Just so you can put that sentence into the context it was used I
included that part of the speech for ya. Make little more sense eh!!
Your cite is in the 3rd para
Let me talk about one other program -- and then I promise to answer
questions -- something that you've been reading about in the news
lately. It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After
the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected
by oceans, I asked people that work for you -- work for me, how best
can we use information to protect the American people? You might
remember there was hijackers here that had made calls outside the
country to somebody else, prior to the September the 11th attacks. And
I said, is there anything more we can do within the law, within the
Constitution, to protect the American people. And they came back with a
program, designed a program that I want to describe to you. And I want
people here to clearly understand why I made the decision I made.
First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's
an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking
about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between
somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and
one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link
or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not
someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making
a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know
This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic
spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a
phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call
into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I
had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the
United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this
program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was
just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I
briefing Congress? (Laughter and applause.)
Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority
under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance
against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that same
constitutional authority. Recently there was a Supreme Court case
called the Hamdi case. It ruled the authorization for the use of
military force passed by the Congress in 2001 -- in other words,
Congress passed this piece of legislation. And the Court ruled, the
Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to
use what it called "the fundamental incidents of waging war" against al
I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress
gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American
people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an -- you've got the
power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. And one of
the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions
of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind of war with a different
kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we
need to know why -- to protect you. (Applause.)
And that's the world in which you live. I view it as a chance for an
historic opportunity to make this place better for your children and
your grandchildren -- "this place" being the world. I'm just confident
that if we don't lose our will, and stay strong, and that as that
liberty advances, people may look back at this lecture and other
speeches by people who profess the same devotion to freedom that I've
had, and say, you know, maybe they're just right. Maybe America, that
was founded on natural rights of men and women is a ticket for peace.
Maybe that kind of view -- that every person matters, that there are
such things as human dignity and the basic freedoms that we feel, that
becomes a huge catalyst for change for the better.
What a dastardly trick. Posting facts. Putting information in context.
How dare you! Have you no compassion or feeling for those who hate Bush? I
implore you to stop confusing the Bush bashers with facts when their heads
are made up.
You end up as you deserve. In old age you must put up with the face, the
friends, the health and the children you have earned.
Oh settle down. I'm not a Bush basher, I'm not a Bush hater, I can
help myself to the facts thank you and it's not necessary to see the
quote in context. I have no quarrel with WHAT was said... just in the
WAY it was said. Am I the only one that thought it was funny? Geez.
Trying to triple Keeter's commentary?
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
Mark & Juanita (in firstname.lastname@example.org) said:
| On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:20:51 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| Trying to triple Keeter's commentary?
Well, I was going to respond - then realized that I didn't have
anything good to say about the person being discussed; and so decided
to say nothing as loudly as I could. You did notice that my comment
was all-caps, yes?
Perhaps I should provide some background for my original commentary:
I've posted the text of "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen
United States of America" at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/07041776.html ;
and the text of the "Constitution of the United States" at
I would guess that you, and most of the US citizens (and many of the
others) posting/reading here are at least familiar with both
documents - the second paragraph of the first document as a statement
of the most fundamental principles required for the existence of a
benevolent state - and the entire second document an attempt to define
a government constrained to operate according to the principles set
forth in the first.
My perception is that the object of discussion has no appreciation of
or for those principles; and that he chafes at the constraints
implicit in the Constitution.
He has said in several news conferences that promised in his Oath of
Office to protect the people of the United States (sorry, no cites)
but anyone who's interested in seeing the oath he _actually_ took can
find it at the end of Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution.
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Yeah, I suppose it casts a bit of a troll-like shadow. But it wasn't
meant that way. I did have a feeling the post might generate some
strong opinions on the matter, but I figured it was all good.
Interestingly, this group is frequented by some pretty bright and
knowlegable characters that have some very interesting things to say
on off topic matters. Of course, such a post would be more
"appropriate" for any one of a dozen other groups, but unfortunately
those groups are mostly populated by a various assortment of juvenile
delinquents and head cases, most of whose ramblings aren't worth a
warm bucket of spit.
At least here I can learn a little about woodworking AND hear a little
intelligent OT chatter.
Lets do a bit of analysis. Joe, exercising his "rights" gives an opinion,
and then someone for whom the information was not intended jumps on his case
calling him a troll, which is the newsgroup equivalent of a subversive.
Wouldn't it be better to have a broader base of information upon which to
make such a decision? Of course, you might have to read a bit more.
Wonder if the civil liberties types, after overhearing a conversation in the
next booth at the coffee shop about killing grandma, would sacrifice the old
gal on principle rather than use the information so infamously gathered to
prevent the assassination.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.