If we live in a free country ...

[Me4Him]

We ask a soldier to put his life in Jeopardy for our freedoms,

Then give those freedoms to the government so our life "WON'T BE" in jeopardy.

Who's freedom is the solider fighting for, our's or the government???

If we ask the solider to jeopardize his life for freedom, shouldn't we be willing to accept the same jeopardy of life to keep those freedoms??

IMO, if you're not willing to die for freedom, don't ask anyone else to die.

 

[Bunyon]

Given that both parties agree that it was necessary. Given that the president is being straight forward and unyielding. And given the terrorist are a real threat and may have a nuke some day, I can only conclude that some of you folks got something to hide.

 

[Bunyon]

"The administration defends the program, saying Congress gave Bush the authority to use ``signals intelligence'' - wiretaps, for example - to eavesdrop on international calls between U.S. citizens and foreigners when one of them is a suspected al-Qaida member or supporter."-------------------------------------

See uless you are speaking with a "suspected" terrorist or supoorter, you were not under survalence.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
If we live in a free country, then why isn't the FBI, the President, whoever free to monitor whatever they like?

I guess that the President is in agreement with you.

[Link]

Regards,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Apparently, the Vice President is also in agreement with you.

[Link]

 

[Pastor Larry]

What is presumptuous about quoting Baldwin along with Washington, Franklin, Paine and Voltaire??

THey are not in the same league. The ideas of Washington and Franklin have stood the test of time and received universal recognition. Baldwin's views have not. Perhaps in fifty years you can quote him int eh same sentence.

If the quotes are true, does it matter who said them?

I am not convinced they are true, especially not Baldwin's since he didn't identify any God-given rights. I have no idea whether I agree or not. Somehow, I can't find "freedom to talk on the telephone" as a God given right. Perhaps I need another Bible though.

There are many US citizens with no ties to the Islamic terrorist who have also been spied on by the administration sin 9/11.

Such as???

Who will be next?

I don't know, but the words of hte Bible come to mind, that say, "Romans 13:3 Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same." THe kind of life I believe in is a radically biblical life, that is less concerned with civil freedom and civil issues and more concerned with spiritual and eternal ones.

As I said on another post, would you support the government putting recording devices in the churches to make sure they are not violating their 501c3 status?

They can already do that. All they need to do is show up. Or go to church websites where churches have recorded their message and make them publicly available. I have no problem at all with the government enforcing 501c3 status. I wish they would.

What the administration has done by ignoring the laws in place in the name of the "war on terror" has set us up for more and more loss of our freedoms as we look to the future.

Combine this disregard for the Constitution and the law along with the Patriot Act, the National ID card, opening our borders, etc., and you can see how this administration is working to destroy our Constitutional Republic to set up their own form of "democracy".

"The sky is falling." I think even you know that this is great hyperbole.

People like Pastor Larry don't mind giving up rights and liberties like the 4th Amendment as long as it's not them that has do give them up. I wonder how you would feel if it were your calls and emails being read and monitored?

They, or you, are welcome to read or listen to whatever I say on teh phone or write in an email. I have nothing to hide and no reason to be concerned. The rights aren't being taken away. The problem is that your cry of "Wolf" hurts the real issues that will one day come.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
JGrubbs: //Who will Hillary spy on when she is in the White House?//

The same type Folks that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
spyed upon when they were in the White House.

It was wrong for them to do it and it's wrong for the Bush administration to do it!

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JGrubbs:
The monitoring of phone calls and electronic communications by the Bush administration has not been limited to those involved with terrorists. There are many US citizens with no ties to the Islamic terrorist who have also been spied on by the administration sin 9/11.

Can you name one?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

http://tinyurl.com/9mbkv

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the ACLU planned to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes anti-poverty efforts and social causes.

http://tinyurl.com/bgal3

While I don't agree with these liberal groups, I don't believe they have any ties to Al Qaeda, and don't think it's right for our government to spy on certain groups without a warrant just because the current administration doesn't like them. If we allow it with the Bush administration will we also allow it with Hillary's administration when she is targeting conservative groups that she doesn't like?

 

[NiteShift]

US Code, Title 50 "War and National Defense"
Section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year".

So, this has been the law for quite some time. Pres Bush has not done anything illegal regarding surveillance.

Now, this became an issue on the very day of the Iraqi elections, and basically replaced the good news of the elections with accusations directed at Pres. Bush. Strange, very strange.

 

[KenH]

You cut it kind of short there, didn't ya, NiteShift? Here's some of what you cut off:

"if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization"

More at LINK

The bottom line is that President Bush needs to be investigated to see if he broke the law of the land. If he did so, then he needs to be called on the carpet for it.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by NiteShift:
US Code, Title 50 "War and National Defense"
Section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."

"Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year".

So, this has been the law for quite some time. Pres Bush has not done anything illegal regarding surveillance.

Now, this became an issue on the very day of the Iraqi elections, and basically replaced the good news of the elections with accusations directed at Pres. Bush. Strange, very strange.

..to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006...

It seems that Bush has "authorized" electronic surveillance to acquire both foreign and domestic itelligence information regardless of if it is related to Al Qaeda or not for over four years now, and has vowed to continue as long as he wishes.

You seem to have left off a very important part of Section 1802:

"...if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such
surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under
section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures
and the reason for their becoming effective immediately."

 

[KenH]

Hey, Jonathan, we are thinking alike on this subject - like a tag team pummeling the opposition.

 

[JGrubbs]

Just about three minutes off on our posts, it must have taken me a few minutes longer to read US Code, Title 50

 

[Bunyon]

Actually you are acting like a couple of guys with something to hide.

 

[JGrubbs]

by pointing out what the law actually states were are acting like a couple of guys with something to hide? Does that make any sense at all?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JGrubbs:
The monitoring of phone calls and electronic communications by the Bush administration has not been limited to those involved with terrorists. There are many US citizens with no ties to the Islamic terrorist who have also been spied on by the administration sin 9/11.

Can you name one?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.</font>[/QUOTE]May have been? ACLU is seeking access? You mean they're going on a fishing expidition looking for a victim to represent in their smear campaign of the President? Seriously, can you name one person who was spied on by the president who had no ties to terrorists whatsoever? Names and evidence, not speculation from the Anti-Bush, Anti-American ACLU, please.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[NiteShift]

Supposing that the definitions US Code Title 50 could be debated, the New York Times has been sitting on this story for a year, and surprise surprise! They came out with on the day of the Iraqi elections.

 

[JGrubbs]

Okay, so once again Botwinick doesn't like the source of the information so he just tosses it out as not factual, and NiteShift ignores the law to create his own conspiracy about the timing of the NYT article. I would rather deal with the facts that the law states that this surveillance against US citizens without a warrant is considered unlawful, and that our president has choosen to ignore the law and the US Constitution to continue his "war on terror" which also includes many liberal groups that have no ties to the terrorists.

Would you be okay with this if Hillary were using these "war powers" to ignore the laws to go after conservative groups she dislikes?

 

[Bunyon]

"by pointing out what the law actually states were are acting like a couple of guys with something to hide? Does that make any sense at all? "-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you really think something that ends with a green face sticking its tongue out at you is supposed to make sense? Now wonder you think the FBI is listening to your every move

 

[JGrubbs]

Sorry, I know English, some Spanish and a little Irish Gaelic. I haven't mastered reading Instant Graemlins yet.