Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (56799)	3/30/2007 5:10:54 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Well the public has seen the truth and now the administration is going to have to answer for what it does. Now there is a congress that is not going to just rubber stamp everything the president wants. You are of course right, and in their hatred of the president, they don't care how many human lives they sacrifice. But then that is how democrats operate.

To: JBTFD who wrote (56799)	4/1/2007 5:59:29 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Do you ever tire of being wrong? << "The pretense is that there would be any impediment in getting any wiretap needed. That is pretense. That is NOT FACT." >> First, your assertion is a lie & all evidence available destroys that perncious DNC Talking Point. .... This is what the President said about the NSA international surveillance program: "I made the decision to do the following things because there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why. This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" .... Message 22095892 There has been ZERO evidence that the terrorist surveillance program has been anything other than how the President described it. ZERO!

To: JBTFD who wrote (56799)	4/1/2007 6:18:38 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Secondly, the terrorist surveillance program had absolutely nothing to do with, "this administration has shown contempt for the very concept of accountability". In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to show it was not only Constitutional, it was a necessary aspect of the #1 priority of the President; to protect our national security: Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority." The court in the Truong case noted that the executive "not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." And the Constitution's framers knew what they were about, according to the Truong court: "Attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign- intelligence initiatives." That argument rings all the truer in the Age of al Qaeda, when a fast-moving, amorphous enemy operates both outside and within U.S. borders. Like it or not, the president has the constitutional authority to wage the war on terror. His detractors don't like it, so they pretend the authority doesn't exist, and trample on the Constitution in the process. Message 22024263