16. All of you Bush suck-ups should remember that he won't be Resident next year. The nex President probably won't give up the powers that have been handed to him/her by Bush.

Next year you suckers will be living in a nation where *you* might be considered potential "enemies of the state."

How will you guys feel with the man you lunatics fear is a Muslim deciding who gets to hide behind the "patriot" label?

Captain Negative at 3:59PM on Feb 2nd 2008

17. Dan - The maniacal, suicidal Islamic radicals who want to destroy us us are talking openly of an "American Hiroshima". You do know what that means, don't you?

And if, God forbid, these people are successful in their insane quest to incinerate American citizens, in much the same way they did on 911, except on a much larger scale, every civil right which you and your idealogical brethren profess to care so deeply about will be gone in an instant because we will be going to martial law in a heartbeat (regardless who the President is at the time) and nothing will change that.

The only way to stop these deranged fanatics (and I'm not talking about Congressional Democrats) is to have the requisite intelligence to preempt their horrible plan of destruction before they come to fruition. Putting them in jail after millions are dead won't do much good.

It's great that armchair quarterbacks like you can endlessly fulminate about how you think the President is destroying our civil rights but the President has sworn to preserve and protect the nation and the Constitution and he cannot be statutorily compelled by FISA or any other law which stands between him and his oath of office.

The problem with FISA is that it's three decades old and does not recognize that intelligence decisions must be made in an instant in the war on terror and once we make our national defense subject to unelected judges, the President's role as Commander-in-Chief would be therefore diminished. No US President would accept that in time of war.

And Bush hasn't done anything qualitatively different than what Roosevelt, Lincoln or any other President did when it comes to secrecy and wartime intelligence.

Maybe you want to be the one to explain to families of those horribly murdered in any future catastrophic terrorist attack, how you and your side bitterly opposed the President's efforts to keep all of us safe, with minimal impact upon and damage to our civil liberties, in spite of all hysterical, partisan claims to the contrary.

Dave at 5:44PM on Feb 2nd 2008

18. All of you who are putting forth this ridiculous argument that "FISA is 30 years old" have obviously taken your, "talking point" from the right-wing, talking heads. FISA is 30 years old, but it became
completely Draconian under the Bush Junta. This is not your daddy's FISA!

IF FISA has been around for 30 years in the same form, how come it didn't prevent 9-11? If FISA didn't protect us from that, what good is it?

The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle for a long time. The idea that the United States government really has some control over (or is the sole keeper of) nuclear weapons technology and information is ludicrous. If the "muslims" get a dirty bomb, FISA isn't going to stop them.

Just what is wrong with going to the FISA court for permission? In its history,the FISA court never turned down a legitimate request for a wiretap.

The Bush Junta likes to *claim* that the new wiretap law has prevented terrorist attacks. They never have to demonstrate evidence of it. How convenient is that?

The next president will keep it. Maybe s/he will want to know what the lunatic fringe is thinking by intercepting your emails and telephone calls. Or maybe the next president... or the next... or the
next....

Once you give up a Constitutional right, you aren't likely to ever get it back.

Captain Negative at 6:38PM on Feb 2nd 2008

19. Dave @ 17.

What a horrible post. Near a complete emotional argument on your part.

True, civil liberties have been compromised in US history during wartime, but restored due to the outrage of people and individuals. The difference is this war is defined as a war against a method. (It’s like me saying that I declare war on oven-baking because pan-frying is the only way to go. How to you stop a method? You don’t. Maybe you can tell me how the war on drugs has gone? With drugs more available and more pure these days, it seems that war hasn’t gone well.) Anyway… So it is defined as a war without end and therefore a loss of liberty without end. I can tell you I have a serious problem with that.

You want to know how to stop the terrorists? I can tell you. It's really straight-forward: stop interfering in other countries internal affairs. The US has a history of overthrowing other countries' leaders because they disagree with what the US policy was at the time. *** For you political hacks/mouthpieces - this spans both Democratic and Republican administrations. ***

Think about it a moment. If another country overthrew our president with “freedom fighters” and installed a dictator that ruled with an iron fist (with mass graves, etc), you would probably be upset at that country for a long time. Wouldn't you? What if they did this with many countries?

Why do people decide to wear blinders when it comes to why people hate the US? Maybe it is that you don’t wear blinders, it is the fact that you simply don’t know. The US has done a lot of good in the world, but we need to be aware that we have done some pretty horrible things too.


Oh, btw – I really like your argument that the President has to destroy our rights in order to protect us. Priceless.

Ken at 7:52PM on Feb 2nd 2008

20. Gee, Jeff I want to say something really important and profound, but I fear that big brother may be watching me at this very moment.

shhhhh...

mac at 10:22PM on Feb 2nd 2008

21. It also seems that many people don’t understand what FISA allows either.

1) Only 4 requests have been denied in the history of FISA.

2) It doesn’t apply when targeting to foreign personnel who are abroad.

3) The current Administration has shown no (again no) evidence that the current FISA laws have hampered it in preventing terrorism since 9-11.

4) The 9-11 Commission also did not recommend any changes to the current FISA laws to prevent future attacks.

5) To address the need for speed, the CURRENT FISA law allows:
a) The president may start surveillance immediately for 72 hours before getting a warrant. There is little opposition to extending this 72 hour period by 1 or several days (up to a total of 10 days.)
b) After a time of war is declared, there is a 15 day free-for-all for the president to conduct surveillance.

Ken at 1:16AM on Feb 3rd 2008

22. Patty why thank you

I do as you do, I send e mails all the time to my 3 Washington elected officials. They get very few from the voters except on some major issues that are hot topics. Pro or Con, they need to be told. The recent Bill to give Tax relief to get the economy going at first left out rebates to Seniors. I sent e mails on that and I suspect others did the same. I have relatives on SS and have as much right to a rebate as anyone else.

Let your elected officals know what you want.

ROBERT OKANE at 1:42AM on Feb 3rd 2008

23. well said ken.
you pretty much covered what i was going to post.
kudos my friend.

enoch at 12:42PM on Feb 3rd 2008

24. #19
Excellent!!

Patty at 1:02PM on Feb 3rd 2008