How the media spreads and continues lies

why should they get them for a fishing expedition into the telephone activities of any Middle Eastern looking, or sounding, or who has a similar name? Gathering evidence is still supposed to involve due process.

That is precisely what the Revolutionary War was about. Warrantless searches and seizures of suspected contraband in contravention of the Stamp Tax. Warrantless should automatically mean illegal, and it may end up that way if this goes to a half way intelligent Supreme Court.

What is it about the obvious applicability of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, is it that you don't get when applied to a tiny group of foreigners, but which you would otherwise grant to the large number of Mobsters out there.

Rob

Think REALLY hard what's different about someone outside the country calling someone in the US that was found in the phone logs for a cell phone in the possession of an al Quaeda terrorist and John Gotti's domestic calls being monitored. Think REALLY, REALLY hard. MAYBE you'll get it. I can still hold out a shred of hope.

...intelligent, responsive, cohesive reply, do you?

Any reason why they can't gather it with warrants?

And they're still "alleged" collaborators until convicted. It's that little thing called "Innocent till Proven Guilty" that we liberals supposedly can't seem to remember.

Question, Josh. In the past we monitored the traffic into and out of the Soviet embassy. Did that monitoring require a warrant?

...and I'm sure we're still doing it, as are they. It did not involve suspicion of criminal activity by the people working at the embassies; it was about spying.

Not even remotely the same thing.

So does that mean that 9/11 was not the actions of an organization whose actions ware to damage the U.S., but merely a criminal act?
If they inrercepted a telco call from me to sombody in Iran saying that I would hand off information that I had to someone at a particular time and place, would they be free to grab me and examime my briefcase when I showed up at that meeting? Would my handing that information over be espionage, or just a common "criminal act"?

If we'd discovered the 9/11 plot via wiretaps in the Saudi embassy, I'd have no problem with the legality of it.

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be wiretaps. This is only about warrantless wiretaps.

... these aren't calls to and from Mom in Paris.

If one knowingly leaves out facts in an argument to substantially and intentionally change the argument, that is a lie and that is what the ?news bit? here did.

a Scott McClellan press conference. That's mean of me to say that though since he isn't "knowingly" leaving out facts. He can only repeat what he has been told.

You are correct that the article sited is a bit misleading but thats modern spin now aint it?

It is not a completely one sided article... at the bottom of the page the group also condemns students who shouted down ann Coulter.

"Hecklers at the University of Connecticut earned a Muzzle for drowning out Coulter's speech in December. People have a right to express their disagreement with a speaker, the free-expression center said, but preventing fellow audience members from hearing the message is contrary to the First Amendment's spirit."

It's normal for the party in charge to get more heat. Just happens to be the republicans who are in that position now.

make many of us sure that you did not tell the truth when you said you voted for Bush

One hopefully votes for the best candidate at the time of the election. Kerry turned out to be a pedantic, pompous, panderer more worried about securing the pecking order in the democratic party than the needs of the nation.

Thankfully, because of term limits, if the presidential candidate turns out to be less than ethical in the way they get the job done you just wait 4 years and viola a new election presents itself.

The guy I voted for last election has had a lot of questionable conduct come to light. He certainly does not live up to the conservative platform of the past. Big government, big spending, kowtowing to special interests and mismanaging a war so he can stay true to a vision of a high tech military ideology developed by Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and the rest of the neocon war hawks. Then there is the issue of quoting the constitution when it suits his purpose and forgetting it when it doesn't. I realize he had some unexpected things thrust on him but it doesn't justify the behind the scenes conduct he and his party have pursued.

If you order a pizza and it disappoints... do you keep your mouth shut? Do you hire an employe and give them carte blanche? Do you let the phone company charge you for calls you didn't make? If your this kind of person I've got a car in the back yard to sell you... 2 things I truly believe... I think it incredibly unpatriotic to not hold your president responsible for his mistakes as well as his triumphs... and I think it makes the rest of the world jealous to see american citizens complain about the government without being taken out and shot in the middle of the night.

And Scott McClellan? He has become a bigger flip flopper than Kerry ever was.

If it helps you make more sense of the world I did vote for Nader back in 2000 but then again I voted for Anderson back in 80 as well.

Why didn't you comment about the Coulter item?

even blind squirrels find nuts

Yeah, THAT'S why you voted for him I'm sure! LOL

By the way, your rebuttal as written makes no sense. "Doesn't live up to conservative platform...Yeah, THAT'S why you voted for him I'm sure!" I didn't imply I voted for him because he was conservative. I voted for him mainly because of the ongoing war and Kerry's failure to present a viable alternative other than "I voted against it after I voted for it". Pandering in its purest form wouldn't you say? As for Bush being a conservative... he's about as conservative as Clinton was faithful to his Hillary.

Anyway, I know what my voting record is so I'm done responding to this particular point.

I find it amusing that is the only fault you could find with my comment.