From: "Robert Comer" 

>I actually believe Bush is telling the truth here.

I pretty much do too, but I'm not so sure about the NSA.

>What I have a problem with is setting the precedent of bypassing the court.
>Bush seems to think everything is ok  as long as he just shouts "we're at
>war"

That's my main problem as well.

> If one goes by his broad definition of 'people out there wish to harm us'
> we'll always be in the never ending war.

Yep.

--
Bob Comer


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43a6f193$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>I actually believe Bush is telling the truth here. What I have a problem
>with is setting the precedent of bypassing the court.   Bush seems to think
>everything is ok  as long as he just shouts "we're at war"
>
> If one goes by his broad definition of 'people out there wish to harm us'
> we'll always be in the never ending war.
>
>
>
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:43a6ed21{at}w3.nls.net...
>> He's not saying numbers but names, and that very much will tell if this
>> was kosher or not -- if it really was all terror suspects or something
>> more... (just labeling someone a terror suspect wouldn't be enough, there
>> would have to be a reason...)
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:43a6ebf6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> You can keep saying it, but what numbers were intercepted is not a key
>>> piece
>>> to any puzzle.  It is even only a relevant piece in certain purely
>>> theoretical situations.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
>>> news:43a6df66{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> > I have to tell you that I don't see it as even a
close call that the
>>>> Supreme
>>>> > Court will NOT come up with a definition that prevents what the
>>> President
>>>> > has been doing.  They will define this activity as within his
>>>> constitutional
>>>> > powers.
>>>>
>>>> The crucial test will be the list of those who were targetted.
>>>>
>>>> If a cellphone is picked up out of the sand near a known
Al Quaeda base
>>> then
>>>> it's obviously hot intelligence and the contents - numbers stored,
>>>> numbers
>>>> called, numbers calling in, SMS texts, etc., plus network
knowledge of
>>> where
>>>> on the globe that phone has been is obviously vital tactical and
>>>> strategic
>>>> information with a pretty short shelf life.  Possibly reaching zero
>>>> within
>>>> hours.
>>>>
>>>> In such a case I think it would be right for the President
to authorise
>>> the
>>>> use of the information and answer to a court later.  You
can't convene
>>>> a
>>>> court in DC in the middle of the night just because field
intelligence
>>> wants
>>>> to switch on a cellphone.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH - a programme of planned intercepts of calls contained entirely
>>> within
>>>> the USA can and should be authorised in advance.
>>>>
>>>> And - as I'd said several times - the illegality of Shrub's actions
>>>> pivot
>>>> around who was on the list.  That is the single missing variable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5