That's a little humorous coming from you AL. :)
The problem with security fences/walls is that they keep you in as well as them out. Freedom?
Not to steer away from the present topic but I often think about how all this effects the younger generation in Israel. It really must be hell in some ways.

:yep: :rotfl:
My freedom of movement is a limited by the threat of terrorist attacks - not by any fence. So what exactly is your point and aren't we veering off-topic?
My children, ranging in ages from 20 down to 7, are all fine, thank you, and better informed of realities than the children who were born 10+years earlier and thought that bringing the world's worst terrorists in from Tunis and giving them automatic weapons was a good idea.

That's not to say there aren't problems. There are 10's of thousands of traumatized Israelis who have been directly and indirectly affected by terrorist events over the last 2 decades, with temporary and permanent physical and psycological scars.

The NSA's job, like the military's, starts at the borders. The borders, outward. Whatever crosses the border, that's when they get to play. Because we have cities that are right on the border, historically, we've given the job over to some type of police department (Border Patrol). Even though their paychecks are from the Department of Tranportation, the Coast Guard is a member of the military (rather than police), and they do their job at the border.

The answer is to secure the damn borders, and stop giving H2 visas to every low-life that has the cash to "pay" for it from their Sugar Daddy. In that manner, the question of the NSA monitoring "domestic" traffic never becomes an issue.

The NSA was monitoring international calls. Not calls from Dallas to Miami, or Reno to Los Angeles. Calls from Miami to Havana, or Beruit. The NSA was standing their post at the border, keeping always on the alert, noticing everything that happens within sight or hearing. And that is their job. Change the laws if you don't want it to be their job any longer.

But I'll be frank, here. I'm tired of my liberties being revoked or otherwise limited, because the terrorists have sleeper cells in the country. I'm tired of the Patriot Act being used by Sony BMG and Universal Pictures to protect their business model, because the politicians can't refuse the campaign donations from the special interest lobbying groups.

Avon Lady, you can go on and on trying to object to anything that's being said without offering your own point of view except of "Oh, I think this, but if you look from another side, it's this"... Quote every single sentence (which is extremely annoying btw, since you bound to take things out of content) and prove some point you have, but I still don't understand if you think what Bush is doing is ok or not ok.
It is great though to see you have a sense of humour. Especially when you call me opinionated. You, one of THE most opinionated people here!! :rotfl:

Call me a consipiracy theorist, but so was Winston Churchill. He was right too. So I'm in good company. :up:

Not quite. Churchill was a true realist. And that is precisely the point.

Yeah yeah, nice try. :smug: You can only call him realist today with hindsight of what you know now.

Um, no. :nope: :-?

Dig it. We got rid of the extra U's and MEs at Yorktown along with the British.

For all those that keep on asking what might have been illegal; it gets posted time and again and rarely gets responded to.

Bush ordered the surveillance of American citizens without any court approval, no legislative approval (other than approval from a handful of people, several who seem to be taking the "Wiretaps?! I had no idea!" CYA route), and also there was no oversight to protect from abuse. The question is does he have the legal authority, whether as CinC during wartime or from something else.

Yes, I know it probably saved lives. I don't care whether he had the moral authority to order it, whether Clinton did it, but I do wonder whether or not it was within the law. Just an interesting question to me. :) Any takers? I'm undecided, personally.

PD

Very probably, and their security protocols are improved upon every time somebody exposes our methods and capabilities.

I would say that is certain!They must have watched some tv at least...It doesn't take a genious to think that comunications aren't secure.They don't call like "Hasan?It's me Omar.Do you think next Thursday is a good day for putting the bomb that i have kept in these months in the abbandoned garage at 24 Elm Street?".Even 50 years ago,you see in films that the allies were passing messages through the Red Cross announcements.Only the receiving part knew for what announcement to look for.It's no secret that Echelon alone,is programmed to intercept anything with specific keywords and that is known for years now.So you can expect them to use some form of code and use innocent means of comunication.

P.S:If Bush had hard proof that his abuse of power had indeed led to prevention of attack or arrest of terrorists,you can bet he would be running to call the journalists by now.Because:

-It would serve to soften his abuse saying "Ok,i did it,but look at this!".Instead,now they only defence is "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone".
-It would boost the US citizen morale showing finally tangible fruits of the antiterrorist efforts and that the various "patriot" acts have proven their use.
-It would have given huge political gains and prestige to Bush himself and give the Republicans a strong card to play in internal politics.

Good for you. :-?

No, thats the last thing a good leader would do because it tells the enemy how they were nabbed. It tells the enemy that whatever codes and other security procedures they are using have been compromised.

Take WW2 for example. Had the allies went public with Ultra it would have achieved similar objectives to those you mention, but that would also have rendered it useless for gaining subsequent intelligence.

And PS: The administration has mentioned several plots that have been foiled including one to blow up the Brooklyn bridge, so your analogy "Ok,i did it,but what if i had caught someone" is way off base..

Yep all thats left here is "US", get it? As in "U.S."?

Bwahahahaha! I crack me up!

What you say about not betraying their knowledge of the broken code makes sense,but there is something that i m not sure if it can be comparable to WWII.In WWII ,losing a battle or a sub,couldn't betray the fact the german code was broken.Because it's war,the enemy may make better manouvers or have a lucky encounter ,so you can't suspect your code is broken.In fact the Germans never did.When Rommel was stopped in North Africa ,also thanks to Enigma,it seemed a normal military manouver ,well made from the British side and indeed that could have been a logical explanation for the Germans.

In terrorism though,the situation is less prone to "luck".There are no "lucky" events in such a war,because the enemy is hidden and your goal is to prevent him from striking.Both finding him and preventing him from striking,means that you got there first by intelligence,not by luck or better "manouvering".So if a terrorist attack is prevented,this automatically rings the alarm bell to the terrorists that their cover isn't good enough and the enemy intelligence has managed to penetrate their comms,simply because there is no other way.I hope i was clear enough.

I didn't know about the Brooklyn Bridge btw,if he prevented it ,i would suppose they got arrested too,right?Because what's the use of letting free terrorists out once they know that they 've had their cover blown?