News-Record.com

The DOJ was thwarted by the NSA, but surely they can prosecute some of this activity for violation of existing laws.

We have yet to see the damage done.

Neither the government nor the NSA or Humpty Dumpty has been determined to have violated the law in any of this.
The only "guilty" verdicts have been from the leftos like you, Lex, who're still so addled over the Gore/Kerry loss that you can't think straight.
You're chasing the wrong rabbit. Again.

Yes, yes, we know: In JayceeWorld, the government has broken no law, and only "lefties" are suggesting otherwise.

Here in the real world, tell it to Arlen Specter and James Sensenbrenner.

Lex, no arrest, no charges, no indictments, and no criminal convictions means just that, how can we make it any plainer to you? What if I had a blog and publicly labeled Lex Alexander a "pedophile" when you hadn't been charged or convicted of it?
You have your own personal, uninformed, and non-legal opinion that somewhere, someone in the government may possibley have done something you think might be wrong. However, that does not legitimize your public declaration here and elsewhere that "they violated the law." You simply do not have the authority to declare that, nor the evidence.
That's why we have courts, lawyers, and juries.

Oh, yeah...I thought you said some time ago you were no longer going to respond to me on your blog? What's up with that?

And *I* explained that when somebody shoots somebody to death in front of me, and/or admits doing so, I don't need a lawyer or a court to tell me that Person A is dead and Person B did it.

The president admits ordering the NSA to wiretap U.S. citizens without a warrant. The NSA admits having done so. FISA, which states it is the sole controlling law on the subject and has been so recognized by the courts, Congress and administrations of both parties for 30 years, makes that behavior a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

The fact that no one has been charged or convicted doesn't change the fact that crimes have been committed. And as Fecund Stench notes above, if a "national security" claim hadn't been thrown in the faces of DOJ investigators, it's entirely possible we would have seen charges by now.

If you are going to continue to cling to the illusion that no one did anything wrong, please take it up with Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Lex, there is a doctrine in our free country that apparently you're unaware of. It's called "innocent until proven guilty."
And it's not up to an individual such as yourself to make that determination.
Courts decide whether an act is a "crime" or has been committed illegally, not you.
You just have an "opinion" on this, which is worth exactly the same as mine or anyone else's. I respect but disagree with your opinion.
We give the President (and by proxy) the NSA the authority to act in our stead. They have said they did not violate any laws in doing their business. We legally owe them the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" until it's proved otherwise, which hasn't happened.
You use the term "wrong" and not guilty. "Wrong" is an interpretation subject to your individual morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. There is no obligation for anyone else to accept your judgement of what is "wrong" or "right" and you have no authority to impose your judgement on anyone else. Isn't that what you liberals are all about, not being judgemental? If so, you're way out of line with your pronouncements of guilt and innocence.
So no answer to the question about if I go on a public forum and proclaim, "Lex Alexander is a child molester" when you haven't been indicted, arrested, tried or convicted? Tell me how you feel about that.
And no answer as to why you have changed your position 180 degrees (as liberals are wont to do depending on the wind) and are now replying to my needling posts?
I hope you understand that I post here merely to get your goat, as you are transparently predictable and soooooo damn easy.
Have a nice day.

Jaycee, you just keep telling yourself your government is doing nothing wrong. Excuse me, illegal. Maybe one day it will be true, no thanks to you.

Your interpretation that something is "wrong" is just that, YOUR personal feeling based on beliefs, morals, ethics, etc. It is not fact or fiction, it is just YOUR opinion. It has no legal basis in the real world, it's just your opinion.
That I or no one else agrees with you is not important, it's your opinion and you have the right to that. Kudos to you for speaking your opinion and standing up for it. However, it's just your opinion.
You seem to condemn and convict people in your own mind based not on facts, but on your feelings. I choose to presume someone is innocent until proven otherwise in accordance to the laws of our land and common decency. I understand that I don't have the moral or legal authority to "convict" people of crimes. I may have an opinion as to whether something is wrong or illegal, but I understand that's for a court to decide, not me.
You mentioned above a hypothetical situation in which someone is shot in front of you. You accurately stated that all you know is that person "B" did it. You are absolutely correct, you have no authority to conclude or judge that the killing was a crime or illegal at all, only that an "act" occurred. That's for our society through the courts to decide, not you.
Some situations that could have resulted in the shooting (you don't provide any more info other that the act occurred, so I'll go with that):
1) legal self defense by the shooter
2) legal use of force by a police officer
3) combat consistent with military Rules Of Engagement
4) act by a person later found legally insane and not criminally culpable
5) Accidental shooting
So you see, even witnessing an "act" does not qualify you to judge the person committing it. You may have an OPINION, as you do on what our government is doing, but you are not the arbiter of whether it is right or wrong or legal or illegal.
No answers to my other questions, eh, Lex?

jaycee, you're conflating the job of the court system (and the larger government of which it is a part) with the role of a private citizen, be that citizen a journalist or not. This is embarrassing enough when a high-school student does it in American-history class; you ought to be appalled that you, presumably an adult, are doing it here in a public forum.

Now, what other questions did you have?

Lex, you're confusing your opinion for fact, and refuse to acknowledge that you'e not the arbiter of guilt or innocence, only an interested spectator who has formed an opinion.
This is embarrassing enough when a know-it-all teenager does it, you ought to be appalled that you, a high-and-mighty "journalist" to whom people look for wisdom (or intelligence, at least) do it unabashedly on a regular basis.
What other answers do you have for your actions? Why won't you answer my question about how you'd feel if I went on a public forum and proclaimed you were guilty of being a child molester when you haven't been indicted, arrested, tried, or convicted?

How would I feel if you claimed in a public forum that I was a child molester? Well, inasmuch as I am not a child molester, probably not very happy.

Now you answer one: What're the relevant differences between that hypothetical situation and the one I've been writing about? C'mon, think hard. You can do it!

Well, inasmuch as you've been accusing the government, the President, the NSA, and everyone else under the son with "committing crimes" when no evidence exists to support that, I'd say it's a fair analogy.
In order for your claim that they "committed crimes" to stand, you'd have to have the egomaniacal gall to state that you have more legal knowledge and experience than:
1) The writers of the Constitution
2) The scores of lawyers at NSA that reviewed, studied, and researched the issues involved in monitoring terrorist calls
3) The lawyers in the US Military
4) The Attorney General of the US
5) The scores of Assistant Attorney's General who reviewed, studied, and researched this subject
6) The congressional oversight committees that were briefed and approved of the program
7) The lawyers that advise the President and his staff
8) The combined knowledge and experience of the Joints Chiefs of Staff
9) The US Supreme Court

Are you saying you have more legal insight than all of the above?
Geez, you have some nerve.

We've got more AT&T employees coming forward about NSA cut-ins. The NARUS boxes are in plain sight and we've seen the instructions for installing them.

jaycee, you may be able to lay your great melon head down at night and sleep soundly in the belief that our government is acting in our best interest.

Please excuse the rest of us for being less sanguine.

FS, there is no question that our country is at war and is vigorously defending you and me with many, many programs. The fact that something is "secret" in no way means that there is anything wrong or illegal with it.
You are one of the most protected citizens in the free world. It takes a lot of work to protect you and your fellow citizens. The President and others have told you time and again that they look at the legal ramifications of every action they take. I know they do, I've been there and done that.
So you have a choice...you either believe the President or you believe those that would destroy him and, ultimately, your own way of life.
It's your choice.

God, what a troll you are, Jaycee. Impenetrable and fallacious reasoning. Conflating legality with morality, and then stating that anyone else's morality that differs from yours is a mere opinion. Add the superior tone to it all, and you get a very smelly loud troll. Lex is being forbearing; he should have fumigated you out of here already. His dealings with you are instructive for the rest of us, however; he counters your rationalizing with reasoned argument and fact, he shows us what righteous anger is, compared to your hatred of differences.

If you are here to exchange ideas with the rest of us, fine. But you just want to make people here cry "uncle" and admit you're right. You love being right. Tell you what, though: seeking the truth humbly is a lot better than knowing you're right.

And as far as immoral acts being legal goes: when the police arrested Anne Frank and her family in their attic in Amsterdam, the police were acting legally; the Jews who were hiding and the people who hid them were "lawbreakers." Morality and law in NO WAY coincided then. So you can stuff your arguments about legality.

Now, Lex, get out the Lysol and turn on the fan. We need some fresh air in here, post-troll.

Chuck, neither Lex or anyone else has shown that any legal authority has determined that the "acts" specified or conduct by the government is illegal.
The fact that you hate President Bush does NOT make everything done by the government an "illegal" act.
I restate my challenge, show me that anything Lex claims is a "crime" has been adjudicated as such by any legal authority.
Thank you. I await your evidence.

I've got two stories due today, one quite involved, so I doubt I'll be responding today beyond this quick comment. But I did want everyone to know I am reading the comments as they come in and will respond when I get my stories in and catch my breath. Thanks.

Jaycee: I hate no one. Please don't say that I do.

jaycee, we have seen evidence of wholesale abuses of privacy rights by The Executive and now law enforcement at large. Have you no fear of waking up one morning to find yourself in a Police State?

Unfortunately, I voted twice for W. Do me a favor. If you must have faith, put it in something more worthy than government.

OK, Chuck, then I'll ask that you don't call me a "troll" or say that my reasoning is "impenetrable and fallacious" or that I have a "superior" tone or that I'm "very loud [and] smelly" or that I have a "hatred of differences."
Practice what you demand of others, fair enough?

There's a difference between your inference that I hate someone and my deduction from your behavior and statements here that you're a troll and that your reasoning is flawed and that you, not I, are full of hatred.

I'm not spending any more energy on you.

FS, your term "wholesale abuses" is YOUR term, not mine. I don't agree with that opinion. What you may see as an "abuse" others see as legal actions by a government trying to protect it's citizens.
It's really a matter of perspective, opinion, and beliefs. To label something you don't like with a negative term is a common tactic by those opposed to government actions, regardless of whether they're legal or not.

Chuck, I reviewed your statements and behavior and "deduced" that you hate Bush. That's my opinion. You're entitled to yours, and I'm entitled to mine.
It's called "freedom." Men and women in uniform shed their blood to guarantee you and me of that freedom, please don't presume to deny me my rights while exercising yours.

Defenders of the Faith always have double standards. Clinton getting his wood polished? Impeach him! Bush going into Iraq on false pretenses, or using "extraordinary rendition" to torture people, or detaining people in Cuba without any rights whatsoever (and getting smacked down by the US Supreme Court in the process)? That's our boy! Protecting us from...from...people like him and his administration! You know, the guys who drape clothing across Lady Justice's breasts, lest we get too excited. Or who debate just what "is" is, when you ask "Is this torture, Alberto?"

Just because someone in government gets away with something doesn't make it legal. The Republicans have been sycophants and the Democrats have been cowed by the threat of being called wimps if they didn't hand Bush every weapon his arsenal lacked.

"You either believe the President or you believe those that would destroy him and, ultimately, your own way of life."

I'm sorry to say that the President and his administration *are* the ones who are destroying my way of life: that of a free man who is not ashamed to be an American.

"Bush going into Iraq on false pretenses"
False, and you can't prove otherwise. We went to war for valid reasons, i.e., the stability of the Middle East which impacts the stability of the world. And don't bring out the liberal rants of "WMD lies" crap...you might like to see here that over 500 WMD's were found in Iraq after liberation. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50752
"Extraordinary rendition to torture people" another jump to a false conclusion that you fervently wish was true so you could use it to pound the military heroes further into the dirt. Prove it.
"detaining people in Cuba without any rights" is also a nefarious claim. They are afforded every right (and more) as enemy combatants. They live more luxuriously than the military police guarding them.
Come back into this conversation when you know what you're talking about and we'll chat.

"False, and you can't prove otherwise."

January 2003: Bush says, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (Niger)."

March 2003: Cheney says "we believe he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

July 2003: Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): "It has since turned out to be, at least according to the reports that have been just released, not true."

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX): "It's very easy to pick one little flaw here or one little flaw there...somebody forged or made a mistake on whether Saddam Hussein was looking for nuclear material from Niger or whatever."

Yeah, we've lost 2,500 soldiers or whatever.

Oh, and the 500 WMD's Santorum proffered (which you allude to above)? In Father Jonathan Morris' article on the FOX News web site, he quotes a senior DoD official who states: (1) the weapons pre-date 1991, (2) they aren't what the administration thought Iraq had, and (3) they aren't the WMDs that we went to war over.

I could go on, but why? You lack the desire to use your innate power of critical thinking. You will probably dismiss even the above quotes, all from conservatives.

So, enjoy your cozy neo-con cocoon world, where Donald "Strategery Genius" Rumsfeld tucks you in at night, and Dick "Great White Hunter" Cheney checks under the bed for Liberals.

Thanks for confirming my info.
"January 2003: Bush says, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (Niger)."
This was based on intelligence reports from no less than 3 different countries. Intel reports are not finite, proven-in-court facts, they are intel. Same as when a police officer is confronted with a man pointing a gun at him. He makes the decision to safeguard the lives of those around him and takes action, only later to find out the gun was unloaded. Mistake? Not from where I sit.
"March 2003: Cheney says "we believe he (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.""
True, we did BELIEVE that. No lie, he was saying what we BELIEVED. Refer to my explanation above for the value and nature of intelligence information.
"uly 2003: Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): "It has since turned out to be, at least according to the reports that have been just released, not true.""
Refer to my explanation in #1 above. You sometimes have to act on what you believe for the greater good of the group. Better to err on that side that have to bury those you failed to protect.
"Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX): "It's very easy to pick one little flaw here or one little flaw there...somebody forged or made a mistake on whether Saddam Hussein was looking for nuclear material from Niger or whatever.""
That's his opinion, and I'll fight to my death (and almost have a couple times) to defend his right to express it. Again, that's his OPINION. Please do some research or something so you understand the difference between opinion and fact.
"Oh, and the 500 WMD's Santorum proffered (which you allude to above)? In Father Jonathan Morris' article on the FOX News web site, he quotes a senior DoD official who states: (1) the weapons pre-date 1991, (2) they aren't what the administration thought Iraq had, and (3) they aren't the WMDs that we went to war over."
Thanks, you're not exhibiting what is known as "but monkey" behavior. You're saying, "Yes, he had WMD's, BUT...." That's always good for laugh from the liberals who see nothing but black helicopters and wiretaps on their phones.
Go to the store and get a new roll of aluminum foil, you're beanie's leaking.

I don't need any more aluminum foil. I think I'll take a black helicopter down to Gitmo and rent a summer villa where I can live luxuriously with all my rights. I might even join a hunger strike and drop a few pounds. Or a volleyball league.

And I'll need some beach reading. Should it be that memorable page-turner "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" or the riveting "The Pet Goat"?

Oh, well, I'll be happy if I can just watch my stories on FOX News (in black and white, of course).

If you try to fly an unmarked chopper into Gitmo I'm afraid you'll see fireworks loooong before the 4th of July.
But if you eat there, you'll be better fed than about 98% of the world. And you'll have a Koran personally delivered to you by white-gloved MP's under constant video surveillance by human rights groups as well as their commanders and the government.
But, have a good trip anyway.

Jaycee: Well, inasmuch as you've been accusing the government, the President, the NSA, and everyone else under the son with "committing crimes" when no evidence exists to support that, I'd say it's a fair analogy

No evidence? Hello? The administration has never denied doing what it is accused of doing. It has simply suggested, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that there is a constitutional basis for it to do what it's doing.

Jaycee: In order for your claim that they "committed crimes" to stand, you'd have to have the egomaniacal gall to state that you have more legal knowledge and experience than:
1) The writers of the Constitution ...

... who appear to be with me on this issue.

2) The scores of lawyers at NSA that reviewed, studied, and researched the issues involved in monitoring terrorist calls.

And assuming that "scores" exist AND approved the program, a claim for which you provide no evidence, why should I believe them when our current DCI, who ran the program as head of the NSA, tried to tell reporters in January that the constitutional standard for a warrant is "reasonable suspicion," not the higher standard of "probable cause"?

3) The lawyers in the US Military

Uh, the NSA is part of the U.S. military.

4) The Attorney General of the US

Oh, you mean Alberto "Torture is legal" Gonzalez? Yeah, there's a brilliant legal mind.

5) The scores of Assistant Attorney's General who reviewed, studied, and researched this subject

Please offer any evidence that "scores" of such people exist AND were willing to state that this program was legal and constitutional.

6) The congressional oversight committees that were briefed and approved of the program

You mean the committees that complained they hadn't been given enough information and were told that they couldn't legally disclose it to anyone else, effectively rendering oversight meaningless? Those committees?

7) The lawyers that advise the President and his staff

See No. 4.

8) The combined knowledge and experience of the Joints Chiefs of Staff

Have you any evidence that the Chiefs were asked for their legal opinion? If so, have you any evidence that any of them are lawyers?

9) The US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled one way or the other because the administration has been doing its dead-level best to keep this issue away from the federal judiciary, particularly the FISA Court. It has argued for dismissal of suits by both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU, not on any legal or substantive grounds but on the grounds that allowing the suits to proceed at all would compromise national security.

So, yeah, I know better. Or, to be technically accurate, I've looked at the arguments on both sides of the issue, reviewed the statutes and the case law cited by both sides, and concluded that when the administration claims that the program is both constitutional and legal, it is, to be polite, talking out of its rear end.

Jaycee: I restate my challenge, show me that anything Lex claims is a "crime" has been adjudicated as such by any legal authority.

And I restate my response, which is that the administration has been doing its best to keep this program from ever getting in front of a judge. If it's so confident of the program's legality and constitutionality, why might that be?

Jaycee: FS, your term "wholesale abuses" is YOUR term, not mine. I don't agree with that opinion. What you may see as an "abuse" others see as legal actions by a government trying to protect it's citizens.
It's really a matter of perspective, opinion, and beliefs. To label something you don't like with a negative term is a common tactic by those opposed to government actions, regardless of whether they're legal or not.

Jaycee, you postmodern devil, you! I never figured you for a Foucaltian.