Feb
06
Senate hearings on NSA surveillance authority
ByAt this moment Senate hearings are going on in regards to the Presidents Authority to monitor certain communication in this country without a warrant. Without a doubt, the articles this morning on the topic are a plenty.
There is one however that I found really enjoyable that can be found at the Council on Foreign Relations that when you get a chance, should be checked out.
This post and the contents thereof are the views of only the author identified immediately above and do not necessarily represent the
views of the New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (the "NYYRC"), its officers or its members. The NYYRC expressly disclaims
responsibility for the contents thereof and by its charter documents may not, and does not, endorse any candidate for any office,
except in a general election.
It's the end of the post, now what?
Bookmark and share to spread the word, we'd really appreciate it:
|
||
|
ReTweet: |
Join our email list: |
Subscribe to our feed: 
|
8 Comments
February 6th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Stop being a dittohead and act like a person with integrity on this issue like Grover Norquist, Bob Barr and Arlen Specter. They all know the program is illegal.
No stories today on Bloomberg’s girlfriend losing her appointment because of the NRA?
What about Bloomberg working to unseat Serph Maltese from the state Senate?
Or how about Trump endorsing Elliot Spitzer today (making Bruno look like an even bigger dope).
All these juicy local stories that are ripe for discussion and not a word from anyone here?
I guess its too painful to be introspective and deliberative. Easier to ignore the Republicans in disarray and hope it gets better.
Good luck with that.
Meghan XX OO
February 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Actually Meghan the 1978 FISA law has never been challenged in court. So until the Supreme Court rules on the issue we could leave what is legal and not legal open for discussion. Lets just let the hearing play out and we’ll see what happens.
At the end of the day, lets not forget that an attempt to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was foiled because of these wiretaps. So I guess what your saying is that you think it’s necessary to sacrifice the Brooklyn Bridge and the lives on it for the sake of the Government not being allowed to spy on people they suspect of blowing it up because in the process they might listen to you talking to a friend.
It’s ok to be willing to sacrifice it; I don’t hold it against you. It’s just a matter of you being paranoid about the U.S. government and me being paranoid about terrorists.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
It is not illegal, and it is not domestic surveillance. It’s about keeping track of people in this country talking to people overseas who are either proven to be part of Al Qaeda, or suspected of being in Al Qaeda.
That’s no more domestic than an airline flight from La Guardia to Riyadh.
btw – What does whoever Donald Trump endorses for governor have to do with the price of rice or the fortunes of the Republican party? He’s never declared himself as a Republican. And he only seems to dabble in politics when his book sales or TV ratings can use a boost.
Ahh, that felt good.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
It is curious how apologists for government abuses display a kind of whimpering, fearful attitude that requires them to view the President as their protector, rather than finding strength within themselves, and in their neighbors, the legal system, and the Constitution.
Just because Bush says it thwarted an attack, does not make it true. Bush and Rove Beast spin and exaggerate and lie daily. No one believes them except dittoheads like you.
Pointing out that Trump endorsed Spitzer was to show the utter dissarray and slap in the face to Bruno who was begging him to run for Governor (Trump was a registered Republican until 2000). Has much less to do with current party affiliation, as Trump has complained about Bush incessently.
Meghan XX OO
(Who loves hearing all the city hall whispers that Bloomberg is working daily to break his marriage of convenience to the Republican party.)
February 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
“Just because Bush says it thwarted an attack, does not make it true. Bush and Rove Beast spin and exaggerate and lie daily. No one believes them except dittoheads like you.”
Meghan, I guess that shows how much you pay attention. You never heard of Iyman Faris? A naturalized U.S. citizen born in Kashmir, who pleaded guilty on May 1, 2003, to casing a New York City bridge for al Qaeda, and researching and providing information to al Qaeda regarding the tools necessary for possible attacks on U.S. targets. That “bridge” was the Brooklyn Bridge.
He was sentened to 20 years in prison by U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema at federal court in Alexandria, Virgina.
According to court documents: Iyman Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in April 2002, he researched “gas cutters” – the equipment for severing bridge suspension cables – and the New York City bridge on the Internet. Between April 2002 and March 2003, he sent several coded messages through another individual to his longtime friend in Pakistan, indicating he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain the necessary equipment. Faris admitted to traveling to New York City in late 2002 to examine the bridge, and said he concluded that the plot to destroy the bridge by severing cables was unlikely to succeed because of the bridge’s security and structure. In early 2003, he sent a message that “the weather is too hot” – a coded message indicating that the bridge plot was unlikely to succeed.
If you don’t believe me check out the article on the Communist News Network CNN back in 06/2003.
Hell even Michael Moore couldn’t make this story up. Talk about selective memory.
It’s ok you can say you don’t mind the Brooklyn Bridge being blown up in the name of civil rights.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/
February 7th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
The NY Times wrote last week that thwarting the crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch was not connected to the domestic eavesdropping operation (article cited FBI officials). Your point is invalidated.
Meghan XX OO
(Who just streamed footage of black leaders going off on Bush at Coretta Scott King’s funeral while Bush sat like a squirmy slug in the background.)
February 8th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Nick Vertucci is not able to respond to Meghan because after typing the words “Brooklyn Bridge” and “blow up” on the Blog, he was dragged away in the middle of the night by the CIA.
If he were here he would have told Meghan “since the NY Times said there was no connection, then it must be true”. Because we all know the NY Times doesn’t have an agenda against Republicans.
Isn’t the NY Times the one who spent years defending Alger Hiss and other communists about how they weren’t Soviet spies. Fortunately, as usual the NY Times was proved wrong when the Venona papers came out (during the Clinton Administration) that explained, of all things, a wiretapping project against known Soviet Spies that proved all those guys the NY Times said weren’t communists actually were.
He is also glad to see Meghan is reading objective sources.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Ha Ha Ha…
You just can’t handle the facts and that your wrong. So you do what Republicans do best, try to invalidate the source.
Very lame, but usual tiresome dittoheadness.
XX OO Meghan