Q. How does a moonbat defense lawyer describe clients who slashed tires to prevent people from voting?

A. Passionate for Democracy

The real culprits in the election day 2004 tire slashings of Republican Party vans were emotional Democratic operatives from out of state, lawyers for some of the local men charged in the crime said Tuesday at the start of their trial.

Those on trial include the sons of two prominent local Democrats, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt.

"These aren't just card-carrying staffers," [Defense Attorny Robin] Shellow said of the outside consultants. " . . . They believe the fight is for legitimate democracy, and they're passionate."

Most libs are mental cases anyway. Doesn't shock me. You certainly can't trust them with our National security. I am glad they are pounding Alito about NSA and the legalities of it. The liberals have dug a grave, and after pounding Bush because he is protecting us, they will have put thier whole party in that grave.
We have the opportunity to bury them if our representatives do what they were hired to do.

Now, let's suppose that Gore had won in 2000 and authorized the same wire-tapping. There's a good chance he would have, as presidence was already established. If a "whistleblower" from the NSA, who had lost his clearance due to mental health issues and had a history of running with far-right-wing groups, went to the NYT, which is more likely?

A) They'd happily accept the information and run the "Wiretap Scandal" stories, hailing him as the "lone whistleblower" who brought to light this flagrant misuse of presidential authority.

or

B) Rat him out for divulging classified information and start a campaign to have him tried for treason.

Gotta love his defense. "I'm not paranoid. That's just what they want you to believe." Whatever you say, Agent Mulder.

That's a lovely aluminum hairpiece he's wearing.

Hmmmm. Same defense those guys over at Able Danger are using. Seems their leader got kicked out for using a government cell phone for a personal call. Same kind of "crazy" reports went into his folder, too.

OMG ... this guy's only a few cheeseburgers short of a Burger King!

RWR

Hey Ronnie, there's a huge heap of difference between using a gov't cellphone for a personal call and being fired from the NSA for mental health issues. One will just look back on your resume, while the other will pretty much bar you from ever getting a decent job again.

And if the New York Slimes is so sure that the NSA's wire-tapping under Bush is impeachable, why they were so thrilled with the idea of the NSA monitoring everything from cellphones to baby monitors during the Clinton Years:

NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The reports cited by NewsMax are misleading at best. There is no credible evidence that widespread spying by the NSA occurred during the 1990s or that the Clinton administration condoned such activities.

Consider:

On April 12, 2000, then-DCI George J. Tenet testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Denying allegations that Echelon was used to spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, Tenet stated: "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department." In the same hearing, then-NSA director Michael Hayden testified: "If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or her."

Such assurances, however, are no longer valid under the Bush administration, which has sought to circumvent both congressional law and the judicial system.

Of course there is credible evidence that Echelon was used to listen in phone calls by American during the Clinton administration. Left wing nuts just choose to ignore it because Slick Willie is their hero.

Judges are part of the government. So even if some judge rubber stamps listening to phone calls between terrorists and their agents in the U.S. - what difference does that make?

Now if George Bush or a member of the administration was giving orders to the NSA to spy on certain people on some enemies list - then that is a completely different story (like what Nixon did)

The truth is most left wing nuts would love for the NSA to fail to intercept a terrorist plot that would kill thousands or millions of Americans simply to make George Bush look bad. Yes, they are that twisted.

Once again, two different things.

I have no problem with eschelon. It was used to gather intel ANONYMOUSLY. Bush ordered wiretaps on SPECIFIC people.

Eschelon used computers to find suspicious activity -- then intel people got warrants to continue their investigations.

Bush ignored the law -- FISA and the Patriot Act -- and launched spying on Americans without probable cause. The results: 4,000 Americans spied on -- not a single terrorist caught in the program in 3 years.

Now if George Bush or a member of the administration was giving orders to the NSA to spy on certain people on some enemies list - then that is a completely different story (like what Nixon did)

Glad you finally understand.

This is what's angering so many people -- Democrats and Republicans.

Copies of NSA intercepts from this program have been leaked. About 18 of them.

It's pretty clear that two of the people spied on were Assistant Secretaries of State. Other intercepts appear to be - though not confirmed as of yet -- wiretaps of Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM).

The intercepts leaked after John Bolton requested them. It appears he learned of the wiretappng program and used it to secretly undermine his rivals at the State Department (including Colin Powell) so he could advance his career.

Bush was not spying on terrorists. Otherwise, he'd have had no problem getting a warrant.

Why trust a judge -- balance of powers. "High school civics," as Sen John Cornyn (R-TX) would say.

Once again, two different things.

Yes. The method you prefer was when Clinton was president, and the other more effective method is being done under Bush.

To no one's surprise, you support the former and not the latter. Party before country and whatnot, I guess...eh, RR?

Jonathan said:

"Of course there is credible evidence that Echelon was used to listen in phone calls by American during the Clinton administration. Left wing nuts just choose to ignore it because Slick Willie is their hero."

You need to learn something about presenting a convincing argument. I'll summarize your reasoning:

1) Your charge about spying under Clinton is correct because a rightwing website says so, even if it hasn't been substantiated by any independent source.

2) I on the other hand am wrong, even though to support my claim I have provided you with testimony to congress from the head of the director of central intelligence and the NSA. And no evidence has arisen to contradict what I have said.

One reason a left-wing blog has more traffic than two of the most popular right-wing political blogs COMBINED is that the arguments at the former (Daily Kos) are backed up by evidence which is cited. You should learn a thing or two about evidence. It involves quotes and references to the original sources, not unsubstantiated accusations.

Below is the testimony I referenced. Where is your evidence? Or do you just make things up because that is the only way you can get people to agree with you? How do you explain the fact that even the Bush administration hasn't accused previous administrations of circumventing FISA?

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/tenet.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hayden.html

The difference between Clinton and Bush is that Bush circumvents both the judiciary and congressional law when it suits him.

By the way, if conservatives at this site were really confident of their points, they could rely on the merit of their arguments alone without having to resort to name-calling.

Johnathan said:

"Yes. The method you prefer was when Clinton was president, and the other more effective method is being done under Bush.

To no one's surprise, you support the former and not the latter. Party before country and whatnot, I guess...eh, RR?"

No.

Eschelon is still in use under Bush. It's been in use in some form ever since the 1970s. I favor using it because it can't be used to spy on political opponents or innocent Americans without alerting the courts and other watchdogs.

I fully support America before party, Jonnie. But you seem to be the one critical of protecting America so Bush can spy on innocent Americans INSTEAD of terrorists. That's what the illegal wiretapping (breaking both the FISA and Patriot Act) does. Not a single terrorist has been caught using Bush's warrantless wiretaps.

Dozens have been captured or killed using Eschelon and LEGAL wiretaps WITH WARRANTS.

Dozens have been captured or killed using Eschelon and LEGAL wiretaps WITH WARRANTS.

Clinton used the IRS to spy on political enemies...without warrants. It's in the Barrett Report...you know, the one that Dems are bending over backwards to keep from seeing the light of day?

Clinton spied on Aldrich Ames. Without warrants.

Clinton used that terrorist-fighting machine Echelon to go after...businesses. Without warrants.

Read it again, dimwit. "Without warrants". I typed slowly so you could read it better, or get a translator. If it was good enough for your hero Clinton, it will have to be good enough for you and your kind now.

Nice try with your lies, Guppy...er, "Gipper"! You're an intellectual wannabe and vacuous boob. No wonder no one listens to you people.

Like I said, "Party before country" is your motto. You just proved MY point.

Jonathan,

Your links to "without warrants" all refer to physical searches, which are legal without warrants, not to electronic eavesdropping, which is not legal without FISA approval. And you didn't answer my question about why Bush isn't offering the same "Clinton did it too" defense that you are. I'll help you: because it isn't true.

Echelon data-mined. That is fundamentally different than what Bush is doing. Data-mining doesn't target individuals. There is no evidence that individual American citizens were targeted for electronic eavesdropping without FISA approval prior to Bush taking office.

You disagree with Ronald and me about whether spying on Americans should be legal. Fine. But should is different than what is, and it IS illegal. Bush's willingness to brush aside the rule of law when it suits him has been a disturbing theme of his presidency. As has his willingness to lie about it. If you don't believe that, here are some statements WE NOW KNOW ARE FALSE and that BUSH KNEW WERE FALSE when he said them:

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order... Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

and

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example."

and

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order... In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order... What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States..."

Bush has also repeatedly misstated to the public that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role":

"Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051220/ts_afp/usattacksintelligence

So I think your outrage is misplaced. George Bush is a liar and he doesn't care about the rule of law when it gets in the way of what he wants to do. If people in this country are willing to allow our liberties to be taken away, then what do we mean when we say we are fighting to promote American-style freedom in Iraq and around the world?

By the way, your insults are a weak substitute for real debating skills. And citing right-wing web sites as legitimate sources of information hardly makes your case more credible.