Please do, I'm getting a migraine from your denying your own point
I never denied my own point. If I denied anything, it was whatever nonsensical point you were trying so hard to ascribe to me.
That being there's this supposed "notion" that without the current program by the administration, that intel gathering couldn't be accomplished. Right?? Is that your point or the one I'm "ascribing to you" with? Because if it's the former, that IS what I've been referring to, since it's false premiced point. If it's the latter, then what "notion", besides what you've claimed would you be making?
Excuse me, but now you're trying to step back from your criticisms?? Now it's simply referencing vs not supporting the idea of how they should apply what they do in the criminal arena to the war arena?? If anything it explains the point I was making, and you apparently validating it by your stepping back
I'm not stepping back from anything. I'm saying the same thing now as I was before. Your attempts to confuse the issue with your inferences and by conflating 'referencing' with 'justifying' are not my doing nor my fault.
Definations are everything. When you "reference" law enforcment acts, performed for criminal activity, and questioning why they can't be used in the war on Terror, that's far more that some simple "reference" Prince. It's downright accusatory
You're criticizing me, but you're not even getting what I said correct. What happened was this, you were basically claiming, as did the article, that requiring warrants for surveillance was going to prevent intelligence from listening to overseas terrorists' electronic communications...
NOT prevent, but impede, make it more difficult, make it harder. YOU'RE the one claiming this all or nothing false premise of simply "preventing", as if nothing else will be accomplished unless we have this program. The ONLY ones making that claim are the critics of said programs, in an apparent attempt to refute the "notion", since I have yet to see this all or nothing claim by anyone that supports it, Plane included.
You said, and I quote, "And as has been referenced before, many of these phone calls happen in an instant, with absolutely no time to procure a warrant." If by "absolutely no time to procure a warrant" you did not mean that requiring a warrant prior to listening in would prevent the listening, then what did you mean?
In the GRAND SCHEME of intel gathering, which is what I thought this was all about, this program helps the overall gathering of said intel. Without it, or with restrictions placed on it, does NOT PREVENT intel gathering, imply impedes it, makes it more difficult, makes it harder. Capice'?
That's three instances right here in this thread. I now patiently await your furious denials.
As I keep noting, I don't see Plane referring that this is a do or die program, that without it we can't gather ANY info. That would be your "notion". I see where Plane consistently references the importance of the program, and its considered effectiveness at intel gathering. That without it, it makes our job much more difficult, but at no time am I seeing him making it an impossibility without the current program. Somehow, you can, though. Hmmmmmm
Asked and answered already. One is used in our criminal system, the other is being applied in a time of war. You can't conduct a war as if it's simply a criminal activity. Simple as that.
Asked, yes, but not answered, because that doesn't answer the question. You're making an excuse, not giving a reason. That we're at war is not reason why getting warrants to listen to overseas electronic communication is more difficult than getting warrants to listen to domestic electronic communication.
The "excuse is war. That were at war is absolutely a reason. One you may not like, but is a reason none the less. The undestanding is that you can not prosecute a war as if it's some crime, since much of it takes place outside our country, and outside the boudries of our Constitution, which applies to the U.S., and its citizenry within
