What do you think?

Definitions of spy on the Web:

* descry: catch sight of
* (military) a secret agent hired by a state to obtain information about its enemies or by a business to obtain industrial secrets from competitors
* watch, observe, or inquire secretly
* a secret watcher; someone who secretly watches other people; "my spies tell me that you had a good time last night"
* secretly collect sensitive or classified information; engage in espionage; "spy for the Russians"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Espionage is the practice of obtaining secrets (spying) from rivals or enemies for military, political, or economic advantage. It is usually thought of as part of an organized effort (i.e., governmental or corporate). A spy is an agent employed to obtain such secrets. The definition has been restricted to a state spying on potential or actual enemies, primarily for military purposes, but this has been extended to spying involving corporations, known specifically as industrial espionage. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy

Warrrants are required by LAW to invade any private citizens privacy (SEE PRIVATE=PRIVACY, this is no coincidence). Once a warrant has been obtained, it is not spying, it is an investigation.

I said, OK under certain circumstances both times.


Spying is a fact, and it has to be done.
The problem we have today, is the man in charge has an agenda that is patently screwed up,
and, he has decided to bypass court oversight of wiretaps.


Spying sometimes needs to be done, but those who spy need to have a responsible watchdog!
If not, then you have what's happening today! The President thinks he can do just about anything he wants!


I'd also like to have the court OK any taps BEFORE is actually happens!

Both acceptable under certain conditions, such as getting a warrant or review by the FISA court, as stated by law.

I say neither is OK. Public officeholders are required to keep phone logs that can be inspected, as a matter of public record. Corporations keep phone logs that can be subpoenaed, should a matter of impropriety or illegality arise. Private citizens are just that, private. As far as preventing "acts of terrorism," such as the attack on the World Trade Center, the feds had ample warning from several of their own agencies, which they chose to ignore. I say we go all the way back to square one, and if any "special needs" arise, let's have public debate, perhaps followed by public legislation, not secret laws and secret courts. This is not Stalin's Russia...yet.

If my next door neighbor were suspected of being a pedophile,
I'd expect local authorities to keep a good close eye on him,
after first seeking all the legal documentation from the court to make this legal.

Some of this might be prudent and necessary. Let's be honest about why these programs piss us off. And I suppose you can't say this in the congress or in the media (maybe not even here). WE DON'T TRUST HIM !! We don't believe these programs aren't or won't be used for political purposes at best or subversive purposes at worst. Obviously we have no proof of this. Many of us just will not believe that people who will fix elections, expose CIA agents for retaliation, torture, kidnap, lie us into a war killing thousands etc. would take a pass on the boundless opportunities to use this kind of information gathering for evil.

And if your next door neighbor didn't like your "Vote Democrat" sign on the front lawn during elections, and called in an anonymous tip that you are a pedophile?

The Bush gang has been on a stepped up spying routine for years and they haven't caught the object of their effort. That's Osama Been Forgotten. The fact is that the towers came down because hundreds of security details were not used. The air defense, the intel, the enemy is not outside, it's in Washington. If Osama had unpaid ATM fees the bank would find him. The CIA and banks are one unit and they don't miss anything they look for.

There is no way to predict every loony tune and psycho with a killing plan. Some people are crazy or flip out or they are driven by bizzare revenge plots. No one can predict all of those regardless of what their passports are. Not Columbine or the Ohio sniper or the Unibomber or Son of Sam or Ted Bundy or Jonestown or folks going postal.

Uncle Sam can't preempt them but they could have done something about the levees in New Orleans or the toxic landfills or cancer research or lots of other things which are more dangerous.

Even if I believed terrorists did this unaided by Uncle Sam, , that would be 3,000 lives lost to the terrorists over how many years? Yes it is tragic but how many die daily from corporate killings?

One in three get cancer, one in 135 children is born with autism and diabetes, heart disease, etc. are out of control. What about workers at places OSHA has fined? The fines if and when they're collected are laughable and how much has been spent hunting for this band of thugs? Maybe east LA could have been a better trial spot for neighborhood terrorist hunting. See if the area behind the US Capitol can be secured enough to walk at night then make Iraq "safer".

Americans are fighting for survival. The dangers are the loss of jobs and insurance and deadly drugs approved when they shouldn't be and uggghhh seven thousand grass roots groups are collecting their pennies to yell about what's wrong in their neck of the woods.

The bottom line for Washington, if profits are involved the word protection gets wrapped around it. It is all so much $#$% and the only thing the spying does is ID the critics. If they can hunt dangerous threats why does it take Dateline to nab the pedophiles who are a clear and present danger to all our children?

This is why the legal oversite is required.
This kind of stuff happens all the time anyway.
Hell, being a full grown white male in America can be fairly dangerous!
All a young thing has to do is scream rape, wether yer guilty or not, and yer in deep shit!


Yes, i would expect to be investigated.
Then I would HOPE, the one who cried wolf would be investigated!

Filing a false claim is also not legal.

Spying on citizens is dirty and underhanded, warrant or not.

Let's be honest. If you're name is Akmed, or Mohammed, or ~ ibn ~, you've got a wiretap on your house. This is not "watching for terrorism," its racism.

As for gathering phone records, I think that it is OK as long as there is a legal reason as to why, and a proper, open, legal proceeding is followed. No secret courts, etc.

IE: If I'm the suspect in a muder trial, then the police should be able to pull my phone records, after getting a legal warrant from an open and honest system of law.

It is never O.K. to make allowances for those who wish to break the law to do so just because they are the president.


REMEMBER PEOPLE

This matter would be a non issue HAD the president followed the law.

HAD he followed the law, then I would feel secure in what he was doing as being within the scope of the law. Then I would know that under certain circumstances, a warrant would be sought for further investigation and I would have no problem in his spy program.

Being president is no excuse to run roughshod all over the Constitution.

And since his spy program is done in secret and no judicial oversight and Congressional briefings being held, who's to say what is and isn't being done legally. However, with the recent obstruction of justice from the NSA refusing to give security clearance to the justice department, one is left begging the validity of the entire program.

Next week a former NSA agent and leaker, Tice, will be testifying to even more programs that are currently unknown to Congress. His remarks at this point hint to even more Constitutional violations. He says that what we know is only the tip of a much larger iceberg.

So I am a solid - NO WAY!!

Max.

I didn't say I supported the illegal taps, or any illegal procedure.
That wasn't the question asked.

I said I supported the domestic spying under specific rules.
It must be legal, it must be constitutional, and it must be PRE-approved by a judge.

Wiretapping, in my mind anyway, used to be a LAST resort option.
It's what the cops did when things got really hairy,
and the Judge wouldn't go along if he thought they were doing it cause the chief's wife was messin with the court clerk!


Wire taps are an important aspect of law enforcement, but as Scorp said,
it's a dirty nasty thing to do, and must never be taken lightly or for granted.



I do want to be protected. I want law enforcement to do their jobs!
I also want my right to privacy protected.
Between these two things, is a very delicate balance.
Clearly Bushco does delicate like a tree make good butt wipe.

Sky,

I think I know what you mean. And I can partially agree with your idea. However, if the NSA followed the law, then my privacy would be guarenteed as the law grants that assuredness. And the law also allows the NSA to spy on me if they have justifyable reasons approved by a court.

Until the NSA follows the law, as the law allows both elements(my privacy, NSA security) to coexist, I will have problems with the intrusiveness of what is happening.

I do not condone the president, to run roughshod all over the constitution, just because he says so.

Bullies do that shit. Dictators opperate that way. Not presidents who swear to uphold the law, protect the law.

A president represents the law of the land as he is the one Official that signs a Bill into law (the final say so to the agreed Bill to be a law). Bush has proven over 750 times that he is not this type of American president that upholds the law. He has proven his capabilities to obstruct, leak, spy, interperate and obfuscate the meanings and intent of laws.

The President pledged to uphold and protect the constitution. Not the safety of American people. A leader who is sworn to protect his subjects at the expense of their liberty is a benevolent dictator, not the leader of a democratic republic. It is our duty as Patriots to shed our blood if needed to preserve the sanctity of our constitution. For if we are safe, but not free, then the ideals of America and our constitution and all that has made us a beacon of hope for all oppressed peoples in the world has become a farce.

Well said, Poaky.

I completely agree Max, but that wasn't the question that was asked for this poll.

Domestic Spying as it is today is completely and absolutely illegal.
It should be stopped immediately, and ZERO domestic spying allowed until this mess is straightened out!

I guess this begs the question.....




To me it is B.

Thanks, Zooky. =-)

jeez, get a room you two...lmao

Um, can I share the room with you two guys? That's always been a fantasy of mine....

rowwwwwwwwwwllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Funny, but all of a sudden I started to itch all over!

Geez TJ, do you thinks it's the new avatar?

I said acceptable under certain circumstances on both....

ONLY LEGAL WARRANTS THRU FISA (like if Osama is calling his American cousin)

<<<read the name.

My answer is no.


Jeez, lefty; that filter between your brain & keyboard.....but since you brought it up, and it was MY idea, you can take the edge of them first. I'll take round 2, it always lasts longer anyhow....

(Im a perverted, but harmless smartass)

Absolutely Tap. I almost suggested you join too, but was afraid yer hubby might object!
(Also a perverted and semiharmless smartass!)

Newt Gingrich actually had a lot a valid logical things to say about this issue this morning with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press". Anybody else catch it?
Newt is easy to listen to these days since he is so embarrassed by the Bush Administration.

Yes I wretched all the way through it too.

Less than two minutes into his diatribe Newt croaked:

"If you go to the American people and say, “We’re in a long war with the irreconcilable wing of Islam, there are people who want to kill millions of us, your government has to have an ability to track these people down, in the electronic age it has to be real time. Should the Congress guarantee that the United States government is capable of stopping terrorists, detecting terrorists and, if necessary, going back out and finding out who the terrorists worked with, once you know who the terrorists are?"

So we're not at war with terrorism, but instead with a radical ideological arm of Islam. That we are now the Religious police?

Some how Newt's opinions are based in the traditional Republican thought process; Scare the masses into allegiance.

More fear mongering from Frogger:

Think about what it does to any company in the United States who would like to cooperate with the U.S. government to be told, “And by the way, you could be subpoenaed by the U.S. Senate and then, by the way, you can have a lawsuit filed,” as they—apparently two lawyers have announced they’re going to file lawsuits. Do you want this country to—and I’m a constitutional conservative.

Oh, so suing to protect privacy is unpatriotic?

Or check out this statement:

Look, if you find out one morning that we now have five terrorists in the U.S. who are part of an active network who want to destroy New York City or Buffalo or Atlanta, and the government says, “You know, we could’ve tracked every call they made for the last 10 years, but that would’ve been wrong, Tim. So we don’t know who they’ve been working with. We don’t know what their network is and we can’t stop it,” you’re then going to have a totally new set of congressional hearings by the same people who will then reverse their side, totally.

But Froggy, this IS exactly why we had 9/11. The information was there. It was in the president's hands. And still nothing got done. Why throw it in our face and force us to pay for the incompetency of this Administration? HAD his exact argument been waged against The Bush prior to the elections of 2000, Newt would have gone nuclear on Dem's and accused them of fear mongering. Pshhht. Garbage in, garbage out.

But the idea that we’re going to say to the United States government, for libertarian reasons, “We’d rather lose a city than have you gather data,” I think is totally out of touch with the danger of the modern world.

Hummz, conservatism and The Bush already cost us Three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center site, and one New Orleans city. That's about enough to convince me that his team and their el-Capitan, is dead set on killing America, one city and principle at a time.

Now sure, Froggy has some scathing words for his team, however, he is vehemently against the Dem's. He sees the current vision for America, through the eyes of the Republican Party, as a vision in need of an eye exam. He goes as far as proposing that even though the current vision may be 200/20, that it still has a vision for America, but if you see it the way the Dem's want you to, their blindness will lead you into a New Pearl Harbor. Sorry FrogBoy, Bush and his Motley Crew already gave us that.

Well, I think, I think we have to confront the fact that on a variety of fronts we’re not getting the performance we want. I don’t think—look, the people who are in charge have an obligation to deliver. The United States is a very tough-minded country, and we actually want the people we put in charge to get the job done. When you, when you’re told this morning by the person who—from 2003 to 2005 was the head of the border for the United States government, that the border is essentially an invitation to illegal entry, you know something has to change. When you learn that maybe as much as 16 of the $18 billion dollars that we sent to Baghdad for economic purposes wasn’t spent effectively, you know something has to change. When you look at Katrina and you realize that we, we—the United States government paid $1.75 to a general contractor who paid 75 cents to a contractor who paid 35 cents to a subcontractor who paid 10 cents to put the blue tarp on that was the temporary roofing, you know something has to change.

My argument with my own party is simple: I want a Republican majority, I want a Republican presidency. I think that means we have to recognize when things aren’t working and we have to fix them and not wait for the American people to get so upset that they decide to replace us. So I’m advocating in behalf of retaining our majority, that we have to be more aggressive about spending, we have to be more aggressive about energy. And, you know, I, I wish the president would call a renewable fuel summit at Iowa State and, and, and have all the major players, and propose in the next 30 days a very substantial renewable fuels bill that could significantly reduce our, our reliance on Saudi Arabia and our reliance on Venezuela.

But I think the country wants us to lead. The country would love for Republicans to be solid on this, the country does not want to go back to a left-wing Democratic majority, that they do want the Republicans to recognize things need to change.

And don't even get me started on his rhetorical record on the Iraq war. All over the place. Not one steadfast opinion. He'd do better as a cook employed at IHOP. He's one of the best wafflers out there. But he's O.K. with it.

Continuing on about domestic issues, his rhetorical diatribe has never changed from 2000:

I think this is part of why the Republican leadership has a window of a few more months to change. And I will say that I thought, as I mentioned, that I thought Speaker Hastert’s recent statement that the Senate bill is so outrageously too big that the House won’t even conference on it was exactly right. I think the Senate should be challenged to pass the supplemental bill at 92 billion. I think that the recent announcement by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and by Congressman Dave Reichert in the House that FEMA needs to be totally replaced and looked at from a totally new angle is, frankly, the right kind of approach to real change. I believe that the amount of spending increase you just cited is further—is proof we don’t need a tax increase, we need to control spending. That’s why, that’s why conservatives want to do what we did, you know, when we got to a balanced budget, the first four balanced budgets since the 1920s, we did it by controlling spending, reforming welfare, reforming Medicare, and we did it while cutting taxes to increase economic growth.

So the idea that liberal Democrats, that Nancy Pelosi and others have, that if only we had a big tax increase, that would help things, is exactly wrong. First of all, I think it would lead to a recession and there would be fewer jobs and lower income. Second, it would just feed big government. This government has more than enough money to do everything it needs to do, and the challenge is to fundamentally overhaul it. And I would just say our track record in the late ‘90s was pretty darn good. We actually managed to balance the federal budget while cutting taxes, while reforming welfare, while cutting...

Wanna know more about how I feel about a frog? If you kiss it it still says Rrrrrbit and doesn't become a prince.

I have to agree with you Max.


Make no mistake,
though we appredciate the comments Newt has said concerning Bushco,
Newt is still a radical right wing conservative.
He always will be!

Another comment about something he said.

Why is it America, Newt's Christian Nation, that is responsible for setting right, the irreconcilable wing of Islam? That's like saying that it's O.K. that Iran's leader is correct to want to wipe Israel off the map, or more close to home, that it's perfectly O.K. that Hinduism needs to take charge of the Christian movement because Falwell advocates the mass killing of innocent citizens in the name of his god, Freedom.

Yank,
Not to beat a dead Frog to death(LOL), go over to Casey's site and down load the clips.
http://openyourmindseye.blogspot.com/2006/...nd-present.html
Sometime between Thursday and Sunday, on the subject of the NSA, FrogBoy's stance of "Not going to defend the indefensible" some how changed to, "It's perfectly legal." Within three days, he does a complete 180 degree turnaround from against it to for it.

Now tell me again what makes him so special?

Never fall for the 'Ole 'Bait&Switch'

The standard of measure that I use:

Do as I say and say as I do.

If it doesn't square, then it's not square.

M-m-m-m-m! Smart ass is the very best kind...

Yep!

Sooner, yer a kick!