[Camp David]

Bush Attacks Paper for Jeopardizing National Security
http://www.cnn.com/
"President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that The New York Times jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11."

Good! Great! Finally the media is held to account... they are scum... treasonous vultures against the nation and against the war. Put 'em all in jail.

Bravo President Bush! Finally!

[TarpleyG]

President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that The New York Times jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11
I, for one, don't believe this sort of sneaking around should be kept from the American public. I hope your post was in jest. Pretty soon we'll be consumed by the .gov "keeping us safe" and we'll ALL be criminals.

Greg

[Hockeydude]

Were these wiretaps done with a warrant?

[Camp David]

I, for one, don't believe this sort of sneaking around should be kept from the American public. I hope your post was in jest. Pretty soon we'll be consumed by the .gov "keeping us safe" and we'll ALL be criminals.

Why are you so reluctant to believe the media is guilty? They are!

The NYT practices a subtle form of treason! They are the guilty and the president is right to call them on it!

For once just think this issue through and you'll support the President! The media need to be locked up... now.

[roscoe]

Yeah - how dare the NY Times call attention to lawbreaking by the NSA (by order of the president)! The Times held the story for a year at the request of the White House - now they are stabbing them in the back! What would Tony Soprano do?

[Blackcloud6]

Yeah - how dare the NY Times call attention to lawbreaking by the NSA (by order of the president)!

And just how do you know that it is lawbreaking?

[insidious_calm]

CD, I'm no fan of the NYT, or any other liberal rag for that matter, but as I understand this case the pres. bypassed the system of checks and balances by EO. The FISA court exists because the feds abused their power in the first place. Now, I voted for the man twice. That does not mean I won't ask my congress critters to bounce him out on his arse IF he did what the NYT said however. It is not ok for secret government agents to go sneaking around anyones house without any oversight at all. In fact, IF that is what he authorized it's down right un-american. 9/11, no - TEN 9/11's, are not worth destroying the principle foundations upon which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, and the words "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" don't make it clear, then you are no friend of this country or what it stands for. I will wait until more facts come outbefore I pass judgement, but right now it looks bad.



I.C.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Something smells bad with this escapade.

If it was really a crime, why would the New York Times sit on it for a year?
If it was a crime, sitting on it rather than reporting it to the "authorities" would make them an accomplice, would it not? The NYT has become part of the story.

And the FISA has controls as far as domestic spying on U.S Citizens, it's disallowed under FISA rules as its for foreign surveilance only, not U.S. citizens.

That means they had to use the USA PATRIOT Act to spy, sneak&peek or monitor what would be US citizens.
Only by using the National Security Letters (administrative warrants) could they get some information from libraries, ISP's and other custodians.

The Congress passed this stuff into law without reading it and now are calling foul? Several members of the Congressional leadership have been briefed on each renewal of these Presidential orders every 90 days.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=715221#PaperDownload

I think more info is needed from a number of sources before we find a good hanging tree.

We haven't had a terrorist attack here since 11 September 2001, somebody is doing something right. It may be technically improper but whatever IT is, it's working.

Vick

[longeyes]

We used to have a term for divulging classified information in wartime. I think it begins with T.

Perhaps we should move the hq of the NY Times to a ship in international waters so they can really be citizens of the world.

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Camp David, I must admit that at first you got me going. Acting simple like you do. Lock up the free press. Suspend Habeous Corpus. Like Lincoln did.

Rick Reno was easier to discern....."W, the singular most best president we've ever had this month" and like that.

Your satire is and has been much more subtle.

Clever, clever, I gotta admit. ;)

[Standing Wolf]

If Jorge Bush is so concerned about national security, why has he made precisely no effort to secure the nation's borders?

I wouldn't walk across the street to spit on the New York Times; that said™, ignoring the borders for a single day damages the nation far, far more than anyone at that sorry excuse for a newspaper could ever manage to do.

[longeyes]

The ironies in this mess run deep, no doubt about that.

And of scoundrels there is plainly no shortage, whether in the Administration, Congress, or the Fourth Estate.

The American people are poorly served by the lot.

A plague on all their houses.

[roo_ster]

OK, folks, I have read several of the NSA/Pres EO threads. A whole lotta folks are getting their panties in a wad...over the wrong thing.

It is my understanding that what GWB did, in authorizing the taps is perfectly legal, in the "broke no laws" and "followed the laws written by the US Congresscritters & accepted procedures" sense.

The actions he took merely expedited the usual process. Instead of taking forever & a day to authorize the taps, POTUS rammed them through, busting through the red tape. We may not like it, but (given my understanding) he followed the letter of the law.

So, getting all bent outta shape over what GWB did is pretty much just advertising one's ignorance from the rooftops.

There is something to get outraged about, though. The very fact that what GWB & the NSA did is legal is enough to make the Founders roll over in their graves. A SCOTUS that was worth a hoot would have shot it down. A US Congress that adhered to their oath would have run its sponsors out of town on a rail. A POTUS worth more than a thimble full of warm spit would have vetoed it and, if overridden, would have refused to carry it out of respect for his oath.

Just one more sign that we are ruled by mendacious mediocrities.

[drinks]

In my opinion, ben Laden could have died on 9-12, perfectly content , knowing he had provoked Shrub, Tricky Dick II and the rest of the fascist bunch into destroying what was left of the bill of rights.
Shrub and the boyz are following in the path laid down by Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and Nixon.
Of course, the demorats are , in secret, overjoyed, as this is also their program.
:barf: :eek: :mad:

[roo_ster]

Oh, and the NYT is nothing more than a passel of poltroons.

Why wait to reveal it? So that the companion book would get some lift when the book is ready to be released, is why.

[cropcirclewalker]

There is something to get outraged about, though. The very fact that what GWB & the NSA did is legal is enough to make the Founders roll over in their graves. A SCOTUS that was worth a hoot would have shot it down. A US Congress that adhered to their oath would have run its sponsors out of town on a rail. A POTUS worth more than a thimble full of warm spit would have vetoed it and, if overridden, would have refused to carry it out of respect for his oath.
Like I said in another string..........The republic is dead. :(

Not enough sense to lay down.

[NorthernExtreme]

I don't much support the President or the NYT on this one. This is clearly a case of 2 wrongs do not make a right.

Bush needs to have his finger taken off the secret operation button. If the operation can not stand the light of day, it should never be done in the first place.

I for 1 am sick and tired of being, "kept safe and secure from Terrorists" while the Constitutional carpet is yanked from under my feet. I'm all for Government doing everything the Law and Constitution allows to go after the terrorists, but no more than it allows. And I'm willing to accept the remaining threat that exists due to the limits of the Law and Constitution. The Government would do far better by asking the American people to aid in the war, than it does by trying to keep us protected from and ignorant about it.

I believe the Terrorists would find it much harder (almost impossible) to do evil in this country if the eyes of every American (Government agency and American citizen working together) were watching; than it is now when only the Government seems to know.

Regards,

[NorthernExtreme]

Sorry Double Post

[benEzra]

Mr. Camp David, I must admit that at first you got me going. Acting simple like you do. Lock up the free press. Suspend Habeous Corpus. Like Lincoln did.

Rick Reno was easier to discern....."W, the singular most best president we've ever had this month" and like that.

Your satire is and has been much more subtle.

Clever, clever, I gotta admit.
cropcirclewalker, my thought exactly. Beat me to it.

Have to admit I didn't catch on to rick_reno's the first time, either. :o

[Harve Curry]

Camp David has completely lost it:scrutiny:

[Art Eatman]

From the article: '..."to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda." '

Well, I guess we oughta leave these "known links" folks alone. They don't REALLY mean us any harm...

Had an organized country done the 9/11 thing to us, it would be an obvious "act of war". We'd spy on such an enemy in a heartbeat.

When folks are happily engaged in trying to kill me and mine, I look upon them as an enemy, and I could give a hoot if they're a country, a gang of thugs, or an Al Qaida.

Art

[NorthernExtreme]

ART

Would it be so bad if we required the NSA to get a warrent to do it. I'm not saying we should tell the contacts, but at least there would be SOME form of checks and Balances. I think I'm with you 100% on this one, but there is no reason not to be sure it's not being abused. As it stands, there is no way to verify it's not.

Regards,

[Justin]

Good! Great! Finally the media is held to account... they are scum... treasonous vultures against the nation and against the war. Put 'em all in jail.

Camp David, I have to agree with Crop Circle Walker. Your sense of satire is truly sublime.

[rick_reno]

Were these wiretaps done with a warrant?

If the news reports are accurate - No, warrants were not part of this project. Why does he need a warrant? We're at war and his war powers are absolute. That's the White House tune today.

[Art Eatman]

NorthernExtreme, I've given more than just a modicum of thought to this sort of issue for a long time--long before Dubya ever got into politics.

When the bad stuff hits the fan, it's sorta hard to go by the book when the solution is to reach over and turn off the switch, not have a discussion session about why the world is turning brown.

Which doesn't mean that I have any real objection to going by the constitutional and legal book.

I guess I'd have less trouble with extra-legal snooping if there wasn't the CYA stuff involved. More "after action" reports", if you will...

Art

[Sleeping Dog]

From the article: '..."to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda." '

Well, I guess we oughta leave these "known links" folks alone. ... Art
No, just get a warrant. It's not that difficult. And it gives a passing nod to the 4th amendment.

If we need to do something radical to defend the nation, build "de fence" (or "fences", if we get concerned about illegals from Canada).

Regards.

[saltydog]

Ya all know this is for your own goods don't ya?:uhoh: I can sleep better knowing the Govt could possibly have its nose up my A$$:uhoh:

[Tomcat1066]

But it's for the children :p

Seriously, I could care less about what the NSA does to other nations as far as spying. That's what they're there for. But when those resources are turned onto American's, then I have a problem when there is no warrant. They have resources that can be key in fighting terrorism, just get a warrant. They aren't that hard to get either. IIRC, the judge who issues warrants for intelligence ops has never turned one down, so why not ask?

The Constitution doesn't keep the government from fighting terrorism, so why not actually FOLLOW it??

Tom

[Sleeping Dog]

Ya all know this is for your own goods don't ya?:uhoh: I can sleep better knowing the Govt could possibly have its nose up my A$$:uhoh:
That's a slippery slope, saltydog.

When farting is outlawed, only outlaws will pass gas.

Regards.

[Camp David]

When farting is outlawed, only outlaws will pass gas...

That sounds like a good sig Sleeping Dog...can I use it?

[dasmi]

The NYT practices a subtle form of treason! They are the guilty and the president is right to call them on it!
And the President is guilty of blatant treason. Authorizing spying on Americans without a warrant. That is rape of the Constitution, and is treasonous.
And you're right, the NYT does suck.

[odysseus]

Camp David, I have to agree with Crop Circle Walker. Your sense of satire is truly sublime.

Yes, but he's slippin'. You caught on!

[Camp David]

Camp David, I have to agree with Crop Circle Walker. Your sense of satire is truly sublime.

The best kind I guess... I was telling the truth! :rolleyes:

The New York Times held this story for a year (journalism mistake one)
The New York Times lied about the particulars (journalism mistake two)
The New York Times only released the story to hijack Patriot Act revote (journalism mistake three)

I was not kidding: Al Qaeda and Liberal Media are equally dangerous to America.

Folks: Important Fact To Remember about this "story"...we are at war... it is President's prerogative to use NSA as he wishes to guarantee national security.

Evesdropping upon telephonic conversations can be done to further national security.

Is it a massive effort to spy on American people by NSA? No. But that is what The New York Times would have you believe! That is the lie they are trying to peddle!

No satire...The New York Times jeopardizes national security; they have committed treason. Question is: what shall we do about it?

[yonderway]

Good! Great! Finally the President is held to account... he is scum... treasonous vulture against the nation and against civil rights. Put him in jail.

Bravo, New York Times! Finally!

[WT]

Kudos to The New York Times.


God Bless Daniel Ellsberg and Peter Zenger.