Monday, February 06, 2006

More on NSA spying

Want transcripts? Good luck reading all of these. Part 1. Part 2.

Want a great blog to read that focuses on this theme? Go here.

Tom Curry of MSNBC has some analysis, which Chris Matthews referenced at the close of Hardball. It is in the form of a Q&A:
Did any members of the committee urge Gonzales to seek specific permission from Congress to carry on the program?

Yes, four Republicans did urge Gonzales to seek authorization of the NSA spying, either from a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) or from Congress itself.

Some legal scholars say the FISA law is the only way the surveillance can be authorized and that the Bush administration has circumvented FISA.

Just one as of tonight. From Vermont's Patrick Leahy.


Blogger Bassizzzt said...

It's not ordinary citizens we're spying on. It's domestic terrorists who are talking with al-qaida overseas.

We are actively in the process of distributing free mobile phones to people in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan. We're monitoring these phones and surprisingly, a lot of calls from these phones are headed into our country.

We're not really losing any civil liberties. Let's not forget, Roosevelt, Wilson, and several other presidents practiced open wiretapping during major wars and conflicts, and no one cried foul on them.

Why is it that it worked for them, and not for Bush?

11:52 PM  
Blogger Bassizzzt said...

Anser to the above post: Because Bush beat Kerry in the elections. This is payback time from the Left. At least this is my opinion.

11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the forgeiners calling Americans argument is to be valid, then the initial listening should only be to the words of the speaker on forgein soil. Then, if a judge approves a warrant the American side of the conversation could be listened to. The loss of presumption of innocence is one point of the objection, as well as a lost in the system of checks and balances. The abuses and gains so far aren't as relevent- the issue is more about maintaining a system that is just and fits with the ideals of the society and can be upheld without abuse in the long run.

FDR's and Wilson's (and Lincoln's and Nixons) actions would all be illegal today as the laws and rulings are different. It's one thing to be conservative but trying to go conservative back to the 1910's, or even the 1940's in outdate rulings is taking things a bit far. And, this accepts the premise that this is an open war. A rejection of this premise renders your argument about past Presidents invalid, further striking done the assertions that current domestic spying is the wrong path for America.

1:48 AM  
Blogger Bassizzzt said...

So in other words, you view it as a terrible, illegal bad thing that we're wiretapping domestic terrorists in our country that are discussing plans to blow up something else here? That's my point - the argument is NOT invalid...what IS invalid is this insipid, utterly ridiculous nonsense that we can't argue against FDR's wiretapping simply because certain laws have changed? What specific laws, if any, changed? These "laws" in my opinion are about as useless as tits on a nun if they are hampering our efforts to halt terrorist acts before they happen.

This insane belief that Bush is trying to broaden his powers whilst taking advantage of the public is beyond logic. It is sheer paranoia and it is being generated by the Leftist hippies that freak out over this false aspect.

Do you honestly believe that Bush is that evil? Just because he beat Kerry in the last election, he'd pull something like this off? No way.

7:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home