|
Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Don't be hatin' the messenger...(Opus...) ;)
But I have to admin, if the tapping IS working, then what's the harm otherwise?
I know they may inadvertently grab Grandma's family cookie recipe but if it's in fact, saving lives... :conf:
| quote: |
Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security
Written by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Ann Coulter
It seems the Bush administration—being a group of sane, informed adults—has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even if you were “an American citizen” making the call from U.S. territory—like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah’s speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only “American citizen” Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.
The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA’s spying cited by the Treason Times was “an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.” Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words “ties to Osama bin Laden,” we’re still left with those words—“ties to Osama bin Laden.” The government better be watching that person.
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I’m pretty sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had any brains, they’d distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush’s impeachment for listening in on terrorists’ phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they’d be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama’s cell phone number.
That’s all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can’t be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to the Treason Times’ exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, “1,754 warrants were approved.” No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: “The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary.” He “wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests,” said USA Today.
Put aside the question of why it’s so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it’s nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court “modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.”
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify—much less reject—one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges “modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration.” In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 “substantive modifications” to warrant requests and rejected or “deferred” six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I’m sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims’ families that, after all, the killer’s ties to al Qaeda were merely “dubious” and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can’t be trusted with national security. This is today’s lesson.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| You feel like calling me out? Well then I think it's appropriate to answer your ing ridiculous post by the McCarthy-loving traitorous vile anorexic twat, Coulter by posting a new thread all on it's own. |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
Not to discredit you or anything but I heard something bad about Ann Coulter's journalistic skills. Of course it's bad to operate under rumours so I'll just ask you guys: Is she a credible news source?
Regarding the article, I don't really agree with it. It looks like she's trying to justify Bush's illegal act of spying. Just face it, Bush broke a law and must be punished. If I do something illegal, trust me the law would be all over me. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevieboy32808
Not to discredit you or anything but I heard something bad about Ann Coulter's journalistic skills. Of course it's bad to operate under rumours so I'll just ask you guys: Is she a credible news source?
|
She is a credible entertainment source, much like Jon Stewart. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
That article was the biggest laugh i had in a while. I especialy liked the part about Treason Times :D
| quote: | | She is a credible entertainment source, much like Jon Stewart. |
Say bad things about my hero again and you die :D |
|
|
| occrider |
The only people who have anything to fear from a police state are criminals right?
/10 yard penalty for siding with anything coulter says. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | | The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA’s spying cited by the Treason Times was “an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.” Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words “ties to Osama bin Laden,” we’re still left with those words—“ties to Osama bin Laden.” The government better be watching that person. |
Considering no one knows (except the people doing the spying) who was tapped, how is this even close to a credible argument? How can she speculate that it was OK when she doesn't even know if she herself was wiretapped because maybe she had a source in Iraq. She'd be screaming bloody murder if the NSA tapped her phone because of potential terrorist ties and found out who all of her sources were along the way.
| quote: | t aside the question of why it’s so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it’s nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court “modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.”
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify—much less reject—one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges “modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration.” In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 “substantive modifications” to warrant requests and rejected or “deferred” six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I’m sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims’ families that, after all, the killer’s ties to al Qaeda were merely “dubious” and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
|
Could it be that Bush was so far overreaching in his ideas of what the government should need to obtain a warrant that these were justly modified/denied? Oh, we have a phone call here from someone who knew someone, who got a wrong number call from someone, who ordered pizza from the same pizza shop as this terrorist, so let's wiretap them all.
So yes, he did the only thing that he could, even if it was illegal. You know, if a common man did something illegal even for a noble cause, he'd still be a criminal. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Off-topic:
| quote: | Groundhog Boy's sig
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their in' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you |
Wasn't that Bill Hicks? |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Off-topic:
Wasn't that Bill Hicks? |
Actually, it is, but it's an Adam Freeland track, too. I figured citing it to Freeland would get me in under the "no political signatures" rule since it's music related. ;) |
|
|
| KeSs |
I started reading until I saw it was written by Ann Coulter :eek: :mad: .
I have come to the conclusion that Ann is so far out of touch with reality that it's scary. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| If it wasn't by coulter maybe i'd consider it more serious but comparing McArthy to this isn't correct since McArthy had no basis for his accusations and clearly no one in the Islamic world/community wishes harm on this country :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
