News-Record.com

Bobby Cole, I do sleep well! And that sleep is not because George Bush is president!

My question is where was the media outcry over Bill Clinton's administration spying on the American people? Jimmy Carter's administration doing the same? Was the supposed spying by these administrations doing something other than protecting the people? Those would be valid points to include in an LTE of this nature. Thereby, giving one's LTE much greater respect.

By the way, here is the day's "liberal bashing" letter!

Shalom

"The other guy did it, too, so it's OK"

Hear that? It's the sound of honor and integrity being restored to the White House. It's also the sound of the Fourth Amendment being used as toilet paper.

"Could it be the only time it concerns you is when it's a Republican president?"

Bingo, you nailed it. The double standard is glaring and most people know it. When former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy "Burglar" came out of the National Archives with classified 9/11 documents stuffed in his undies there was not a blip on the mainstream media radar. Imagine if a Republican was caught stealing classifed 9/11 documents, it would be on the front page of NYT and lead story on CBS, NBC, CNN for months.

"Is your hatred for Bush so strong and blind that hate is all you live for?"

Bingo, nailed it again. It's ironic that so much energy is spent trying to bring down a lame duck president. Fine with me, the only message of the Democratic party: Bush is bad. Hardly an inspiring message to win elections.

This line is getting pretty tired:

IF YOU CRITICIZE BUSH, YOU ARE A BUSH-HATER

Where does this "Bush Hater" stuff come from. Many of us disagree with the President and his wreckless policies, but we are not all guilty of being a "BUSH-HATER".

It must be what the RNC wants their sheep to use.

The letter writer got one thing in his letter correct.The rest was just yap. The NSA has used this type of survialence since the days of Carter and has up until now gotten the job done. Unfortunately the media and some in Congress have decided that it is no longer necessary to have security in this country. They wish to dismantle this agency much like the CIA was dismantled and hamstrung during the Carter and Clinton administrations.

"Bingo, you nailed it. "

Acutally, Dan, he didn't. What you're missing is that, firstly, if Clinton did it, it was wrong. If Carter did it, it was wrong. If Reagan did it, it was wrong. If Bush did it- AND HE ADMITTED TO IT- it's wrong.

Oh, and Sandy Berger? Not a blip? Huh? What does that have to do with using wiretaps without a warrant? Further, unless FOX, CNN, CBS, and NBC are no longer "mainstream media", you're flat wrong, smoking something funny, or both.

That you are not troubled by the fact that the President had to bypass the most lenient, most secret court in the nation, who has rejected less than 0.001% of the warrants applied for, in order to perform survellience WITHOUT a warrant, there's something wrong.

Turn in your badge as a conservative, then. Any TRUE conservative would balk at the infringement of their privacy and the expanding power of government.

mrproduce- "Unfortunately the media and some in Congress have decided that it is no longer necessary to have security in this country."

Explain to me why it is necessary to go around the most permissive and secret court in America in order to spy on citizens.

Why go around that court, which has worked fine since its founding?

Can someone point me to some documentation that shows that Carter, Bush I and Clinton spied on American citizens? Maybe they did, but I've not seen anything proving this.

Also, I did hear Cheney say that this was done to restore to powers lost when Nixon was impeached. That says to me that this is a fairly new occurance.

I agree with progressive, where is the evidence to support the allegations of Carter, Bush I, Reagan, Clinton spying on Americans? I have asked for this previously and have yet to receive a response.

Regardless of what administration did the spying, if it were done without approval, then it is wrong (i.e. illegal)!

Shalom

Produce,
Why do you have to trot out other Presidents to somehow make it seem OK? Show us where the other Presidents spied on U.S. citizens post Nixon.

Absolutely. Past presidents' actions are SO not the issue here. If someone can prove to me that Clinton, Carter, etc. committed the same reprehensible act of circumventing our laws to spy on people, I'll gladly condemn it. And I doubt I'm the only one.

Please stop thinking that those of us who disapprove of so many of Bush's actions do so for no other reason than our personal dislike for the man. Give us some credit for having strongly-held beliefs.

And I have yet to hear a good argument from anyone on the issue raised by Denzien above -- that any true conservative would balk at such privacy infringements. When did I as a so-called liberal suddenly switch places with conservatives on this?

Kristin,

Not all conservatives are with Bush on this one. You might want to check out what William Safire had to say about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10558586/

There are other's out there on the right with reasoned voices as well.

You're right -- thanks for reminding me. It is a relief knowing that.

Thanks also for the link. Will check it out.

Well... Is that it? Can none of you defend these actions? Can you do so without resorting to proofless exclamations of "OMFG!! The Demoncraps did the same thing!"

Dan?

mrproduce?

neocon?

Denzien, so what's wrong with listening in on suspected terrorists? I don't care what political party one is from if it is done in the best interest of the country.
And I beg to differ that past presidents are not the issue either. They set the presidence:

(CNSNews.com) - Claims by a top Senate Democrat that the Clinton administration's warrantless surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists was different from what the Bush administration has employed are being contradicted by a former Justice Department official who served under President Bill Clinton.

John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans

Bill Clinton was right in doing this just as Bush is right in doing so now. And please spare me the 'erosion of our civil rights' line.
I ask anyone here to name one liberty that Bush has taken away from anyone. No vauge bs about america becoming like nazi germany, either. Specifics,please.

Denzein?

Darryl?

World traveler?

Mainly, the right of search and seizure (IV Amendment ratified 12/15/1791); "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Regardless of who the person is, the CONSTITUTION provides the simple right to due process under the law.

So then, am I to understand that the Clinton Administration is the only other one to use this illegal technique? Did the Clinton Administration go through the proper steps to obtain legal means to "spy?"

I would hope that there would be more evidence than just one to rest one's laurels upon.

ANYTIME a person's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are violated, it constitutes a grave sitation. NO ONE is above the law. If you believe otherwise, go dig up Richard Milhouse Nixon and see what he has to say about that!

Also, I could care less what was done in the past that was not prosecuted. What I am concerned with now is what is happening and what can be done to cease and desist those actions. While prosecuting those from the past is virtually impossible; it is not impossible to stop what is happening now and putting an end to it FOREVER!

I would think that as true conservative people, that those of that belief would be up in arms that the freedoms of individuals are being trampled upon by the Executive branch of the government without any oversight from any other entity. This in and of itself violates the "checks and balances" set up by the founding fathers. Where is the outrage over this from the conservative people?

Why is it that it is only the voice of the moderate people that is being shouted from the housetops? While there are many on this blog that it would seem that they wish that this moderate voice would just "vanish," I can promise you, this one is here for the long haul!

And for the record, I do not support nor like far too many policies and plans of the current White House Administration. That does not mean that I am a Bush-hater. Rather, it means that I disagree and I am speaking out and asking that my diasgreements have a redress.

I am speaking it now and will continue to do so!

Shalom

Still waiting......

Darryl, please define unreasonable, as in unreasonable searches and seizures. From what I have read these wiretaps have been limited only to international calls to or from the country and have been focused on suspected terrorist organizations. I don't think the Feds are going to wiretap your Aunt Millie calling from her vacation in Italy.

The reason this conservative is not up in arms: there are evil people in the world who want to do us great harm, something many have forgotten in the last few years, but they are still there. If the govt. uses this tool and others to prevent these people from committing acts of terrorism I don't have a problem with it.

Please answer Neocons question about whose liberties Bush has taken away other than Saddam Hussein.

Let's just say, you would have to had to been there and had a need to know in order to know.

Produce,
That is one scary criteria you put out there. I've noticed it in other blogs you've typed on.

Your definition is more suited to how one Supreme Court Justice defined pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

This is one President, that frankly, I do not trust with making calls based on "judgement".

neocon: " Denzien, so what's wrong with listening in on suspected terrorists?"

Nothing. Just follow the law and get a warrant to do so. Just follow the law. The court has been really, really, really, REALLY good about granting warrants to those that ask for them.

If Clinton broke the law, crucify him too.

Again, just follow the law- get a warrant. That's the law, and no one is above it.

Still waiting....

Mrproduce, world traveler sounds to me like either one of those old burned out hippies of the 60's or the offspring of one who was taught to hate the military and everything it stands for. They try to disguise their disgust by tired old sayings like "I support the troops,but not the war". It is useless to try to convince them that the AMERICAN military is anything less than the product of a sick and imperialist soceity.

Dan: " please define unreasonable, as in unreasonable searches and seizures."

How's this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That seems pretty clear to me.

"From what I have read these wiretaps have been limited only to international calls to or from the country and have been focused on suspected terrorist organizations."

Prove it. Oh, that's right- you can't because there are no warrants, no proof. But just for giggles, I'll go one step further and refute what you "read":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html

""The N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications... N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation."

"Please answer Neocons question about whose liberties Bush has taken away other than Saddam Hussein."

As soon as she/he answers mine about why we must bypass the most lenient and secret court in the country to spy on US citizens.

I'll leave you with one scary little thought: Imagine it's 2009 and President Hillary Clinton can wiretap anybody's communications with no warrant and no oversight whatsoever.

On 1/3/2006, neocon asked this statement/question, "I ask anyone here to name one liberty that Bush has taken away from anyone. No vauge bs about america becoming like nazi germany, either. Specifics,please." There was NEVER in this posting an asking for a person, only a liberty! I answered the question clearly and succinctly. I find no need to answer that any further.

It is now time for replys to be given others who have posted questions. And hopefully, those answers will be given as succinctly as mine.

I also agree with Denzien, the whole issue is about following the law; nothing more, nothing less, nothing else! Is that too difficult to understand?

Shalom

Darryl: "Is that too difficult to understand?"

Apparently so. Then again, the current crop of neocons in office seem to have a hard time abiding by the law, so I suppose it's only fair..

Yaaaawnnnnnn....

Denzein,Darryl, that's what I thought. Gobledygook ansewers that have nothing to do with the question I posed.

neocon, what other question did you ask? I answered the only one that I recall being asked. When did you ask, date/time of the posting of the question. Provide that information and maybe I will give an answer.

I have gone back over this blog and the only question that was asked (noted in my previous post of today) I answered. I do not know what else can be done.

It seems very evident to me that some are not aware of what has been posted and expect others to be mind readers. For the record, I am not a mind reader.

Shalom

Ok Dasrryl, c a n y o u n a m e s o m e o f t h e l i b e r t i e s B u s h h a s d e p r i v e d y o u o f ?

Sorry Darryl, don't subscribe to the NYT on line or in print. Don't believe much of what they say either (can you say Jayson Blair?). The NYT would be useful to line the cat's litter box, nothing more.

Here is from the Clinton News Network, read the fourth paragraph, it mentions Al Qaeda calls OVERSEAS. CNN is hardly a Bush supporting network.

When are you going to answer Neos question?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/04/cheney.nsa/index.html

You still didn't define unreasonable. Listening to Al Qaeda calls from overseas sounds reasonable to me. Don't worry, Aunt Millie will be safe when she calls you from Italy.

Holy Don Rumsfeld,

If NSA is evasdopping on this blog they must be saying " morons is them " Booorrring !!

Neocon,
To your comments about me being a 60's hippie or taught to hate the military.....you really cannot hide your contempt for differing opinions. That is one reason many are concerned about the subject of liberties. When people, like yourself, begin to claim you hold the moral high ground, worship the President over the constitution and the country, we are all in danger of having our liberties curtailed. I support our troops, but I question the President and his rush to war. Would you step up and volunteer for duty in Fallujah? Didn't think so. Obviously, the Bush twins don't think too much of Daddy's war, or they would have volunteered out of a sense of duty!

"we are all in danger of having our liberties curtailed"

This is the vauge bs response I was talking about. Can you list some of your liberties that Bush has taken away?

"Would you step up and volunter for duty in Fallujah? Didn't think so"

Why do you think not? I was drafted during the vietnam war and went there. I had no problem with that.I am not claming the 'moral high ground' because of it either,but I think it does qualify me to answer your 'question'. An honest answer to your question: If I were of proper age, yes I would volunteer for duty in Fallujah. Would you? lol lol lol

Your comment about the Bush twins shows you cannot hide your personal contempt for them. Do you think it really practical for two young girls who are the daughters of the pres. to enlist in the service and go there? Should the secret service send an entrouge along to provide security? You don't see any danger of attempts at kidnapping etc,?This is just more rhetoric that you use to vent some of your anger.

I'm looking forward to seeing your list of liberties that Bush has taken away. I'm still waiting on Denzein and Darryl's list. All I got was a sermon about IV ammendment being ratified in 1791,yada,yada,yada...

neocon, the posting of 1/4/2006 @ 1:45 pm is the FIRST time that it was asked of me SPECIFICALLY what liberties of mine personally had been violated. Furthermore, with the condensending manner in which it was written, I will not give it any further time.

Anyone who reads this blog can see the original question/s posed and the response. Those same people can see the lack of logic in those as well. I also believe that the impoliteness is evident.

With that neocon, I do not feel that my time needs to be spent any further with the antics being displayed.

Shalom

Demon, nothing scary about what I said. I simply stated what I know and I know of what I speak. It is not guess work, it is first hand knowledge.
Someone asked for examples of Carter etc using wiretaps. Does the war on drugs come to mind? Texas, NMex, SCalif were hot beds for action on wires as well as Miami. Smaller towns did not escape since a lot of the junk coming into the US came through small unknown towns where drug law enforcement was not really first priority for the local government, it was a case more of Saturday nite fights at the local bar. Now there was a hey day with wiretaps etc. Court orders, maybe, but only if things got real good and it looked like it might develope.

Does the Iran hostage crisis come to mind? Another busy time for the wire boys. There didn't just seem to be enough time for worrying with court orders at that time either since American lives were at stake as well as National Security. Of course our President then didn't make a lot of good use of the information he received and choose to pull some real boneheaded things to free the captives, none of which worked if you remember.
There have always been and will continue to be taps in order to obtain information. As I said, Average Joe and Jane on the street have no fear even if they happen to get a wrong number to Syria or some such place. It's the pattern that shows, accidental or purpose driven. Seems like folks would stop and think about some of this instead of going ballistic over getting the job done. I can assure you Demon, the NSA would not waste their time on you or Darryll either.But then who knows.

"Sorry Darryl, don't subscribe to the NYT on line or in print. Don't believe much of what they say either (can you say Jayson Blair?). The NYT would be useful to line the cat's litter box, nothing more."

First, you're addressing the wrong person.

Second, I posted the relevant text beneath the link so you wouldn't have to register.

Third, just so you know, Sparky, the NYT broke this story. They might know a little mor than you.

Your willful ignorance is astounding.

Produce,
Again, I beseech thee to visit MSNBC website and watch Meet the Press online. CONSERVATIVE, William Safire, points out the dangers of unfettered wiretapping by a "drunk with power" President.
Do not try to diminish his conservative credentials as that rings hollow. How does a Quaker Meeting House sound? The administration was caught red handed and then half ass apologized for it. Not collateral damage either, as that argument is dismissed by even the most rabid neocons in the public arena today. All of our liberties slowly become diminished, piece by piece, when we allow this type thing to go on under the guise of "Patriotism".

Demon, believe what you will and who you will. I've been there so I can know a bit more than even Mr. Safire on how things work. It is easy to be critical from the outside looking in through a dark glass. I also know some disgruntled folks who would say or do anything to get revenge on anyone they could within the agency, unfortunately.
If things like this did not go on you would loose a lot more than some of your preceived liberties. We haven't had true liberties since WW2 in this country. Everybody from the FBI, IRS , your local bank, your credit card company etc. has infringed on our liberties. Me, I haven't noticed that I am not allowed to do or say much of anything that I haven't always done. Don't look for it to change anytime soon unless the farleft takes over and then may somebody have mercy on us for then liberties will certainly be gone. Those folks scare me a heck of a lot more than George Bush.

mrproduce, I am wondering from this statement, "....I've been there so I can know a bit more than even Mr. Safire on how things work." Where is the "there" in that statement mrproduce? What occupation/activites have been engaged that would give this nkowledge/information?

Just curious.

Shalom

Darryl , Do you have a need to know or are you just dying of curiousity?

I believe Darryl, just to satisfy your curiousity a bit that I have repeatedly stated my long occupational experience in both the military and working for the govenment. You draw your own conclusions from that.
Unless you have a real need to know, then ask no more because you have gotten all you will get. Read real close Darryl, and think, you really might learn something.

"I've been there so I can know a bit more than even Mr. Safire on how things work. "

You know what? By day I'm a mild mannered reporter, and by night, I'm a loose cannon superhero and part time pr0n star.

Denzien, was that you on the ajoining set the day before yesterday?!!!???

mrproduce, as for curiousity or needing to know; I am asking so the evidence can be proivded to prove the statements made.

I for one would not make statements, like some, without the evidence and ability to prove my statements. As noted by Denzien, ANYONE can say ANYTHING; however, when it comes time to proving ones words, that is where the "leather hits the road."

Shalom

Denizen, lets just say I know and leave it at that. You might be a superhero or part time porn star but you are no sleuth or you would have reasoned why I know from my previous post here and there.

Darryl as for you, you know the answer if you have read your e-mail.

"Denizen, lets just say I know and leave it at that."

OK. Whatever you say, pal. Let's just say this, though: If you find yourself in a dark alley one night with a gorgeous woman (hey- bear with me- it COULD happen!) and invariably find yourself in need of a stunt double, just know that I've got your back.

You know what the first rule of fight club is?

Oh, and one more little itsy bitsy thought:

Nobody here has provided any evidence that Clinton and Carter misused their authority by utilizing wiretaps without warrants.

Imagine that.

Denzien,
That's because they is no credible evidence to support their thoughts.

Mr. Produce is playing "Walter Mitty" while Neocon is positive that anyone who opposes the illegal use of domestic wiretaps is nothing but a LIB-RUL!

So far, I have been accused of being a "BUSH-HATER", a "weed smoking throwback to the 60's", a pile of donkey dung, and one who "despises the military". Wow! These same folks want unfettered domestic wiretaps?

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!

I forgot to proof before posting---"they" should have been "there" in the first sentence. I am sorry!

Den, I learned a long time ago to stay out of dark alleys. As far as a stunt double needed, no thanks I have managed so far to take care of what was necessary and suppose I can manage a bit longer. Thanks for the offer anyhow.

Denzien & Deacon, that is something that I have been hoping would come. However, all that we get are veiled monologues without the slightest bit of validity to those monologues. Yet when some offer credible, valid evidence to support statements, those people are berated as noted by Deacon.

A rekoning day is coming and I am afraid that NONE of us are going to be able to pay! More people better wake up before this "bus" crashes with all of us on board!

Shalom

"Denzien & Deacon, that is something that I have been hoping would come."

Don't hold your breath, Darryl.

Not one shred of proof for an allegation- it's business as usual.

Hate to bust your bubble but representatives of both Clinton and Carter's justice dept. have come forward on national tv and defended they use of wire taps without warrants. and that the president, All presidents, has that power and authority. To bad you wasn't scared or worried when Clinton had those 750 FBI files of US citizen illegally. Nor did the news media try to find out how they got them and what they were doing with them. And you're worried about Bush. Give me a break.

Who came forward from those administrations?

Oh wait, I recall now. Same program where a Reagan administration person was saying the same thing about their use of same. I'm sorry...my memory can be short at points!

Shalom

It was from the Clinton and Carter administrations. They were in the CYA mode to protect themselfs. You can deny it all you want. You can live in a bubble all you want. You can't stand Bush so you're going to believe the worst every time. So knock yourself out. Keep your head buried in the sand.