illegal wire taps?!?

WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.

nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washi … %20&st=cse

now we expect every left wing sympathizer who was screaming that bush was breaking the law to demand that the messiah destroy this law that protects americans…

glaring hypocrisy leftists…

I see dead liberals

-Imp

Oh! What is the big deal?

It is all for the greater good!

I’m sorry, Imp, but I don’t see your point. “Liberals” have to oppose this law or they are hypocrites? Is there any sign they aren’t?

I hope Obama and his cabinet thinks long and hard about decisions that affects national security. Terrorists don’t mind using underhanded tactics to wreak havoc.

I see dead arguments only given animation by your repeated kicking of their corpse.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but to me, the nature of terrorism is defined by the tactics that they use and to stand against terrorism is to disavow the use of such tactics or you just become another terror.

What I meant was if wire tapping is a good line of defense in the avant-garde systems of anti-terroristic methods, then they should be employed.

I’m going to have to agree with Litenin.

Ron Paul quoted one of the founding fathers as saying, “When you sacrifice liberty for safety, you get neither.”

I used to think that was profound, but it has to be taken into consideration that the world is a much different place than it was in 1776. If listening to peoples’ private conversations means saving the lives of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, there is no ethical question about it: it needs to be done.

Just ask the family and friends of those who died on 9/11. I’d bet they’d agree.

Bush will do anything within his power to protect the u.s.

nuff said?

Hear! Hear!

I think he did and will for the rest of his term. Now President elect Obama’s time is coming nigh.

The problem though is the complete inability to date to do anything other than what should be considered emergency actions. When a nation as a whole refuses to engage in diplomacy (Obama criticized for expressing a desire to hold diplomatic talks with Iran???) while at the same time liberally making use of emergency wartime measures - something is seriously out of whack. That is not democracy in the way we think of it. It’s more akin to a perpetual declaration of emergency and it’s profoundly scary.

Let’s see…

Naa never mind…

If i listed all the things that bush has done in the name of protection…

well it wouldn’t be pretty…

Anon, the U.S. did try to. Iran will not move past the point of Israel’s demise. They won’t try to see reason where they are concerned because of their belief system. Iran just can’t see Israel existing.

Go ahead Wonderer…I’d like to read your perspective of President Bush’s time in office.

Diplomacy under Bush has proved a massive failure. Even most republicans admit that. Come on, how hard do we really try? Diplomacy and openminded discussion could be the main thrust of foreign policy. There is no evidence that it is typically much more than a series of veiled threats.

I think Dorky captures it pretty well. If someone passively surveils my correspondence, I have lost no liberty, and others have gained secutiry. I don’t know that I have freedom from other people knowing what I think and say, as long as they aren’t torturing me to find it or prosecuting me for things that are within my rights to think and say. If I can be surveilled in such a way that it doesn’t affect anyone who isn’t doing anything wrong, then what’s wrong with surveillance?

trust big brother -when he feeds you marxist lies…

…born every minute

I see dead liberals

-Imp

Anon, you didn’t address the Israeli issue. That is why the U.S. won’t continue diplomatic talks with Iran because they don’t recognize them a sovereign nation. When Obama takes over the presidency, he may pursue this situation again, but I doubt with success.

So what about Israel? You mean you can’t talk to enemies because they have radically different beliefs than you? How does that get anyone anywhere?

The U.S. has talked to Iran, but they still want to be rid of Israel. Israel is an ally of the U.S. and the government won’t stand for the destruction of an ally when another nation won’t change their minds about it. When Iran gets off of their wanting to destroy Israel, then I’m sure talks will resume.