In the words of Ben Franklin...

[vatz22au 142]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin

Link

Gonzales defends wiretaps, etc, amid protest at Georgetown Law.

[channonc 466]

Mr. Franklin was very wise.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The eavesdropping targets known or suspected al Qaeda operatives. If you or anyone could explain to me how anything that has been done to root out what the terrorist are doing has in the least bit denied me my freedom, I'll gladly listen.

This isn't like the drug war, where property can be destroyed or siezed with no due process, or where jail sentences have been given to folks who are completely innocent of any crime.

Show us where freedoms have been lost, if ya can.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Neither Ben Franklin, nor any man in his era could have imagined the world as it exists today. The realism of the 21st century simply overshadow the idealism of the founders of the young US over 200 years ago. Freedom is not absolute; it must be tempered by the realities of the world. The Muslim terrorists will not stop their onslaught and care not one iota for our freedoms. I see only one alternative to the measures being taken by the US to thwart their efforts and that would be to take the fight to them with no limits and simply eliminate them.... all of them. Is that a better solution than a few wiretaps?

[WarTim 3,457]

Raptor has made a very good point. Would someone please point out and instance where an American citizen has lost any rights?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Vatz, you may want to take a look at ol' Ben's quote from a different context. I believe what he was referring to was those that sought safety in refusing to fight for freedom and independence should not reap its benefits when won.

I'm not a channeler of dead spirits like some politicians, but I can't see Mr Franklin objecting to gathering intel on the bad guys. It makes too much sense.

[DKW 86 7,440]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin

214140[/snapback]

My take on Franklin. He would still be on the side of Bush. Bush is defending OUR freedoms. The Islamofascists want to extablish a Caliphate. That would abridge everyone's freedoms and rights. If some very small percentage of folks get wiretaps while we look for terrorists, then I think, while reprehensible, Franklin would truly easily understand that the greater freedom loss would come with a Islamic government installed world wide.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'm with vatz on this one. What evidence do we have that only real terrorists are being targeted other than the word of W? I mean, part of me wants to believe him, but since the whole program is in the dark, we don't really know. And my issue with this really isn't so much giving broader wiretapping powers to the gov't, it's the lack of checks and balances in the way Bush is doing it now. I don't think any one man should have the power to make these decisions. You may trust Bush is doing it for all the right reasons. What happens when a President you don't trust gets in office and has that sort of unbridled latitude to authorize domestic spying?

Sorry folks, it's way too 1984 for me.

[BamaJay 0]

I'm with vatz on this one.  What evidence do we have that only real terrorists are being targeted other than the word of W?  I mean, part of me wants to believe him, but since the whole program is in the dark, we don't really know.  And my issue with this really isn't so much giving broader wiretapping powers to the gov't, it's the lack of checks and balances in the way Bush is doing it now.  I don't think any one man should have the power to make these decisions.  You may trust Bush is doing it for all the right reasons.  What happens when a President you don't trust gets in office and has that sort of unbridled latitude to authorize domestic spying?

Sorry folks, it's way too 1984 for me.

214365[/snapback]

Well it helped stop an attack on the US in Europe!

rom NewsMax.com

Thursday, Jan. 5, 2006 10:08 a.m. EST

Major Terror Plot Against U.S. Ignored

The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.

News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media.

Italian authorities recently announced that they had used wiretaps to uncover the conspiracy to conduct a series of major attacks inside the U.S.

Italian Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said the planned attacks would have targeted stadiums, ships and railway stations, and the terrorists' goal, he said, was to exceed the devastation caused by 9/11.

Italian authorities stepped up their internal surveillance programs after July's terrorist bombings in London. Their domestic wiretaps picked up phone conversations by Algerian Yamine Bouhrama that discussed terrorist attacks in Italy and abroad.

Italian authorities arrested Bouhrama on November 15 and he remains in prison. Authorities later arrested two other men, Achour Rabah and Tartaq Sami, who are believed to be Bouhrama’s chief aides in planning the attacks.

The arrests were a major coup for Italian anti-terror forces, and the story was carried in most major newspapers from Europe to China.

"U.S. terror attacks foiled,” read the headline in England’s Sunday Times. In France, a headline from Agence France Presse proclaimed, "Three Algerians arrested in Italy over plot targeting U.S.”

Curiously, what was deemed worthy of a worldwide media blitz abroad was virtually ignored by the U.S. media, and conservative media watchdog groups are saying that is no accident.

"My impression is that the major media want to use the NSA story to try and impeach the president," says Cliff Kincaid, editor of the Accuracy in Media Report published by the grassroots Accuracy in Media organization.

"If you remind people that terrorists actually are planning to kill us, that tends to support the case made by President Bush. They will ignore any issue that shows that this kind of [wiretapping] tactic can work in the war on terror.”

"The mainstream media have framed the story as one of the nefarious President Bush ‘spying on U.S. citizens,’ where the average American is a victim not a beneficiary,” commented Brent Baker, vice president of the Media Research Center, a Washington, D.C.-based organization dedicated to encouraging balanced news coverage, "so journalists have little interest in any evidence that the program has helped save lives by uncovering terrorist plans."

The Associated Press version of the story did not disclose that the men planned to target the U.S. Nor did it report that the evidence against the suspects was gathered via a wiretapping surveillance operation.

Furthermore, only one American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, is known to have published the story that the AP distributed. It ran on page A-6 under the headline "Italy Charges 3 Algerians.” The Inquirer report also made no mention of the plot to target the U.S. - although foreign publications included this information in the headlines and lead sentences of their stories. Nor did it advise readers that domestic wiretaps played a key role in nabbing the suspected terrorists.

One obvious question media critics are now raising: Did the American media intentionally ignore an important story because it didn't fit into their agenda of attacking President George Bush for using wiretapping to spy on potential terrorists in the U.S.?

"It's clear to me," says AIM's Kincaid, "that they're trying their best to make this NSA program to be an impeachable offense, saying it is directed at ordinary Americans. That's why they keep referring to this as a 'program of spying on Americans' - whereas the president keeps pointing out it's a program designed to uncover al-Qaida operations on American soil."

[Tigermike 3,050]

Titan, are there no checks and balances in place? Other than FISA judges? What about Senate members? I am almost always skeptical of any government's intentions. The least they do the better. In matters of national security, I have to trust them, not blindly, but I must trust them.

I wish this administration did a better job with the PR work. If the public knew how many plots have been circumvented, it would help in the perception of the work being done.

Good post BamaJay.

[BamaJay 0]

I wish this administration did a better job with the PR work.  If the public knew how many plots have been circumvented, it would help in the perception of the work being done.

214394[/snapback]

Seem like that is really all the media is concerned with, the administration's PR, who cares if the truth is reported or if what they are doing is helping our country.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Titan, are there no checks and balances in place?  Other than FISA judges?  What about Senate members?  I am almost always skeptical of any government's intentions.  The least they do the better.  In matters of national security, I have to trust them, not blindly, but I must trust them. 

I wish this administration did a better job with the PR work.  If the public knew how many plots have been circumvented, it would help in the perception of the work being done.

Good post BamaJay.

214394[/snapback]

Right now, President Bush has the right to bypass those judges altogether and has done so. One of the judges recently stepped down from that panel because of it.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:N-UUg...lient=firefox-a

Quoting colleagues of Robertson, the Post said the judge had indicated he was concerned that information gained from the warrantless surveillance under Bush's program subsequently could have been used to obtain warrants under the FISA program.

In other words, Bush has authorized wiretaps and other surveillance of his own authority (sans FISA), then used information gathered from that spying to obtain warrants for other types of surveillance and information gathering from the FISA panel. In my opinion, no one person should have that kind of power. All requests to wiretap and fish for information like this should have to be approved by FISA beforehand.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

I'm with vatz on this one.  What evidence do we have that only real terrorists are being targeted other than the word of W?  I mean, part of me wants to believe him, but since the whole program is in the dark, we don't really know.  And my issue with this really isn't so much giving broader wiretapping powers to the gov't, it's the lack of checks and balances in the way Bush is doing it now.  I don't think any one man should have the power to make these decisions.  You may trust Bush is doing it for all the right reasons.  What happens when a President you don't trust gets in office and has that sort of unbridled latitude to authorize domestic spying?

Sorry folks, it's way too 1984 for me.

214365[/snapback]

This is a classical conservative view. Conservatives have historically been wary of unchecked and excessive government power due to the potential, and ultimately the likely inevitability of abuse. We don't give individual personalities power, we give it to positions. Any power you wouldn't want your worst nightmare as President to have, you can't give to the position of President.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Tex, see my views on Filegate. If they told me that the Bush Admin was looking at random folks' FBI records or spying on their domestic enemies, like Nixon, I would be the first to the barricades.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Ditto what David and JJ said. If the eavesdropping is focused on terrorists and their points of contact in the states, I want the government to be all over them as much as possible. I refuse to get my knickers in a bunch over hysteria. The minute someone on the left can prove that the NSA listened in as Gladys was telling Martha Jean how she made her squash casserole, then I will say we have a problem. Until then, track the terrorists by any and all means possible.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Ditto what David and JJ said. If the eavesdropping is focused on terrorists and their points of contact in the states, I want the government to be all over them as much as possible. I refuse to get my knickers in a bunch over hysteria. The minute someone on the left can prove that the NSA listened in as Gladys was telling Martha Jean how she made her squash casserole, then I will say we have a problem. Until then, track the terrorists by any and all means possible.

214554[/snapback]

This is all fine and good, but it still shouldn't be a power that the President alone has the ability to exercise. I shiver to think of what abuses could take place under the wrong person. Clear it with the FISA judges first. We don't have an absolute monarchy in this country.

And our whole Bill of Rights is set up not under the assumption that the government will do the right thing unless proven otherwise. Quite the opposite in fact. The framers understood the basic fallen nature of man and constructed a system of government that took that into account. Giving the executive branch this kind of unchecked power turns that notion on its head, regardless of what they say they are using it for. The burden of proof is not on those who are concerned about the abuses, the burden is on those who wish to wield it unilaterally.

I'm sorry, but I think some folks are looking too much at a man they like as President and not at the broader principle in play.

[saniflush 0]

I am all for there being some kind of checks iin place. My concern is with what the check is. It has to be fair and just and SHOULD be without other interfering interests but I know that is not very realistic.

We just don't need another system that has no teeth because of the media or whomever is crying about perceived rights violations. I am not proposing violating civil liberties but I also know that we ALL have to give somethings up to a degree. I don't like giving up my ability to carry certain things on an airliner but I recognize that there is a greater good that has to be served. JMO.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

This is all fine and good, but it still shouldn't be a power that the President alone has the ability to exercise.  I shiver to think of what abuses could take place under the wrong person.  Clear it with the FISA judges first.  We don't have an absolute monarchy in this country.

And our whole Bill of Rights is set up not under the assumption that the government will do the right thing unless proven otherwise.  Quite the opposite in fact.  The framers understood the basic fallen nature of man and constructed a system of government that took that into account.  Giving the executive branch this kind of unchecked power turns that notion on its head, regardless of what they say they are using it for.  The burden of proof is not on those who are concerned about the abuses, the burden is on those who wish to wield it unilaterally.

I'm sorry, but I think some folks are looking too much at a man they like as President and not at the broader principle in play.

214567[/snapback]

In this day, I think we have to have faith enough in our government that they will do the right thing in regards to spying on the bad guys. I'm just not buying into all this "X Files" conspiracy business. Believe me, the US government has all the info they need and then some on everyone in this country. They are not going to get anything else from listening to phonecalls from the average American citizen.

Again, until I see proof of abuse, I am going to side with the NSA on this one.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

In this day, I think we have to have faith enough in our government that they will do the right thing in regards to spying on the bad guys. I'm just not buying into all this "X Files" conspiracy business. Believe me, the US government has all the info they need and then some on everyone in this country. They are not going to get anything else from listening to phonecalls from the average American citizen.

Again, until I see proof of abuse, I am going to side with the NSA on this one.

214586[/snapback]

I still say that if Howard Dean or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or [fill in the blank with whatever liberal presidential candidate you fear the most being in that position] were the President and were making these exact same arguments, there would be a whole lot less trusting and a whole lot more concern among the conservatives around here. When you grant this kind of power to one person, you need to think about whether you'd want a president you don't trust to have that same power. I come down firmly on the "no" side of that equation.

I don't think it is or should be considered a problem for the executive branch to run these potential wiretaps and other surveillance by a secret panel of judges that are specifically tasked with handling issues of national security like this. It frankly boggles my mind that so many are so willing to just play along on this because a guy they like is the one arguing for it.

[Tigermike 3,050]

I still say that if Howard Dean or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or [fill in the blank with whatever liberal presidential candidate you fear the most being in that position] were the President and were making these exact same arguments, there would be a whole lot less trusting and a whole lot more concern among the conservatives around here.  When you grant this kind of power to one person, you need to think about whether you'd want a president you don't trust to have that same power.  I come down firmly on the "no" side of that equation. 

I don't think it is or should be considered a problem for the executive branch to run these potential wiretaps and other surveillance by a secret panel of judges that are specifically tasked with handling issues of national security like this.  It frankly boggles my mind that so many are so willing to just play along on this because a guy they like is the one arguing for it.

214675[/snapback]

I understand what you are saying, but it not so much that it is "a guy I like in the WH." It is because they are fighting the WOT. They are doing something, or at least trying to protect U.S. citizens. There is a Senate Intelligence committee and a Senate Foreign Relations committee and a Senate Military Readiness committee and Senate Overlook committees. I think there are more people (dems & repubs) overseeing this program than is being advertised in the media and the demo talking points.

My only point is I want them to use any and every means possible to seek and destroy insurgents in Iraq and terrorists world wide. I don't want to hinder the process in any way. I also think there are honorable people actually implementing the program. I am hoping that if it were used inappropriately against U.S. citizens for political reasons, there would be more than one whistle blower.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I understand what you are saying, but it not so much that it is "a guy I like in the WH."  It is because they are fighting the WOT.  They are doing something, or at least trying to protect U.S. citizens.  There is a Senate Intelligence committee and a Senate Foreign Relations committee and a Senate Military Readiness committee and Senate Overlook committees.  I think there are more people (dems & repubs) overseeing this program than is being advertised in the media and the demo talking points.

My only point is I want them to use any and every means possible to seek and destroy insurgents in Iraq and terrorists world wide.  I don't want to hinder the process in any way.  I also think there are honorable people actually implementing the program.  I am hoping that if it were used inappropriately against U.S. citizens for political reasons, there would be more than one whistle blower.

214695[/snapback]

But that's the whole rub with this: Bush is defending the practice of authorizing these searches and surveillance totally of his own authority. The Senate committees and even the FISA panel that was set up to handle these secret and expedited searches aren't even getting any say in it. And frankly if the existence of the program as Bush is handling it now hadn't been leaked, they still wouldn't know about it. Currently, the administration is skirting the process that was setup to handle these situations in fighting the WOT.

That's all I'm arguing for. I'm not defending the Dems and other blowhards who just see this as a political opportunity to bash Bush. I, as a generally conservative person, am deeply troubled by the precedent Bush is setting here. If all the oversight you mention was actually being implemented, I don't have much of a problem with them getting the jump on the bad guys. But the way Bush is handling it now, it's downright scary to me.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I understand what you are saying, but it not so much that it is "a guy I like in the WH."  It is because they are fighting the WOT.  They are doing something, or at least trying to protect U.S. citizens.  There is a Senate Intelligence committee and a Senate Foreign Relations committee and a Senate Military Readiness committee and Senate Overlook committees.  I think there are more people (dems & repubs) overseeing this program than is being advertised in the media and the demo talking points.

My only point is I want them to use any and every means possible to seek and destroy insurgents in Iraq and terrorists world wide.  I don't want to hinder the process in any way.  I also think there are honorable people actually implementing the program.  I am hoping that if it were used inappropriately against U.S. citizens for political reasons, there would be more than one whistle blower.

214695[/snapback]

Thank you, JJ. My sentiments exactly. There are things going on in the spy world that frankly don't need to be brought out into the open for fear of blowing our cover. We've seen this happen way too frequently here lately. We have to have faith that the good guys are looking out for us; be they democrat, republican, or whatever.