And he admits violating the law and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

and says he will do it again. It's
interesting to note that the special secret court organized to hear the
probable cause for these wiretaps has only turned down one of them and
that the NSA can proceed with a tap under the current law if they obtain
a warrant within a specified period, 48 hours, I think. So, it would
appear that the only real reason to circumvent due process is to prevent
the court from finding out who they are surveilling.

One of our legislators recently tried to remind him that it's President
bush, not KING bush. If we don't step on this guy's fingers on this one,
he's going to have all those in uniforms chasing those without.

Capt. Jeff

--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

He didn't deny doing what's been claimed. His best answer so far has been "I
can't discuss it", or "I'll do whatever's necessary to protect blah blah
blah". You wouldn't let your kids get away with crap like that.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:46:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

He didn't deny doing what's been claimed. His best answer so far has been "I
can't discuss it", or "I'll do whatever's necessary to protect blah blah
blah". You wouldn't let your kids get away with crap like that.


The statement was, "And he admits violating the law." That was a false statement.

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security
Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications
of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept
these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these
terrorist networks." (From the President's Radio Address, 17 Dec.)
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

And we don't see the liebrals clamouring for an investigation of the
leaker either........their hypocrisy is certainly a one way street.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 04:46:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

He didn't deny doing what's been claimed. His best answer so far has
been "I
can't discuss it", or "I'll do whatever's necessary to protect blah blah
blah". You wouldn't let your kids get away with crap like that.


The statement was, "And he admits violating the law." That was a false
statement.

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I
authorized the National Security
Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the
international communications
of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist
organizations. Before we intercept
these communications, the government must have information that
establishes a clear link to these
terrorist networks." (From the President's Radio Address, 17 Dec.)
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about this and
kept silent?

We have people who want a law against torture because they assure us it
could be violated in extraordinary circumstance (the a-bomb and
terrorist example) yet when some laws are violated in extraordinary
circumstances they want to criticize. They seem to strive to be
consistently inconsistent.
It would seem more logical to me that those who want a law against
torture, expecting it to be violated in extraordinary circumstance
would have few problems with a violation of another law in a very
similar extraordinary circumstance.

wrote in message
ups.com...
We have people who want a law against torture because they assure us it
could be violated in extraordinary circumstance (the a-bomb and
terrorist example) yet when some laws are violated in extraordinary
circumstances they want to criticize. They seem to strive to be
consistently inconsistent.
It would seem more logical to me that those who want a law against
torture, expecting it to be violated in extraordinary circumstance
would have few problems with a violation of another law in a very
similar extraordinary circumstance.


Perhaps if your president was honest about it, it wouldn't be such an issue.
Actually, he *will* be honest about it, as soon as Uncle Karl tells him to.

I am so envious of Karl Rove being called "Evil Genius". I thought
that people had titles like that only in Power Puff Girl episodes. I
am going to demand that my employees make me a sign for my office door
saying "Evil Genius" and address me that way.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:54:48 -0800, Tamaroak
wrote:

And he admits violating the law

He did not.

If Pres. Bush violated the law, then the US Congress was complicit in
that
law breaking. Are we going ot arrest the Congressmen that new about this
and
kept silent?



This will be the lastest chapter of the liebrals soiling themselves,
just like the past occaasions of the non-leak of plame, and "bush lied" etc
.. etc.