Attorney General Ashcroft May Not Have Signed Off on Bush's Spying Program

I agree. I don't know of anyone who disagrees. </font>[/QUOTE]So, then what's your problem? </font>[/QUOTE]I haven't heard anyone who has a problem with the administration listenint to conversations with foreign terrorist, as OldRegular has posted numerous times, "thecourt held that 'the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.'"

The problem is the numerous reports that the administration has been also wiretapping other groups that have no ties to the terrorist. This is where the investigation needs to focus, if these reports turn out to be false, the the administration is okay, but if they find out that they have been illegally wiretaping and monitoring US citizens with no ties to terrorist just because they are activist groups that the administration doesn't like, then we have a problem.

 

And if it were blue-haired old ladies in wheelchairs who had declared war on my country and killed 3000 plus Americans by flying planes into buildings because the Farmer's Almanac told them they had to do it in order to get to paradise, I would feel the same way, if it is me you are sniping at with your "prejudice" remark.

 

Ken,

Perhaps you have a point, but the outrage by Christians against McVeigh's action is quite the contrast to the stunning silence by Muslims after September 11.

 

Besides, there was a Timothy McVeigh/Iraq connection, anyway.

 

I agree. I don't know of anyone who disagrees. </font>[/QUOTE]Even this Democrat agrees. The question is,
"Do you trust the Executive branch of government, acting alone, to decide who might be a potential terrorists or not?" I'm not sure I trust any President that much. </font>[/QUOTE]He did not act alone. I post the following again:

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

 

Why don't you list the laws governing this cases and show how you disagree with the law and how you disagree with FDR's treatment of nazi spies, etc. so that we can see that you have always wanted a President who is weak. Maybe you would be for Hillary because we know that she is a sugar and spice lady who would never do anything underhanded, and she just loved Arkansas, to quote her.

 

They weren't exactly silent. Many muslims worldwide took to the streets to celebrate.

 

They weren't exactly silent. Many muslims worldwide took to the streets to celebrate. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

That is absolute nonsense, Ken. I do not think that you are a conservative isolationist as you pose. I think that you are a liberal who wants a weak executive, a worthless man who will tiptoe around Osama Bin Laden and worry about the civil rights of Hitler and Stalin.

Don't worry, your dreams will come true with Hillary, who will end the war on terror, retreat to fortress America, and apologize to the Islamofacist Osama Bin Laden for violations of his civil rights.

 

Not much of one.

Why is it nonsense? What prevented getting warrants to spy on American citizens?

 

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Do you really believe the anti-terrorist cause was helped by pulling most of our troups out of Afghanistan before we finished the job of capturing the real terrorists and invading Iraq?

The only thing this ill-conceived war in Iraq has done is provide a training ground and rallying cry for Moslem extremists worldwide. If we really wanted to make the world safer we should step up the effort to secure the huge number of nuclear materials and weapons in the former Soviet Union.

 

SAN,

Are you responding to another post? Did you copy and paste the wrong one? My post had to do with how this investigation proceeds, not the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you believe any committee hearings should be in open session? That was actually the subject of my post.

 

CMG,

In fairness to Ken, I don't believe for a minute that he is isolationist. He regularly argued toe to toe with the PA Jim's, etc. who were toeing the CPUSA line several months ago. Also, while I believe his fear is misplaced, he wants to hold the President accountable to the law, not a dishonorable position, in any sense. IIRC, he has even said that if the law OK'd this, he has no problem with it and has even stated an openness to the possibility that it was permissible under the law.

I do share your outrage with his comment

That is a ridiculous statement. The fact is that the identified terrorists' names are Muhammad, Osama, etc. I have prejudice toward those who have attacked my country and those who are targeting my country for further attacks. If it so happens that those targeted are Arabs or Muslims, well, maybe the appropriate comment isn't that they're being "discriminated against" but may be coincidental with the fact that those who attacked us were.

 

And Timothy, Terry, Eric, etc.

 

Neither Ashcroft nor anyone else had to "sign off" on this, no matter how many times the leftists say otherwise.