So come on. Tell me what you think was Pilon’s strongest point …

Jesus Christ, Jay. Not once in this entire thread have you even bothered to make an actual argument for why this program is legal. You never cited any experts, you never linkedto any arguments, you haven’t even bothered to paraphrase Pilon in your own words. All you did was cite a poll, attack the democratic leadership and make general claims such as: “Thoughtful legal experts on both sides are taking a cautious approach, not coming to any conclusion as to whether or not this was legal or illegal.”

Really? The only person you’ve named — and finally linked to — is Pilon. And can I point out to you that the debate you linked to is about the NSA eavesdropping program and NOT the date mining program that Martin, and the rest of us expcepting you apparently, have been discussing. Here’s a summary of Pilon’s position on that program:

“The president not only has a right, but the duty to conduct the [National Security Agency] program,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. “Foreign affairs is an executive issue,” he added.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200605/NAT20060508a.html

That position has been eviscerated numerous times by numerous legal scholars and lawyers since the eavesdropping program was made public.

Give me a link to Roger Pilon’s carefully laid out argument that the President has the right to break the law. Because that’s all Pilon has been arguing since the get go of the NSA scandal, that Bush, as commander-in-chief is above the law when it comes to national security. Are you buying that based on Pilon’s argument or just because he said so?

The rest of your response is typical conservatoid bullshit.

If you ever decide to open it up and consider a viewpoint outside of your comfort zone (HATE BUSH!!), you can go here. But I doubt you will. Shit, you’ve already dismissed Pilon out of hand. You’re convinced he is wrong. After all, Kate Martin told you so.

No. The thing is, I haven’t come to a conclusion either way. I’ve read both sides of the issue. You’re the one who reached a conclusion and then looked for evidence to support it that conclusion and you found what you wanted. It’s evidence of a closed mind. You want a differing opinion? Go read what Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has to say about it (oh and before you resort to the fallacy of dismissing an argument based on the source, note that Pilon differs from several of his colleagues at Cato on the issue).

As to the Democratic leadership, if they aren t calling for the programs to end then they re as culpable as Bush in his illegal grab for executive power.

But if the Democrats take back power in the Congress, I am guessing you’ll be cheering from the rooftops when Nancy Pelosi is made Speaker of The House and when Harry Reid becomes Senate Majority Leader.

You want to tell me why the Republican leadership isn t calling for these illegal programs to end?

Maybe they don’t think they’re illegal.

You want to tell me why a Republican dominated Congress has refused to excercise its legitimate oversight role over Bush s abuse of executive power?

I have no idea. You keep trying to pin on me the label of some GOP apologist and it’s an exercise in futility. You assume because I am asking you to defend your position that I have the the totally opposite viewpoint.

Tell me Martin isn t a legitimate authority. Tell me that she s not qualified to make reliable claims on the issue.

God you re a fucking idiot.

Amazing how you call me a “fucking idiot” yet I call you on resorting to a logiccal fallacy in the face of this discussion and then you proudly resort to the same fallacy.

Here is the fallacy Frame. I am only going to write this once, so pay attention:

1. You make claim A (NSA spying program is illegal)
2. Kate Martin also makes claim A. Martin is an authority on the subject
3. Therefore, claim A must be true.

Your argument rests on the notion that because Kate Martin says the spying program is illegal, then it must be illegal, hence your appeal to authority in arguing your viewpoint. While offering up Martin as an authority is better than offering up Nancy Pelosi, it’s still a fallacy because authorities can be wrong. Therefore, referencing an authority does not automatically imply truth.

Oh and Bzzzt. Wrong again Jay my boy. If you read the post you will find that it it’s author is Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies:

“Kate Martin has been Director of the Center for National Security Studies since 1992, where she has litigated and written about national security and civil liberties issues, including government secrecy, intelligence, terrorism, and enemy combatant detentions. Ms. Martin has taught Strategic Intelligence and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law School and also served as general counsel to the National Security Archive, a research library located at George Washington University.”

Tell me Martin isn’t a legitimate authority. Tell me that she’s not qualified to make reliable claims on the issue.

God you’re a fucking idiot.

No, YOU’RE appealing to authority. YOU’RE saying, “So and so says it is illegal, therefore it must be illegal.” And I could care less what that person wrote because I’ve seen others write the opposite. The fact is, it has not been established that the program is illegal. If legal statutes were as plain as you make them out to be, we wouldn’t need lawyers and judges.

The NSA program is legal because the Democratic leadership hasn t demanded it be stopped?

Learn to read for content. I am not saying the program must be legal because idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren’t demanding the programs cease. The question I am asking is WHY? Why don’t they call for these programs to end if they are illegal?

And your links to those arguments are where? And I certainly like your conception of “thinking for oneself”: finding someone you agree with and then refusing to even read/consider any conflicting evidence. Nice Jay. You are a living example of the Right-Wing Monkey Paradigm I described above.

As to the Democratic leadership, if they aren’t calling for the programs to end then they’re as culpable as Bush in his illegal grab for executive power. You want to tell me why the Republican leadership isn’t calling for these illegal programs to end? You want to tell me why a Republican dominated Congress has refused to excercise its legitimate oversight role over Bush’s abuse of executive power? Where are the Republicans on this Jay?

Truly, you are a total jackass.

“Congress required the government to obtain a court order for pen registers and trap and trace devices, 18 USC 3121 et seq., and a court order or subpoena for records of past telephone calls …

If the NSA used a pen register or trap and trace device in real time, it was required to obtain an order from the FISA court, either under the specific pen register provisions, 50 USC 1841 et seq. or under the provisions for electronic surveillance generally, 50 USC 1801 et seq …

If the NSA obtained stored records, rather using a real time pen register, it would have to obtain an order from the FISA court under section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section contained an even lower standard for obtaining information …”

See those numbers in there Jay? Those refer to actual laws governing what the NSA can and cannot do. Read the post and try not being such a fucking idiot.

And talk about playing rhetorical games, Jay. The NSA program is legal because the Democratic leadership hasn’t demanded it be stopped? WTF kind of asinine reasoning is that? You may as well argue that Bush would never do anything illegal so anything Bush does is legal. Ya, makes sense. You’ll go far with that if you can find a kindergarten in need of a debate coach.

As for the Democrats, where is the leadership? Pelosi, Reid, Screamin Dean, etc.

I love it how you guys are so mushbrained stupid you rely on the left to do your most basic research for you. Here you go idiot:
http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-2835-guest-blogger-nsa-again-violates-the-law.html

The programs are a violation of a statute and which Democrats are you talking about, Jay?

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/03/2006313.html

You guys can’t answer a simple question. Try doing that instead of digging up articles by Ann Coulter.

“They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.”

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2005/11/24/176727.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts

Ya, okay:

“That’s why I say it is time to stop playing rhetorical games with respect to Kerry.

There is only one word in the English language that adequately describes what he was in 1971  and what he remains today for capitalizing on the evil he perpetrated back then. That word is “traitor.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41169