Because they hate Bush. Nothing else matters. They would sell out this country in a second if they could find something against Bush.

You see how they don't care that classified information is helping the enemy.

Highly classified? Do you think they didn't know their calls were being monitored already?

Even Gonzales concedes that;

BIDEN: Thank you very much. General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer. And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true - you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

Sometimes they forget?? O.....k

Seriously?  Because they dont know what they are talking about.  Just check out my latest for the fun.

If Bush violated the law, then the leaker had a RESPONSIBILITY to bring out this information. Obviously, the Attorney General, who would normally be the place to lodge such a complaint, would be inappropriate to this case. While I don't believe the way it came out was proper, I do believe that this information needed to get to the public.

As a free country, we need to be very careful about what we allow to happen behind closed doors. This may well be a case where Bush's actions are appropriate. But it is in our national best interests to at least ASK the question.

If Bush violated the law, then the leaker had a RESPONSIBILITY to bring out this information. Obviously, the Attorney General, who would normally be the place to lodge such a complaint, would be inappropriate to this case. While I don't believe the way it came out was proper, I do believe that this information needed to get to the public. As a free country, we need to be very careful about what we allow to happen behind closed doors. This may well be a case where Bush's actions are appropriate. But it is in our national best interests to at least ASK the question.

You do realize how long it took the person who knew about this and put it out there to do it? He knew for years, why wait till now? Makes no sense.

Do you think they didn't know their calls were being monitored already?

you would assume

So, you are saying now that an assumption is knowledge?  No wonder you cant win an argument!

You do realize how long it took the person who knew about this and put it out there to do it? He knew for years, why wait till now? Makes no sense.

Well, as I've said before, if Bush IS doing something illegal, then not only should he be held accountable, but so should the Senate members who knew, and the NY Times for sitting on the story for more than a year. the chips should fall where they may.

So, you are saying now that an assumption is knowledge? No wonder you cant win an argument!

I've told you before, I'm not here to win or lose anything. If I was, I'd act like a point whore like you. I'm mostly here to just to point out the ignorance of people like you, and make sure your lies and hypocrisy don't go unchallenged.

I've told you before, I'm not here to win or lose anything. If I was, I'd act like a point whore like you. I'm mostly here to just to point out the ignorance of people like you, and make sure your lies and hypocrisy don't go unchallenged.

So you cant win an argument, you have to resort to name calling, and you are never right?  And you cant point out anything if you are stating lies, outright lies, and assumptions as facts.

Guess that makes you real good!

Every one of you that are so quick to jump on President Bush saying he did something illegal? WHY are you not jumping on the person who leaked this "highly" classified info in the first place? That IS illegal!

What exactly is so classified about what the N.Y. Times printed? The fact that the Bush administration was circumventing the FISA court? The fact that Bush is breaking the law? It’s well known that we have the capability to do electronic surveillance and that we have been doing it for years, but within the law. This illegal snooping is actually jeopardizing our national security. If we do catch a terrorist with the information from it, it will be illegal to use that information in court and the terrorist will go free.

"If we do catch a terrorist with the information from it, it will be illegal to use that information in court and the terrorist will go free.

Given that the suspects in question are overseas, the chance we're interested in bringing them to trial is pretty slim. More likely they'd get a visit from a drone.

This is just opportunistic political journalism that shows the NYT is a hack organization serving particular interests, not the public.

If we do catch a terrorist with the information from it, it will be illegal to use that information in court and the terrorist will go free.

Therein lies the ignorance of the argument.  You do not try spies.  You execute them.  Or stick their arse in the pokey until a trade is made.  You do not put enemies on trial as it is against the Geneva Convention.

Highly classified? Do you think they didn't know their calls were being monitored already? Even Gonzales concedes that; BIDEN: Thank you very much. General, how has this revelation damaged the program? I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls. GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer. And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true - you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance. But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget. Sometimes they forget?? O.....k

Try again! The key word that you are over-looking is "assume"! And yes if you look it up it IS (was) classified! "Why" do you think the FISA court is a secret court?

What exactly is so classified about what the N.Y. Times printed? The fact that the Bush administration was circumventing the FISA court? The fact that Bush is breaking the law? It’s well known that we have the capability to do electronic surveillance and that we have been doing it for years, but within the law. This illegal snooping is actually jeopardizing our national security. If we do catch a terrorist with the information from it, it will be illegal to use that information in court and the terrorist will go free.

Tell you the same thing I told davad70! "Why" do you think the FISA court was a secret court? "Illegal" snooping? Do you know something that the US attorney General Alberto Gonzales, doesn't?

Gonzales said that Congress was aware of the program's scope and that it had been approved "under the authorization to use military force" against terrorism. In a speech Tuesday morning, Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which bars wiretaps on Americans at home without a court warrant, did not prevent the NSA program. "It is simply not the case that Congress in 1978 anticipated all the ways that the president might need to act in times of armed conflict to protect the United States," he said during his speech at Georgetown. "FISA, by its own terms, was not intended to be the last word on these critical issues."

Since this man is the chief lawman in the US...ya'll are going to have a hard time making an illegality call stick.

And yet some of you are foolish enough to ask, "classified"?

Some lawmakers have said they weren't informed of the program's scope during briefings -- nor were they allowed to go public with concerns because of the program's sensitive nature. Critics have questioned the administration's legal rationale, pointing to the 1978 FISA law, which requires executive branch agencies to get approval for domestic surveillance requests from a special court, whose proceedings are secret to protect national security.

If it was sensitive then, "why" is it "not" sensitive now?

I am not the one who used the word assume, that was our illustrious AG. Seeing how he has not interviewed every "enemy" in the world, what would you want him to say? It's very likely that they all know they're being listened to, but there is a chance that there may be some "enemies" who are mentally deficient. Every group has a few of those...we even have 2 or 3 here at JU.

I never said that it WAS NOT classified did I? Yes, it's classified, but it's also common sense.

What does this have to do with FISA being a secret court?