Tell your congressman to let he patriot act sunset

[KathyInArkansas]

tas02 said:

...
It seems to me that you post anything you want to and take offense when someone challenges you. I know you are basically preaching to the choir here. You seem to be able to say whatever you want and nobody challenges you because they like your conclusions. Well I don't.

...

Tom, you have not been posting here long enough to make an accurate determination that "nobody challenges" The Monk. Happens all the time, I've done it many a time.

You have questioned many of the things he has posted in this thread and demanded that he provide "proof" or links. Do you know that any of his statements are not accurate? You can certainly challenge them, but, if I were to challenge them, I'd do the research first, and provide the "proof" or links that indicated they were inaccurate.

I thought maybe you'd find the following interesting...of course, maybe not:

www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html

The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general - to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said.

...

With Mr. Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Mr. Ashcroft - who had been in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital with pancreatitis and was housed under unusually tight security - because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Mr. Comey declined to comment, and Mr. Gonzales could not be reached.

Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.

It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.

...

The White House and Mr. Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. A White House spokeswoman, Jeannie Mamo, said she could not discuss any aspect of the meeting or the internal debate surrounding it, but said: "As the president has stated, the intelligence activities that have been under way to prevent future terrorist attacks have been approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department."

The domestic eavesdropping program was publicly disclosed in mid-December by The New York Times. President Bush, in acknowledging the existence of the program in a televised appearance two weeks ago, said that tight controls had been imposed over the surveillance operation and that the program was reviewed every 45 days by top government officials, including at the Justice Department.

"The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president," Mr. Bush said, adding that he had personally reauthorized the program's use more than 30 times since it
...

Also, I might note that Ashcroft is out and Gonzales is in. As I have said before, one just does not disagree or offer an opposing opinion in this administration and survive.

[tas02]

You have questioned many of the things he has posted in this thread and demanded that he provide "proof" or links. Do you know that any of his statements are not accurate? You can certainly challenge them, but, if I were to challenge them, I'd do the research first, and provide the "proof" or links that indicated they were inaccurate.

I haven't been able to verify any of the claims he made that I was questioning, so I don't know whether he made them up or what. That's why I asked for links. I can't prove a negative. Perhaps John has access to information the rest of us don't.

I thought maybe you'd find the following interesting...of course, maybe not:

That's all very juicy information, Kathy (or should I say LouAnna?). Makes for great drama. I 'm sure you see it as an administration in disarray with some people unwilling to break the law. That's certainly the way the Times (that great bastion of conservatism) portrays it.

I'm sure you will be shocked to hear that that's not how I see it. It tells me that this is NOT an administration that is out of control, willing to do whatever they want to without regard to the law or the constitution. They obviously agonized over the propriety of this operation. If there was a specific law that stated that the president had the authority to authorize warrantless wire taps, it would be simple. Instead, we have numerous, seemingly conflicting laws that make it anything but clear. We have several presidents before this one that have asserted they have the authority, and used that authority, and we have court decisions that state that the president cannot be denied this authority (see link below).

Here is a link to an article written by John Schmidt, who was the associate AG under Clinton (certainly no fan of the current administration). The link is apparently too big to work correctly, so you'll have to copy the whole thing and paste it into your browser.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Schmidt makes many of the points that I made above about prior administrations asserting this authority. There are numerous other articles like this.

So what we have here, in my opinion, is a thoughtful administration that looks at a situation, sees the urgency, finds a solution (the NSA program), argues among themselves whether they can do it and, in the end, decides that protection of the American people is more important than any concern for their own careers. Most importantly, they didn't take a poll to see if it would affect their popularity.

You know, people keep talking about this as if it was somehow morally equivalent to what Nixon did. I was a great admirer of Nixon and was devastated when I learned what he had done. If there was some evidence that Bush had done this for some personal gain or to achieve some political advantage, I would lead the charge to impeach him. But when a man is willing to put his career and his legacy in jeopardy to protect me, and you and every other American, I'm not willing to condemn him even if his actions test the bounds of presidential power (which may or may not be true).

One other thing. The Times article really doesn't make it clear, but it does say that Larry Thompson who was the deputy AG wasn't privy to this program (it was obviously so classified that very few people knew of it). It also says that Comey was Thompson's successor. Therefore, it may very well be that when Ashcroft was in the hospital and Comey was asked to sign off on this, he'd never heard of it before and was understandably reluctant to sign off on a controversial program that he'd never heard of before. The article says:

At its outset in 2002, the surveillance operation was so highly classified that even Larry Thompson, the deputy attorney general to Mr. Ashcroft, who was active in most of the government's most classified counterterrorism operations, was not given access to the program.

That led to uncertainties about the chain of command in overseeing law enforcement activities connected to the program, officials said, and it appears to have spurred concerns within the Justice Department over its use. Mr. Thompson's successor, Mr. Comey, was eventually authorized to take part in the program and to review intelligence material that grew out of it, and officials said he played a part in overseeing the reforms that were put in place in 2004.

Does that mean that Comey had never heard of the program before they asked him to sign off on it in an emergency when Ashcroft was out of commission? I don't know, but it sounds like it to me. It leads you to believe that the particular situation that required this quick decision must have been pretty urgent. But of course that's just speculation.

For me, it boils down to this:

Was anybody hurt by this? Maybe some people who MAYBE were not guilty of anything had their personal conversations overheard or e-mails read. Nobody blackmailed them. Nobody had their marriage destroyed, etc. So no real harm was done, so far as we know (if it's proven otherwise, I might change my mind).

Was any good done? Because of the highly classified nature of the program, we can't be certain, but we are told that a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge may have been foiled because of this program.

So you have a program that certainly pushes the legal envelope, has hurt no one and perhaps has saved countless lives. Is it a good thing? In my opinion, yes.

People that already despise this president will undoubtedly sieze upon this as an opportunity to try and get rid of him. If they are successful and the program is scrapped and then some great tragedy occurs, when the next commission comes along and determines that the tragedy could have been prevented if we'd continued this program, those celebrating their great victory over the evil Bush may find they have little cause to celebrate.

[IncogNITO]

So now all Muslims are trying to kill us, even those that were born here and whose parents and grandparents were born here. The president better get rid of those working for him as well. I bet you saluted the animal who shot through the back of a car to kill a rag head and got his child. American citizens are Americans no matter what religion or political beliefs they hold. No matter how much you don't like like it.

It is quite amazing how you seemed so informed on minute and clueless the next. Each and everything I have written here can easily confirmed. If you prefer to have a comprehension problem that is fine with me.
You have made it clear you are what you say you don't like in others. Your hate, dislike and anger for anyone who doesn't think as you do has been well written.

Court briefs, rulings and what is on current federal dockets are easy to get. Reading newspapers are not that difficult and if you have a problem reading you can always resort to watching the TV news. Nothing I have said has not been in those two mediums. It was also taken from federal websites. Like this tid bit of information. Bush's own Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders for him to present his proof that his spying on American Citizens is legal. Seems they don't even think so according to 5 out of the seven of the judges published words. The only reason you have not been able to verify anything I have said is because you have not tried. It would mean you would have to admit that are serious flaws in the Patriot act.

The electronic surveillance case made it quite clear, sorry you have never bothered to read it. The list was quite extensive and did include nuclear surveillance. It made it very clear what electronic surveillance was and was not. The only people who have a problem with the definition are those who want to do something that has been deemed illegal by the courts.


JMayo

[tas02]

You are not even trying to have a reasonable discussion anymore, John.

First of all, where in my posts did I say anything even remotely resembling "all muslims are trying to kill us"? The answer is NOWHERE.

In the very post in which you are accusing me of saying that, I said " I believe that most muslims in this country are peaceful and have absolutely no use for the terrorists."

No, I don't believe all muslims are trying to kill us. That would be stupid. However, I do believe that most terrorists that are trying to kill us are muslim. That's not only rational, it also happens to be the truth. Does that mean that muslim Americans should be treated like second-class citizens? Of course not. But if we're going to survive this very real threat to our existence, we're going to have to put aside political correctness and do what needs to be done. No that doesn't mean rounding up all muslims and putting them in camps. But it may mean using profiling as an effective tool where it's appropriate. Patting down gray-haired old ladies and blond children in airports is not going to catch any terrorists.And neither is monitoring for nuclear activity around catholic churches or synagogues. I'm sorry, that's just the truth.

I don't believe most peace-loving muslims mind getting the extra attention. After all, they too are Americans and in case you didn't notice, terrorists are killing Muslims too. And if some day bald-headed Irish guys start crashing planes into buildings, I will welcome getting extra attention in airports, etc. as well.

As for the rest of your comments regarding me probably saluting an animal that killed a child, I am disgusted by your remark. I have said absolutely nothing in my posts, here or anywhere else, to deserve that. The fact that you would even imply something like that tells me that you are so uncertain of your own position that you have to resort to mud slinging of the absolute worst kind to make your point. I mistakenly thought you were above that.

The fact that you are unwilling to back up even one of your outrageous claims with proof is further evidence that you are just spewing venom with no basis in fact. I'm the stupid one if I haven't heard of all the ridiculous claims you make.

Since you are obviously more interested in engaging in diatribe than having a discussion with someone with an opposing view, knock yourself out. I have no more time to waste on you.

[IncogNITO]

The facts are there get off your ass and look. Every think I have said is easily verifiable. But some folks would rather not know the truth. But opinions are not truth so you have yet to offer much of anything.

I just love people who toss around insults no matter how veiled they think they are and don't expect a response in kind back at them. If you wanted a discussion then you would not started things off the way you did. you came in here with a purpose.
I am glad you are disgusted and appalled and what ever else you come up with you earned those feelings. Next time maybe you will think about it before insinuated someone is in league with the terrorist just because they don't agree with you. When you decide you want to have a discusion and can do so with out the playground politics let me know. I will be around.


JMayo