I think it's cute that you support the civil rights of international terrorists. But I want my government listening into the calls made by people like Osama Bin Laden into the U.S. And I have no problem with my government assassinating corrupt, murderous dictators. It would have saved a lot of trouble if the CIA had put a bullet into Saddam's head ten years ago.

Gary Hart.

Jim makes an important point.

Also, Nash is wrong. It's the old policy of assassinating distasteful leaders and installing convenient fuckheads like Saddam that got us into this mess.

Nash writes:

I think it's cute that you support the civil rights of international terrorists.

"Amy, why do you hate America?" That's the question Nash really wanted to ask you, but that hand's been overplayed.

This is getting so boring, the Republicans' tactic of inferring things that were never stated, trying to force their opposition into defending themselves from lying accusations. Sadly, however, the tactic has proven maddeningly effective.

I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to say that Amy never said that she supported the rights of terrorists. For one thing, the opinions expressed are from an article she posted, not hers, and technically, she didn't say whether she sanctions them or not. And even if she had, the article's authors never said that they support the rights of terrorists either, they are opposed to giving the president unlimited powers, as Bush claims he has the right to. And this is an idea I can certainly get behind. After all, should any president -- this one or the next, or the next -- seek unlimited authority, all he need do is start a war.

But I want my government listening into the calls made by people like Osama Bin Laden into the U.S.

I wonder how many of those calls made from overseas into the U.S. were actually from Osama bin Laden. And listening in on private phone calls from possible terrorists is fine...with a warrant. If national security is an issue, he should have no problem getting one.

And I have no problem with my government assassinating corrupt, murderous dictators.

How nice for you. Unfortunately, it is a violation of U.S. law to assassinate a foreign head of state.

I'm guessing Nash's reply, if he deigns to reply at all to this post, will be to go off on some tangent on a minor point, such as the fact that I pointed out that Amy never said she sanctions the authors' views. "If she doesn't sanction it, then why did she post it here?"

Blah, blah, blah. Nash, can't you just stick to the facts, without making these disgusting smears on people, like suggesting they support the rights of terrorists (which isn't too far a leap from saying they support terrorists)?

Crid: If someone abuses a hammer then you ban all hammers? Congress can limit the use of assassination instead of outright banning it. And we didn't install Saddam to power.

Patrick: I'm not saying Amy hates America. I'm saying she continually links to these hatchet jobs without ever spending two seconds on Google to find out they are full of crap. Here's your damn facts. The FISA judges themselves say these attacks on Bush are crap (note the bold text!!!):

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

"A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security. "

So how about a freaking editorial correction for once, Amy?!?

Nash:

So how about a freaking editorial correction for once, Amy?!?

What editorial correction? Her opening statement was "Gary Hart and Joyce Appleby write that the Bush administration's executive branch power-grab is really getting out of hand."

Which is a pretty fair assessment of the opinions expressed by Hart and Appleby, don't you think? So, what editorial correction do you think she owes?

She made no statements about the accuracy of the piece or the validity of the opinions. And even if she had -- brace yourself for a shock, Nash -- she doesn't have to agree with the position taken by the judges. This is America. Dissent is allowed. Also, their decisions can be overruled by higher courts.

Also, I find this comment to be interesting:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

Simple question, Nash: When did the court refuse Bush his FISA application? When did Bush even TRY to get a warrant that justifies his acting unilaterally?

Patrick: The editorial correction I was looking for was, "my Bush hatred blinded me to some wild accusations that were easily debunked. Sorry for posting a crap-filled editorial."

As for your question, the FISA judges are saying Bush has the constitutional authority to authorize wiretaps of international calls without a warrent. Going through the FISA court provides legal cover in case Congress or the courts question his authorization, but the FISA court cannot limit his constitutional authority.

> And we didn't install
> Saddam to power.

We've covered this before. I have SERIOUS doubts that the all the monstrous regimes in the middle east could have taken root with being nourished by our policies and manipulations. Specifically, there's evidence that Saddam's involvement with assassination attempt of Prime Minister Qassim in 1959 was a CIA sanctioned venture. Consider also the 1984 handshake with Rumsfeld. How many connecting dots do you want to see in between? I bet you could find a hundred with a single night on Google.

Nash writes:

As for your question, the FISA judges are saying Bush has the constitutional authority to authorize wiretaps of international calls without a warrent.

No, they are not. The quote, which you posted, reads:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act.

So, I ask again, when did the courts refuse his FISA application, leaving Bush insufficient time to go to a court of review.

I'm a little confused about who is making the decision for the public to see prof of his death. If you don't show prof wont the American people disbelieve Obama even more they'll likely already do? I want to see, because I do not necessarily trust our Presidential Office!! I'm so tired of asking questions concerning this man. Is it true is it not true "omg"