News-Record.com

Mr. Stone,

Do you hae a problem with the government using every available resource to combat terrorism, crime, and drugs? I thought that all of these things were bad for our health, and we would want the government to fight them in any way that it can.

ORR, I am not Mr. Stone, however, I object to any means that would violate the constitution and allow ANYONE to circumvent the law! Furthermore, this precedent sets one up as being "above the law."

Anyone that believes this should dig up Richard Milhouse Nixon and see what he thinks on this issue!

Shalom

Uh, it was used in the "war on drugs" during Carter and other administrations. Same with the war on crime. Needless to say, court orders were not always priority on the menu.

Sorry Mr. Produce, but it was not used in the same way during the Carter administration, for the war on drugs. During the Carter and first Reagan term (maybe even the second, but unconfirmed as of yet) eavesdropping was done on known drug lords. Their conversations, originating in South America, were surveilled and included all transmissions they made to American soil. When those calls provided credible leads back to the drug lords, from American citizens, they were then surveilled. What you fail to understand is that our current President is making no such distinction and he has far better technology than previous Presidents. Remove your rose colored glasses before it's too late! You can still be a fan of the President, but you can't proffer faulty proof for defense of the indefensible.

Demon, are you speaking as one who was present in the Agency at the time or at sometime shortly following the time or are you getting information from a book, newspaper source or otherwise?

Mr. Produce,
I did a paper on eavesdropping and secret surveillance and had to do extensive research.
If my attack does not kill me with dust, I will try to locate all footnotes for you. It is fascinating but is still dangerous.

So Demon, you have no first hand information, only from what you have read. Maybe you should have talked to some folks who were there or have been there.

So produce, am I understanding the post made to say that regardless of Deacon's sources, that his information is totally invalid? Just curious.

Shalom

Darryl, I said no such thing Darryl but, If you read about something that happened from a source that could be right or wrong or you hear about that same incident from a person who was directly involved then which would have a tendency to be more crediable?
You take it anyway you like Darryl. I don't have to convince you or Demon of anything. I can rest on what I know and you can beleive what you wish.

mrproduce, do not get so wound up! I asked if I was understanding the post as I noted. I was seeking clarity, not anger. Geez....dialogue is good, anger needs another avenue to travel!

Shalom

No anger Darryl, just a statement of reality.

mrproduce, reality or not...I sensed anger in what was being written.

Regarding sources that could be right or wrong, how do we not know the same about what is made in other's postings? Any postings?

At least Demon is seeking to give sources for information, few others do that!

Shalom

Darryl, you read too much into things. As far as Demon having researched his topic, all the better. I suggested however that perhaps he should have talked to those who were there rather than depend on just what one or two have written. A lot of things are written in books that have no place there as you are aware. Many things are written in order to "get even" so to speak. Some are expanded upon inorder to make them read better.
Frankly I would love to see his sources and then perhaps I could tell how good they were and/or why they were written.
Several have encouraged me to write a book on my adventures or misadventures as some would call them but I have chosen not to do such for just the reasons I stated .
It is just like some of the expose' type things being written by former CIA folks today. Much of it is sour grapes or just for political reasons plus it ain't bad money if it sells. Look for a book by V. Plame in the near future. Now that one will be a real hoot!

mrproduce, I believe it was YOU who READ INTO things! NOWHERE did Deacon say that his research was all "reading." The response was, "I did a paper on eavesdropping and secret surveillance and had to do extensive research.
If my attack does not kill me with dust, I will try to locate all footnotes for you. It is fascinating but is still dangerous." You see, Deacon said that he/she would try to locate footnotes. Do you know what footnotes are? Undoubtedly not or the comments made would not have been done so. I rest my case!

Lastly, this issue of warrantless surveilence is not about who is being surveyed. Rather, it is about the way that surveilence takes place. Wiretaps, etc. without SOME form of warrant is illegal. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution expressly notes this. That is the issue that myself and others similar to me have been shouting on deaf ears. As long as this is done legally, I am not as concerned. However, neither of us can say for certain whether or not we are being "surveyed" for our comments on this newspaper blog can we? If there is no "paper trail" on who is/is not being "surveyed," then we do not know the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of the situation now do we?

Shalom

Darryl,
I do believe you struck a nerve with Mr. Produce. Wonder if he ever read "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"?

"Darryl, you read too much into things. As far as Demon having researched his topic, all the better."(mrp)

"Frankly I would love to see his sources......"(mrp)

I rest my case Darryl. I commended him for his research and stated that I would really enjoy knowing the sources, which by the way usually come from footnotes and/or a bibliography.

mrproduce, it is a waste of time using facts on liberals. Everything is different for them. Facts not in their favor are not to be believed. There for,their not true. Wire tapping has been use by all administrations ever since the technology existed. To think different is either short sighted or erratical. What is best for the safely of this country will never be top priority for them unlest there is a liberal in control. If its not, they will do everything to undermine a conservative no matter who it hurts. And thats a shame.

mrproduce, the "commending" for Deacon's research did not come until after my comments regarding the "slap" about Deacon not having "first hand" information. Scroll the blog for yourself and see!

Bobby, as for facts, I believe in facts regardless of what they prove.

My issue with this current wiretapping boondoogle is that it has been/is being done ILLEGAL! How difficult is that it understand?

I have a basic question for ANYONE who feels that the current "wiretapping/information gathering" efforts are "OK:" Do you honestly believe in the CONSTITUTION of the US?

Shalom

Why is it so hard to understand that the president is granted special powers in time of war to do what is nessary to protect the country. He is commanded by the constitution to do so. You may not like it, but it is his duty to do so. For you to not want him to do so speaks volumes on how you feel about the security of this country. What he is doing is only ILLEGAL to you and people who think like you. If it was illegal as you say. How come the courts haven't ordered Bush to stop. The courts have ruled in favor of presidents with reguard to warrantless wire taps. You just refuse to either believe it or accept it.

....here is the definitive word on the "dangerous precedent"....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007783

Key point:

"The issue is not about circumventing normal civilian Constitutional protections, after all. The debate concerns surveillance for military purposes during wartime. No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love."

.....from the legal side of this "issue"...

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012760.php

Key point:

"What the federal courts have repeatedly held is that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes."

When did this current issue go before the Federal Court/s?

Shalom

The president had all the authority he needed in FISA statutes, but these required an easy-to-obtain warrant. Instead, he and the NSA decided to conduct warrantless and unlawful surveillance.

While the president continues to assert his authority to behave outside the law using "war powers", the Supreme Court has not yet upheld his detention of "enemy combatants" or his surveillance outside of FISA. If Mr. Alito is confirmed, he will likely be able to expand the powers of the executive, as he seeks to, but in the meantime he will likely be struck down in the Padilla case and, if it is heard in time, the illegal wiretaps case.

None of those being surveilled have been charged in any crime, and there is nothing (other than the president's comments) to suggest that those being illegally monitored had any relation to terrorist groups or activities.

Bubba, Bobby, and friends:
Please distinguish between "terrorist" and "suspected terrorist" in your postings, in that this is a very important distinction.