Justin H, the ever-mendacious ‘Real Teen’, is lying again:
We have been listening in on terrorists, and not the average American…
What utter hogwash. We know now that NSA has contracted with several telecommunications providers to monitor the calling patterns of millions of "average Americans". And we know that Bush lied when he claimed that "The program applies only to international communications. In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States".
These leaks, including the original leak regarding the Terrorist Surveillence Program, are unconstitutional and dangerous.
Well, golly, Justin… if it’s so dangerous to let the terrorists know that they’re being monitored, then why did Bush repeatedly reveal that we were eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls, months before the New York Times revealed the illegal NSA wiretaps?
Justin won’t answer. Facts don’t matter to wingers like him. He and his sort simply ignore inconvenient realities.
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 17th, 2006 at 11:06 am
spion
taking on a teenager sure must be satisfying.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:45 am
meatbrain
Would you suggest that a teenager be permitted to lie in a political debate, moreso than an adult?
May 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
RealTeen
Two different programs moron! The program described in the USA Today story does not actually LISTEN to any calls! It only gives a list of “to” and “from” phone numbers, effectively keeping people anonymous unless the NSA finds problems. Even then, they never LISTEN to any domestic calls. The program Bush was describing when saying one party was outside was the Terrorist Surveillance Program, not this newly described call logging.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
meatbrain
And we know this for a fact… how, exactly?
Because Bush told us?
** snicker **
You still haven’t answered: if it’s so dangerous to let the terrorists know that they’re being monitored, then why did Bush repeatedly reveal that we were eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls, months before the New York Times revealed the illegal NSA wiretaps?
May 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
kender
May 17th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
RealTeen
How bout you explain how you mixed up two totally different programs?
May 17th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
RealTeen
GIMME A DOLLAR!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
meatbrain
You are afraid of answering questions about your own claims, Justin, and are constantly trying to divert attention from those difficult and inconvenient questions.
You still haven’t answered: if it’s so dangerous to let the terrorists know that they’re being monitored, then why did Bush repeatedly reveal that we were eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls, months before the New York Times revealed the illegal NSA wiretaps?
Run away, Justin.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
RealTeen
That’s irrelevent to the fact that my claim was that Bush isn’t listening in on the average American. Your question is completely irrelevent to your attack AND my post. Also, “roving wiretaps” didn’t give specific details on the Terrorist Surveillance program, as opposed to the NYT story which gave specifics on the NSA. Now answer my damn question, which actually has something to do with why you’re attacking me.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
RealTeen
Two different programs… ANSWER… and GIMME A DOLLAR!!! You’re the one attacking me, and you don’t know WTF you’re talking about!
May 17th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
meatbrain
Still false. Stop running away from the question, Justin.
Your entire attack on the New York Times is predicated on the assumption that the wiretaps were secret when the Times published its story. They were not. Bush spoke of them in public over and over and over again, for months before the story appeared. Why did Bush repeatedly reveal that we were eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls?
What “specifics”? Name them. Explain how these “specifics” could provide any tactical advantage to terrorists.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
meatbrain
The answer is simple: I didn’t. I am well aware that the collection of domestic phone calling records recently revealed by USA Today are not (allegedly) part of the program of illegal wiretaps discussed in the NYT story of 12/16/05. There is simply no reason to believe that domestic calls are not being listened to as well, given that the Bush administration has no compunction about ignoring laws it does not like.
If the domestic calling patterns were to indicate possible terrorist activity, would you want the administration to refrain from listening to those calls?
May 17th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
RealTeen
You ASSUME they are being listened to without evidence? Now you just join the ranks of the tinfoil-hat wearing junkies that already populate the left. You’re pathetic.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
meatbrain
Not what I said, Justin. I am simply unwilling to ASSUME that domestic conversations are not being listened to. The Bush administration refuses to obey laws it finds inconvenient.
Your question was answered. You are still afraid to answer mine. Why did Bush repeatedly reveal that we were eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls, months before the New York Times revealed the illegal NSA wiretaps?
May 18th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Beaming Visionary
‘We have been listening in on terrorists, and not the average American…”
Were this true, it would mean we know the identities of a large number of terrorists. If we’ve identified them, why are they roaming free?
From kender:
“sounds like you need to go wring out your drool bib and adjust your helmet”
Sounds like you need to get your BUN and creatinine levels checked. Between your semicoherent, antisocial references to the mentally challenged and your greater-than-usual quotient of typing and spelling errors, I’m guessing those beleaguered nephrons of yours are faring even worse than usual and that you’ve got uric acid on the brain.
It’s also funny that all of you extreme right-wingers, famous for crowing about your political incorrectness (while also demanding it when it comes to religion, but that’s another story) are now ragging meatbrain for “picking on” an ignorant teenager. Funny, I remember Jay ripping on a teenager in Florida for not standing for the Pledge of Alleigiance—and going much further by suggesting that he should have his ass kicked.
If you hypocrites aren’t interested in defending your positions to meatbrain, why even hang out here and post anything? You should know by now that regardless of how many of you try to pile on, you look increasingly foolish every time you respond without answering the very questions that undermine your entire position(s).
May 18th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
RealTeen
I did answer your question, scroll up to where I mention roaming/roving wiretaps.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
meatbrain
Read for comprehension, Justin. You back-handedly admit that Bush revealed the fact that wiretaps were being used against terrorists. You still have not answered the question:
Why did Bush repeatedly reveal that we were eavesdropping on terrorist phone calls, months before the New York Times revealed the illegal NSA wiretaps?
May 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
RealTeen
I’m not President Bush, so I can’t answer, and it’s irrelevent to my argument which is that innocent people aren’t being wiretapped.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
RealTeen
Also, your post implies that Bush was talking about the call logging program when he said that one party was outside of the United States, when he was in fact talking about the program which wiretaps terrorists. Would you mind issuing a correction?
Gimme a Dollar…
May 18th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
RealTeen
And considering that I have answered, you should delete the last line of your post also…
May 18th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
meatbrain
You are afraid to even discuss the matter, Justin. So I will ask some questions that you should be able to answer:
Given that Bush revealed that the US was conducting wiretaps many times in the months before the New York Times confirmed that fact in December 2005, what possible harm can the Times story have done to the wiretapping efforts? What “specifics” did the Times reveal, and how have these “specifics” provide tactical advantages to the terrorists?
You claim that “innocent people aren’t being wiretapped”. Given that the Bush administration is known to ignore laws (witness the complete disregard for the requirements of FISA), why exactly should anyone accept that claim without evidence?
I am frankly puzzled why anyone would think that the various eavesdropping activities this administration has engaged in are somehow hermetically sealed off from one another.
Um, no. You’re still ignoring inconvenient realities.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:11 am
RealTeen
FISA Laws are unconstitutional… you know that right? Carter illegally ceded some of his powers as Commander in Chief to the judicial branch. Just thought I’d throw that in, because it throws FISA out the window.
May 19th, 2006 at 10:44 am
meatbrain
First: there is just one FISA statute. You know that, right?
Second: Cite the ruling to that effect. Your mere assertion is proof of nothing.
And: You still haven’t found the cojones to answer the questions about your earlier claims:
May 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am
RealTeen
Mainly because I don’t give a shit about your questions. Has nothing to do with balls, has to do with the fact that you gotta GIMME A DOLLAR. You still have no evidence backing YOUR post.
May 19th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
meatbrain
You’re still lying, Justin. The real reason you don’t answer is that you are afraid to discuss this, or just about anything else, seriously. You know that you don’t have the facts to back up your claims, and that you cannot answer my questions. “Don’t give a shit”, when used by you and your kind, is code for “I’m running away from the questions now”.
You have repeated this pattern over and over again:
What you are saying, in effect, is that you don’t give a shit about the facts. You don’t give a shit about examining why you believe what you believe. You don’t give a shit about digging deeper than the latest headlines on Fox News. Facts don’t matter to you. You’re perfectly happy to repeat the latest popular memes, and you really are not interested in thinking beyond the catchphrases.
The defining quality of the radical rightwing in this country is fear. You are simply one of many who do not have the nerve to take part in an adult, rational discussion of your views.
May 19th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
RealTeen
I have the facts. There are ZERO facts which say Bush wiretaps the innocent Americans, and until you provide them, you’re a conspiracy theorist. I don’t give a shit about your BS questions which change the topic. Defend your attack on the President with some facts.
May 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
meatbrain
And that’s a wholly empty claim, until you actually present the facts. That’s a problem for you, obviously.
You can answer the questions, or you can run away yet again. We both know which you course will choose.
Straw man, again. I’ve made no such claim.
You can’t support your own arguments, and you expect others to defend arguments they have not made.
May 20th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
kender
Meathead? I am not earning that dollar with every comment you ignore…..can it be that I have found the way to shut you is my wallet?