It shouldn't even take a presidential order!

[FromTexas]

Numbnutz Dianne Fienstein trying to start crap with a question she knows the answer to...

So, they know where there is an Al Qaeda terrorist (her words) plotting and she wants to know if the President can order them killed? That is like asking if during World War II a German soldier was on our soil plotting an attack if the President could have them killed... THEY ARE ENEMY COMBATANTS YOU STUPID DOUCHE! If they can't capture them for interrogation then kill them... no Presidential order needed. They made war on us. Not the other way around.

 

[mrweb]

Numbnutz Dianne Fienstein trying to start crap with a question she knows the answer to...

So, they know where there is an Al Qaeda terrorist (her words) plotting and she wants to know if the President can order them killed? That is like asking if during World War II a German soldier was on our soil plotting an attack if the President could have them killed... THEY ARE ENEMY COMBATANTS YOU STUPID DOUCHE! If they can't capture them for interrogation then kill them... no Presidential order needed. They made war on us. Not the other way around.

You clearly don't understand, but will give you a break on your Birthday, hope it is a happy one.

 

[Penn]

If Mizz Feinstein wants to make something out of it, let her. The guy was offering an informal opinion.

It would seem to come down to this statement at the end of the article:

Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told NEWSWEEK: "Mr. Bradbury's meeting was an informal, off-the-record briefing about the legal analysis behind the president's terrorist-surveillance program. He was not presenting the legal views of the Justice Department on hypothetical scenarios outside of the terrorist-surveillance program."

I'm of the opinion she would come off looking worse for her efforts.

 

[FromTexas]

The point is the article is written to stir up more drama with the wiretaps. Its an election year and I bet the article was "encouraged" and the question put out there for a reason.

 

[Penn]

The point is the article is written to stir up more drama with the wiretaps. Its an election year and I bet the article was "encouraged" and the question put out there for a reason.

I don't think there's any question of that. But, you have to admit that the liberals, lately at least, have been doing a great job of shooting themselves in the foot.

Witness Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Kerry, Mr Dean and company.

They are not picking battles they can win.

 

[Ken King]

Well maybe Senator Feinstein should review what she and her fellow Congress persons passed (Senate vote 98-0) that became PL 107-40 where it says:

"SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

 

[Penn]

I could be mistaken, but I'd wager - in all those raids our forces(and the Iraqis too) have made, in all those backwater hovels and so forth, that they've found a plethora of phone numbers that Al Qaeda and the insurgents/terrorists have been using for their coordination of attacks.

Those phones have been designated - for monitoring throughout the world, not just solely in the United States.

What the media would like us to believe is that the NSA(and others) are including monitoring of domestic, private phone calls, originating in this country in their efforts to combat terrorism.

I do not buy that for one minute.

Just spotted this on Reuters:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-05T184855Z_01_N03281239_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&archived=False

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. domestic eavesdropping program targets only people suspected of ties to al Qaeda and there is no broad net cast over Americans' communications overseas, the architect of the effort said on Sunday.


Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy director of intelligence, said on "Fox News Sunday," "this isn't a drift net ... This is very specific and very targeted when it comes to the collection of the content of communications coming in or leaving the United States." Hayden said that the intercepts target only those who intelligence analysts believe are "al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates."