Great question for trolls / freepigs / etc.

[bunkerbuster1]

from Atrios.blogspot.com today:



Can anyone - anywhere - explain, just a little bit - just one time - how "national security has been damaged" by revelations that the Administration was eavesdropping without FISA-required warrants and judicial oversight rather than with them?

Well, can ya, Freepigs?

[LeftNYC]

1. "We fight them over the phone, so

we don't have to fight them in the streets..":sarcasm:

[Raster]

3. Ouch! Good shot!

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Cute, but again--how does revealing the Preznit's end-run

around established protocols harm security?

Anyone?

[LeftNYC]

5. Im on your side...just having a little fun...nt

[jim3775]

2. You see, before the libruul NY times printed that story the terra-isss...

never could've imagined their communications were being intercepted. Now that they know they are being bugged they wont speak openly about their secret terra-iss plans over the phone and internets.

Edit: :sarcasm:, in case anyone thought I was being serious.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Again--they KNEW they could be bugged!

Let's repeat this. The ability to secretly wiretap was ALWAYS there.

the Preznit just couldn't be bothered to get a court order within 72 hours of doing it, from a double-secret court.

NOTHING has be compromised by revealing this. NOTHING.

I'll say it again--

N O T H I N G .

not a thing.

[stop the bleeding]

8. ditto n/t

[jim3775]

12. Of course, simple tradecraft dictates talking in code and not...

discussing plans electronically. Terrorists, mobsters, spies and regular criminals know this. This has been ingrained in operatives minds since before WWII.

Every smart criminal/spy/terrorist assumes they are being watched and conducts themselves accordingly.

National security has not been harmed at all by the revelation.

[stop the bleeding]

7. ditto n/t

[ktlyon]

14. or they can talk in code

a search like this is probably useless and would create much work for investigators with little if any real information in my opinion. How many have been arrested and successfully prosecuted? Will their cases stand up on appeal? I have my doubts.

[Wickerman]

9. good question

worth outting yourself over to give a solid answer, I would say. :evilgrin:

[Arkansas Granny]

10. There is no explanation as to how national security has been

damaged. The damage has been to Bush's credibility (of which very little, if any, survives). Their claim that this revelation damages national security makes as much sense as the claim that gay marriage threatens traditional, heterosexual marriage. I see no reasonable explanation for either claim.

[chaz4jazz]

11. the REAL question is...

Why did Bushbots circumvent a slam-dunk approval of wiretapping al-Qaeda contacts? Could it be they wanted to eavesdrop on other "enemies" like, maybe, Kerry campaign phones? If Nixon wanted campaign intelligence in Watergate crime, why wouldn't relect Bushbots not want intelligence on what Kerry and other high ranking Dems were doing - maybe get some dirt on them that could silence them? Hummm?

[Arkansas Granny]

15. This is where it really gets disturbing. He could have easily

gotten approval on anything even remotely connected to terrorism after 9/11, but he chose to go about it on the sly. The only reason I can fathom for this behavior is because the people he wanted to eavesdrop on had nothing to do with terrorism and his actions would not have been approved because it was illegal.

[redqueen]

18. That's what I wonder as well.

What are they trying to hide? Certainly not terra-iss investigations. Something stinks. Something else, I mean. It's not like there's any shortage of scandal to stink in this misadministration.

[bigbrother05]

13. War on Drugs=War on Terror

Bad policy, neither one works. Just a bank deposit on
shifting funds.

[Chiyo-chichi]

16. My question is...

IF these revelations DID damage national security (which they certainly did not), then WHY didn't the administration begin quietly investigating the leaks A YEAR AGO? I mean, it's obvious that they did not want to publicize their secret illegal program, but THEY knew it had been leaked over a year ago. I find it hard to believe that this secretive administration could not have conducted a secret investigation into the leaking of their secret crime.

The investigation is only being called for NOW, a year after they knew of the leak? Then I say that they're SOFT ON TERROR!

[sduncang]

17. Bingo!

Good point, but the Bushies will gloss over that part. Instead they're blathering on about the leaker. And, of course, using the usual stooges and hacks (AM radio talk shows and Fox News) to present the "spin".

[bunkerbuster1]

19. It will only work if we allow it.

Seriously, this is an issue that should be ours for the keeping. It's about checks and balances, an Imperial Presidency, and it OUGHT to be a bipartisan concern.

I know there are real live principled conservatives who do give a shit about this. We can't let them backslide into thinking, once again, that it's a "National Security" issue that the Preznit owns.

(I put quotes around "National Security" because anyone who was around during Watergate knows that Nixon's thugs spoke openly about exploiting this line of BS to support thuggery.)