--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 8/21/06 8:54:14 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> Claiming  that requirement *hampers* the institution
> of a wiretap amounts to saying  NSA wants to be able
> to institute emergency wiretaps *without good  reason*.
> Does that make you feel secure that nobody's privacy
> is  going to be violated without good cause?
> Would you want President  Hillary Clinton to have
> that kind of leeway?
> No, not Hillary. However she destroyed her trustworthiness
> with the disappearance of about 500 FBI files on members of
> congress and others.

Well, that's another tall Republican tale I don't
have time to get into at the moment.  I'll try to
get back to it.

> That would be the only reason I would not trust her
> with the current NSA  program.

But even if it were *true*, what are you suggesting,
that you get to say which presidents are allowed to
do warrantless wiretapping and which are not, 
depending on whether you trust them?

How the *hell* can you trust Bush anyway?  Not long
ago, before the NSA story broke, he swore up and
down, unequivocally, that NSA didn't ever spy on
American citizens without a court order.

Warrantless wiretapping was going full blast at the
time, authorized by Bush himself.  He was lying
through his teeth.

And that's just one of many, many, many lies he has told.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to