Changes

:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror?  If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program?  Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror?  My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives).  My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power.  Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program.  Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).

:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror?  If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program?  Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror?  My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives).  My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power.  Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program.  Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).

:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies.  When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap.  Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA.  A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement.  You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Princwe Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di?  None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed.  It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement.  Forget FISA.  It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying".  FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since.  All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies.  When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap.  Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA.  A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement.  You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di?  None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed.  It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement.  Forget FISA.  It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying".  FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since.  All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)