwise does you a disservice.
If you don’t actually believe what you accuse me of, don’t say it. The fact that you DID say it suggests that you DO believe those things, and that you are attacking me personally. And I’ll be as mean and nasty to you as you are to me.
We’ll get along fine if you don’t call me a traitor and then act as if you don’t mean it. If you DO call me a traitor and DO mean it, get ready to be hit a lot harder than you hit me.
Unification Church. They do all sorts of wierd things.
Hank?
Where did I say that you
implied THat I hate America?
I didn’t name anyone.
I just implied that there ARE THOSE who equate disagreement with a post, a presidentor a policy as hatred for America.
I’m glad you aren’t like that?—–
Oh, here are few more examples of Hank’s vintage sarcasm. You just gotta love the guy, huh? :)
***********************************http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/02/bush_quiet_on_k.html#comment-13713357
But, the liberal protector’s of terrorists rights, say if the FISA law is inadequate for the job just tell us, we’ll change it for you! This is the same bunch that can’t even get together to renew the Patriot Act and even cheer in public when they ‘kill’ it!
No Brian, my secular progressive friend, continue to search the Constitution for the right to abort babies and for the right of perverts to diddle little boys and leave war to the grownups. You and the rest of the country will be safer.
Posted by: Hank Price | February 07, 2006 at 07:45 AM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/02/bush_quiet_on_k.html#comment-13725061
Dear Rage,
Only when a republican president ignores these laws does the Terrorist’s rights legislators get their panties in a wad. Watching the hearings yesterday you would think the democrats were lawyers for al Qaida! The effect and content of their questions were the same.
Hank
Posted by: Hank | February 07, 2006 at 01:12 PM
****************HAHAHAHA! Side-splitting, isn’t it? Absolutely hilarious!
Ouch……
I musta been absent back then.
I gotta come up with a name for these blasts from the past,…….bonedig?”Rage did a bonedig on Hank”I could call it a “todder” since KFG first used the technique to make Todd look pretty foolish.
“After the “todder” Todd was not heard from for some time.”
“summon the ghost’?
Like as in Rage “summoned the ghost” of Hank?
Have to work this out. Ideas anyone?
WE Blog is a really great forum. A lot of contributors make thoughtful, constructive criticisms. Let’s try not to attack each other with ad hominems.
The Wall Street Journal recently attacked John Corzine (D) for campaigning on a promise to reduce taxes, and then after he won New Jersey’s gubernatorial election, he raised taxes. It didn’t mention GHW Bush’s “Read my lips, No New Taxes” campaign proclamation, followed by his signing a major tax increase bill. It didn’t say anything about GWB’s repudiation of “nation building” in his 2000 campaign followed by his trillion-dollar effort to build a new nation in the Middle East after he was elected.
This WSJ editorial was pure propaganda. A good editorial will press a case, and admit the other side’s arguments, and then try to prove why it’s position is better. An pot-calling-the-kettle-black attack editorial that “forgets” the facts that weaken its proposition does a disservice to our democratic republic. The same is true for blogs.
America has some uber-capitalists who desire to be hyper-rich, owning several homes, most of which they live in for only a few weeks a year, and play global chess and relish the power.
America has people who want to enjoy lifestyle amenities that many, but most Americans cannot afford.
America has a lot of little people who just want to have a roof over their heads, feed their families, and relish community and kin connections, which they are stressed out about because the former are threatened by a global economy.
America has a minority of people who want to concentrate and control capital. It has a majority of people who don’t want to have to work for Third-World-calibrated wages and salaries, but see this on the horizon. All of these people hold positions that are “American”.
If you examine Eagle editorials, they didn’t criticize the Bush administration two years ago. They hoped that the administration knew what it was doing. But, they are gradually changing their positions. That’s good journalism: take an initial stand based on what you know, but if evolving facts don’t support your initial stand, be willing to change your position. This is called LEARNING.
Well, if you’ll check out the links you’ll notice neither Brian or I took the bait. Like I said, beneath comment. We had a good discussion otherwise.
And I think I’ve made my point.
Funny stuff. I’m sorry I missed that one.
Dear CF,
Your profane language demeans you, it is a peraonnal affont to me and it’s an insult to everyone that reads this BLOG.
I never insulted you personally. I am not afriad to tell you exactly what I think of someone that uses language like that in a public forum. In person.
Fighting words? Really!
The last time we did ‘When and Where’ I showed up.
HankI am also not ano
Good maybe great post, heartlander. I agree with so much of what you wrote at 6:58pm.
Hank at 12:04pm 03-30-06:”Now that I know a Bush hating; leftwing terrorist’s rights supporting BLOG has basically upheld the liberal, American hating, NYT’s version of the testimony and has explained how the Washington Times has completely got the story wrong I agree with you.” [This was directed at CF]
Hank at 3:30pm 03-30-06″Dearest CF,
“I don’t remember saying that you hate America. You like so many liberals take things personal that aren’t meant that way only so you can then ague [sic - probably should be argue] and act upset about the percieved insult.”
Hank,Your earlier comment seemed pretty insulting and it seems to me that one could take it as an accusation of hating America. Was this really a failure of memory? I don’t think your memory is that bad. If it is, you have my condelences.
Dear DD,
I merely used sarcasm to impugn one of CFs links. Now just because I think that Grenwald is a leftist nut doesn’t mean that I have insulted CF.
Now then, Rage searches the archives and comes up with me calling Brian a ’secular progressive’. That’s it? What is wrong with calling someone that makes secular progressive comments a secular progressive? I thought that was the new political correct term for a liberal. When people call me a ‘neocon’ I don’t get all upset and feign anger. I’m not a neocon, but it isn’t a perjoritive term for a conservative. Like the term ’secular progressive’, being a ‘neocon’ ia a pretty legitimate political position.
In the past I’ve been called a homophobe on this BLOG and I’ve never said anything bad about homosexuals. (start searching the archives Rage). I’ve been called a facist because I am conservative. I’ve never called anyone a comunist because they are liberal. (Keep searching Rage) I’ve been called a racist. I’ve never said one thing racist or perjoritive against another race. (give up Rage I didn’t do it) I’ve been called a ‘fundy’, a religious nut and I’ve been accused of shoveing my religion up someones butt. I’ve never based any of my arguments on the bible or my religion. I’ve never quoted or referred to scripture. I did once say that when I go to heaven that there would be enough evidence of convicting me of being a Christian, but that is about as close to shoving as I’ve got. (where’s the BLOG mommy when you need her?)I am amazed how the liberals will circle the wagons on this BLOG in defense of each other’s profanity. Why? Do you want your wives and children to read the trash that CF spews when he pretends to be outraged by some percieved insult? JR, should I print out this whole BLOG and send it to your 11 year old son?
Ben, you seem to be a decent guy, would you let CF come into your living room and talk like that? I think not. Damoon, have you ever heard me use or write profanity? What would your husband do if CF used that language toward you at the picnic? Do you personally condone such profanity? How about you XXX? Is that the kind of language that you tolerate?
Just wondering.
Hank
Hank, buddy, you’re not Karl Rove. Rewriting the narrative doesn’t help you. Are you assuming no one will bother to read what you actually wrote back then? A little embarrassed, huh? Well we all act a little foolish every now and then.
I posted it not to put you down but as a little object lesson. Maybe, just MAYBE, it might occur to you that people who viscerally anti-Bush, whether here or in the blogosphere, aren’t automatically anti-America or pro-terrorist, just because you find it convenient to mindlessly characterize them as such.
Thinking people have a plethora of insults at their disposal they can use without having to resort careless, moronic slander.
CF,
Is that the language you think a Christian should use?
Rage,
Nice, measured tone there. Well said.
Heartlander,That’s an awfully good post. It rivals Joe Williams’ post on the Wichita Boathouse as one of the best things to appear on this blog.
Hank,
You and your son object to my use of profanity. OK. I object to personal attacks on my character by way of the widely-disseminated slander of calling liberals and folks on the left ‘traitors’. I guess we just disagree which is worse.
Frankly, I think profanity is much preferable to obscentiy: and ‘obscene’ is a fair word to use in describing your shameless attacks on the loyalty and love of country of those Americans who don’t share your ideological commitments.
I’m done putting up with a bunch of right-wingers dismissing my citizenship and refusing to acknowledge that I, too, am an American. I’ve been listening to this shit for the last twenty-six years, and I’m done. If you want to play that game, Hank, it’s going to cost you. And if profanity bothers you, expect me to use it a lot.
Hank, the whole ‘Liberals are traitors’ thing puts you on Ann Coulter’s level. Is that somewhere you really want to be? Seriously. I don’t know what kind of guy you are and it really is beside the point. What matters here is what you say here. And what you say is what you mean.
Whenever you piggyback onto the ‘liberals are disloyal’ ‘liberals are traitors’ ‘liberals support the traitors’ trope, you can expect swats on the nose from me. Eventually, I hope you’ll break yourself of the habit, so that we can engage in substantive disagreements.
And by the way, I linked to Greewald because, as near as I could tell, he’s the only commentator who actually READ the entire transcript of the FISA hearing, and was thus in a position to comment on the relative veracity of the accounts in the NYT and the Washington Times. If you had READ him, you would know that.
Finally, as for your masculine pissing match upthread, let’s don’t forget who set the original time and place to meet, and who wasn’t able to make it. It isn’t my duty to cut my vacation short for your convenience. Rest assured that, once the next one is scheduled, I’ll do my best to clear out my schedule so we can do this thing face to face.
Nathan,
Are dishonesty, deliberate inconsistence, and a smug tone ways that a Christian should argue?
Sorry: ‘inconsistency’.
CF,
In almost every thread you are ever in you always resort to name calling and attack the poster instead of the comment.
(Rage, how about a little research on that?)
Dear Rage,
I’m actually flattered that you bother. Now, find one of my posts that I’ve used profanity. Find one where I have called anyone on this BLOG anti-American. I very seldom respond with the same level of vitriol that I’m attacked with.
Would you allow CF to use that type of language in your living room? Why do you condone it when he sneaks it in on your computer?
I can find a lot of perjoritive links against Glenn Grenwald. I have absolutly no respect for him. Not because he is a Jew, I’m not an anti-semite. Not because he is a homosexual, I don’t care about his or anyone’s sexual orientation. I’m not a homophobe. I don’t respect him because he is a liar. He has lied about his accomplishments as an attorney. He has lied about numerous things on his BLOG. In the real world he has no credibility.
If you lind to his BLOG to make a point I won’t bother to go to it. Nothing I said about Grenwald or the NYT is untrue. If CF takes personal offense, then that is his personal problem. If CF then uses his imagined insult to use profanity on a public BLOG then it demeans you and me and everyone that reads this BLOG.
You have not found anything that I’ve ever written in anger. I’ve never been angry on this BLOG. You cannot find anything that I’m embarrased about writing. I’ve responded with great restraint and humility based on the unwarrented personal attacks on me.
Hank
CF,
I ask questions. Tone is a very hard thing to get from a blog or any typed statement.
Show me where I have been dishonest.
As always……I get to the fight late.
I type slow and the fight will probably evolve as I do but here is my take.
Hank? My son often corrects me my profanity. I know you have a deep faith. I can understand that profanity offends you deeply. I looked into your eyes at the meet up and saw honesty when you spoke of the attacks on your faith as painful.
But……
CF only went to profanity on this thread AFTER you remarked as to “hate America terrorist lovers” (I may not have that exact. Don’t want to stop to scroll up.)
That said, profanity is a part of the blogs. You might not like it but it is true. I occasionally use it or nearly spell it out myself.
You have your own form of it you know.
I think C F over reacted a bit. But you should know that your profanity “your anti American” is just as offensive to some as vulgar words are to you.
C F? You cannot be a liberal in Kansas and not have suffered worse. I know it reaches a breaking point.
I’m gonna go see how the fight has evolved.
“Rage, how about a little research on that?”
Nathan,To begin with, to research “almost every thread” CF’s commented on would take a great deal of time. And it would to resolve an accusation I know to be false, from reading many if not most of those posts the first time around.
I once said that all posters here were valuable. That they make the effort to express their ideas here makes them more valuable than the many who do not vote or think or care.
I make an exception to that for blogfarters like Don and Crusaderx.
You spent a lot of time defending yourself against allegations no one has made, Hank. Kinda strange.
Sad to say, I have better things to do with my time than uncover Hank’s Greatest Hits. Funny thing, I looked at the link you refuse to read, and didn’t find a bit of leftist propaganda. There were facts that were open to dispute, but they in fact CAN be disputed if you think they’re wrong–the transcript is not yet free, but it’s available.
Yet you wouldn’t even give it a quick glance. That says far too much, Hank. It’s sad.
P.S. CF can use the full range of the English language in my home, but I don’t export my rules to other homes. Here, the rules are determined by the group and the editors (I suspect that particular post will go into the ether). In either instance, I’m more concerned about people’s limbs being blown off than someone reacting to four letters like fingernails on a blackboard. I’m sure the reaction is real, and I’ll try not to set it off, but it ain’t my biggest priority.
I gotta agree with Rage.
Outrage at profanity is subjective.
Thing is Hank?
Like you I have not even read the thread in question. I’ll do so soon enough. You dismissed it out of hand and in what some might call a pofane manner.
I wronged you once hank. MY SIDE or some on it rather…..took me to the woodshed for it. Somewhere in the archives is my well thought out apology. It was a humbling experience. But I learned from it.
Nathan,
Thus far, I have reviewed the posts from January. I’ll get through the rest of February and March tonight, since I’m looking for a particular post I made to you that I will develop into a large scale-argument.
What stands out, so far, are the nasty spats between you and Damoon, who basically has your number and calls you out. It is some damn funny stuff. Of the seventeen pages I’ve compiled so far, here’s a particularly juicy bit. Blast from the past, anyone?
**********************************
“It is tough actually being asked to defend what you say and back it up”.Nathan, why would you have such expectations for others and none for yourself?Posted by: damoon | January 20, 2006 at 08:08 PM
Damoon,Is this what you have reduced yourself to, nothing more than a mocking voice everytime I post?Posted by: Nathan | January 20,2006 at 08:38 PM
2006 at 11:01 PMI’m not mocking you, Nathan. I’m asking you an honest question. You constantly ask others to qualify their statements, but you refuse to qualify your own. You’re not interested in discussion, only confrontation. You treat others with rudeness, disrespect and a condesending attitude, but yet you claim to be a Christian.How do you expect to bring others to Christ when all you do is piss them off and display your own hypocrisy?I’d suggest you heed Christ’s words and take the log out of your eye, then you might be able to help your brother with the speck in his.Posted by: damoon | January 21, 2006 at 09:10 AM
I did not say XXX was mocking me.Damoon,Please show me the statment I refuse to qualfy.Please show me what Christ has said that I am not doing. What hypocrisy am I displaying?I am not expecting to bring too many people on this blog to Christ. I am here to debate what the editors of the paper write and peoples responses to them.When I am talking to you, I am usually just trying to correct the misconceptions about Christianity you usually have.Not 100% of my conversations are about converting people to Christ.When I am at the drive through at Mcdonalds I am ordering a value meal, not converting the person behind the window.Sorry, if everytime I have to constantly point out the distortions you and others make as being false might seem rude or mean to you.Posted by: Nathan | January 21, 2006 at 03:02 PM
And what misconceptions do I have about Christianity, Nathan?Please qualify your statement and be specific, please.”Taking the log out of your eye” is a good place to start pointing out what I see as your hypocrisy. You see everyone else’s perceived sins, but none of your own. That is not how Christ taught us how to live.I certainly wouldn’t expect you to try an bring everyone you meet to Jesus, but you have an opportunity to share what you perceive as God’s word and love, and you keep blowing it. Is that what Jesus wants for you? You don’t set a Christian example by the way you condescendingly put others down. You have made statements about me that were false, and that’s breaking the 8th comandment.Practice what Christ taught, then you would be more respected and others would see you as the Christian example your God wants you to be.Posted by: damoon | January 21, 2006 at 04:59 PM
Well, I’m still waiting, Nathan. Qualify your statement, give me an example.”It’s tough actually being asked to defend what you say and back it up”, right Nathan?Posted by: damoon | January 23, 2006 at 09:40 AM*****************************I’ll have more tomorrow.
CF,
And that proves my dishonesty how?
I’ve shown a willingness to broker diplomacy that will probably cost me with folks on my side Nathan. So trust me here.
SHUT UP. Wait till C F is done.
“CF is linking to a Osama-loving, terrorist rights, Satanic, Nazi, Holocaust-denying, atheistic, gay porn, socialistic, America-hating website. But, hey, I’m not saying anything about CF himself.”
Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
Now we see how Nathan got to be the disingenuous snot-puke he is . . .
OKProud lib?
I got to this fight late and that is posted.
You are just now getting to this fight and your very first post is way over the top.
I got the same for you as for Nathan. Shut up.
Proud-lib,
Now we see? You have been here just as long as I have been.
What is it that “now” you see what you see?
I would ask you to show me how I am disingenuous, but I assume that I wouldn’t get anything more than some response saying that it is obvious and that you are not going to waste your time…
Oh what side to choose. Sheesh
Nathan attacked a friend of mine…….
but Proud lib was not present that fight………
Dear JR,
I appreciate the fact that on occassion you are man enough to apologize.
In the matter of a link to Grenwald, the point of my post to CF was that I have no respect for Grenwald. I read the NYT article and I read the Washington Times article on the judges’ testimony. I found the Washington Times article to be balanced.
Why should I follow a link to Grenwald, a proven left-wing liar?Grenwald’s BLOG is tedious and predictable. CF merely used my comments as an excuse for a personal attack. Something that he often does. He doesn’t think what I wrote is obscene. He merely says that.
Hank
Hank,
Oh, to the contrary, I DO think it obscene to slander people by misrepresenting their views and declaring them guilty by association. By my reckoning, profanity is a small matter compared to character assassination.
And if you’re going to call Greenwald a ‘proven liar,’ that’s a factual claim you ought to substantiate.
Nathan,
The posts were meant to be an appetizer for the main course. They establish a widespread distaste for the games you play while pretending to argue.
Dear CF,
I believe that one of Grenwald’s claims is that he is a ‘first ammendment attorney’ for the past ten years. There is not much evidence to support that claim. I chllenge you or anyone to find more than three cases he has worked on. Futhermore, I may be wrong, but I don’t think he even has a license to practice law anymore.
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1138161480.shtml
Now it is interesting that all of the democrats that have been briefed on the NSA terrorist survielance have come out and quietly supported it.
As far as the NSA and FISA is concerned, its pretty much over. The democrats are beating a dead horse. There is more and more evidence and precident coming to the surface that GWB was acting within is authority and responsibility according to the Constitution.
Hank
OK CF,
Let’s see if I have this correct.
You said:
“I DO think it obscene to slander people by misrepresenting their views and declaring them guilty by association.”
Now it’s my understanding that what you are are referring to was my post concerning Grenwald. Which was:
Dear CF,
Thank you so much for clarifying.
Now that I know a Bush hating; leftwing terrorist’s rights supporting BLOG has basically upheld the liberal, American hating, NYT’s version of the testimony and has explained how the Washington Times has completely got the story wrong I agree with you.
Now, when the incredibly incompetant Washington Times retracts the story I’ll apologize.
Hank
Then you respond with:
“Hank,
I neither hate America nor support terrorists.”
F*** you for saying that I do.”
Please point out to me where my contempt for Grenwald and the NYT was a personal attack on you.
On the contrary, you sir have slandered me by your own standards.
You sir have used profanity by anyone’s standards.
I was slamming your source. You then decided to feign outrage and misrepresent and slander me. It’s a trick that many liberals use, accuse the people they are debating with of using dishonest tactics that they themselves use.
I’m not outraged by your remarks, I’m just bored. I am disapointed that others on this BLOG have seemed to support your profanity.
Hank
Dear CF,
In another post of yours you say:
“Like father, like son.”
Now this, in my case anyway, is a great compliment. My boy is a Christian. He is a Marine. He is a college student. And he is a son that any man has a right to be proud of.
As a Christian he truly tries to live a good Christian life. He goes to church on a regualar basis, studies his bible and tries hard to understand it. He is active in many of the church organizations. He doesn’t smoke, drink or use drugs. He doesn’t swear nor use profanity.
As a Marine he is one of the best. He did four years active duty and has an honorable discharge. He joined the Marine Corps reserve after 9-11, even though it meant that for the rest of his college career he would have the prospect of being activated. He is highly thought of by his leaders and the men that he is in charge of. He has finished number one in every school he has ever gone to in the Marine Corps. Currently he is serving as an armorer, with collateral duties as the carreer counselor and Christian lay leader. Only the very best Marines with a spotless record are selected for armorer school.
As a college student he has been active in many college extra-curricular activities. He is currrently serving his second term as Vice President of Student Government. He presides over student senate and a multi million dollar Student Government budget. He is highly respected by his professors and his classmates. All of this while being on the honor roll persuing a dual degree of electrical engineering and computer science. He works an outside job, lives in town away from home, has a scholorship and is financially independant while paying for his schooling.
As a citizen he has worked on several political campaigns, volunteered to be and qualified to be a hunter safety instructor.
In all aspects of his life, religion, military, scholastic and citizen he has proven to be a man that “walks his talk”. So, CF my dear friend, compare me to my boy anytime! He is a son that any man could be proud of!
Hank
Ya know I still haven’t checked out that link.
It’s too nice a day for links.CF feels insulted. I think on this little occasion he is over reacting.
I said once that alot of what you get out of a post is due to perception.
Now Hank I have often had just the sort of feeling that C F is talking about.
So let’s do this.
Anyone here had the perception that Hank (and Nathan too) feels or at least posts in a way that questions the patriotism of those he disagrees with?
If so now is the time to speak up.
Just for purposes of info the time stamps will show that hank and I were posting at the same time.
Yes, JR, their posts often seem to question the patriotism of others.
“leftwing terrorist’s rights supporting BLOG has basically upheld the liberal, American hating, NYT’s version of the testimony”
I don’t think it is appropriate to label the NYT as America hating either.
Uhm. . .yeah, JR. Did you check out the “kiddy-diddling” line Hank used on Brian? The implication of insufficient patriotism and unethical ulterior motives gets a little old.
But I also think CF overreacted. As a veteran of Reagan-era demogoguery, I’ve more or less learned to laugh that crap off. It tells me I’m winning the argument!
But since CF had obviously had enough, I felt this was the time for me to weigh in as well. Perhaps CF isn’t as jaded as some of us, and I would hesitate to call that a bad thing.
I remain amused at Hank’s continuing attempt to spin this as whether one is “supporting” CF’s profanity. I guess it’s a subject he’s more comfortable with.
Q: Did CF overreact?
A: If one thinks Hank was being jocular, CF overreacted. If there is some question as to whether Hank was being jocular, CF overreacted. If Hank was being serious, CF was arguably justified, whether certain people like profanity or not.
At this point, I’m still undecided whether to affirm the second or the third possibilities, all of Hank’s protestations to the contrary. The slandering of political opponents is such a staple of the right-wing diet that Hank may be unaware of how offensive it is. Had he been aware, he might have worked harder to indicate that the denunciation was being made ironically.
If Hank seriously doesn’t assert that a) I hate America and b) I love terrorists, then I’ll take back my epithet.
Hank,
In addition to the Matt Hale case, which was a BIG TIME First Amendment case, I also found the following documentation for Glenn Greenwald’s legal record. And while I reject your self-serving criterion that Greenwald be involved in more than three cases–after all, lots of lawyers NEVER try cases–I’m happy to report that the number adds up to precisely THREE.
–http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/perez_Rule11.pdf
–http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75121779
–http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/NewsHeadlines/hale_complaint.htm
I found http://www.antimedia to be a bit on the whiny and unsubstantive side.
LIBERAL!
“The slandering of political opponents is such a staple of the right-wing diet that Hank may be unaware of how offensive it is. ”
I don’t think it was ironic. I think it was automatic. Ya know what I mean?
Food for thought, Hank.
Dear CF,
Does he still have a license to practice law?
Hnak
Dear CF
You wrote:
“If Hank seriously doesn’t assert that a) I hate America and b) I love terrorists, then I’ll take back my epithet.”
Seriously, I have never accused you or anyone else on this BLOG of hating America.
I have never accused anyone of loving terrorists because of their opinions expressed on this BLOG.
Take it back.
Hank
Hank–
That’s a very impressive resume your son has achieved. He has set ambitious goals for himself and has succeeded at them.
I say that in all sincerity.
Regardless of all the political sniping I do at you two, you both have a right to be proud.
Now, if he’d just come over to the Democratic party, he’d be darn near PERFECT!
Hank,
Done. I take back my epithet. Consider yourself un****ed.
As for law licenses, if Greenwald isn’t currently practicing law, there’s no reason for him to maintain a current license. If his failure to do so bothers you, you may want to consider Harriet Miers’ history of practicing law in DC and in Texas without having a valid license to do so in either place.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5583.html
Dear CF,
Thank you. If that was an apology I accept. I feel a lot better now!
I truly am sorry for all of the hate and discontent on this BLOG fomented on my part.
If I have caused you any heartache I apologize.
When it is all said and done, I do appreciate the passion you bring to this BLOG. I think you are wrong, but you do keep me thinking!
Hank
Dear ProudLib,
Thankyou for your kind words. Did I mention that he might be a little opinionated?
Hank
Hank,
That’s a very kind and humble gesture, and I would like to requite it.
I can be harsh, and I can be profane, but I also try to be fair. If I haven’t been, and if I’ve given offence, I apologize and ask your forgiveness.
Ahem. I guess this is the point where we touch gloves and go back to our corners. Good times, Hank, good times.
Coming up later: CF’s critique of Nathan.
Might I ask one thing CF?
When you do post your critique of me you add commentary to each peice explaining things?
When you post a whole page of stuff and end it with see I told you so I still have no idea about what actual thing I said was “dishonest” or any of the other things I am accused of…
Done, forgotten.
Hank
Ready for round two!
Hank
Nathan,
Certainly. You may expect a generous dose of tortuous, nitpicky explanation and argumentation on my part.
I’ve got family stuff to do in the meantime, so I’ll have something for you late this evening.
I know everyone has kissed and made up, but I still think this is pretty funny.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20032