Secret Wire Tapping of U.S. Citizens...

[DeltAlum]

My opinion...

From the NY Times...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

I said in another thread that, unfortunately, I just don't trust President Bush.

In threads long ago, I worried about government spying on domestic groups who might have any kind of leanings against the war in Iraq. That happened during Vietnam, I said.

I worried then, and still do, about some powers of the Patriot Act that seem to me (certainly not a Constitutional Scholar) to be an infringement of our personal rights.

I think The President badly misuses the power of his office.

What will it take for everyone to see that?

Or does it take the hindsight of having seen it happen before?

[AGDee]

I find it frightening that he gets away with so much. People who speak up get "punished" (like the CIA agent who was exposed because her husband spoke up). We have to get through 3 more years. I wonder how much more will change before that happens?

[Optimist Prime]

we re-tain the right to alter or abolish his gov't. So says The Declration of Independence

[Rudey]

Here are some parts you left out of that article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5094&en=c7596fe0d4798785&hp=&ex=1134795600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said.

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States. Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say.

Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary:
1) Congressional leaders of both parties knew and approved of this.
2) At least 2 terrorist plots were foiled by this.
3) The program was stopped last year
4) There would be minimal difference in results from a warrantless tap and a warranted tap given that the courts almost always approve the warrants, and usually warrants are obtained eventually.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AGDee
I find it frightening that he gets away with so much. People who speak up get "punished" (like the CIA agent who was exposed because her husband spoke up). We have to get through 3 more years. I wonder how much more will change before that happens?

Both parties were aware and nobody spokeup.

The CIA case is being investigated and has little resemblance.

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
My opinion...

From the NY Times...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - "Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

I said in another thread that, unfortunately, I just don't trust President Bush.

In threads long ago, I worried about government spying on domestic groups who might have any kind of leanings against the war in Iraq. That happened during Vietnam, I said.

I worried then, and still do, about some powers of the Patriot Act that seem to me (certainly not a Constitutional Scholar) to be an infringement of our personal rights.

I think The President badly misuses the power of his office.

What will it take for everyone to see that?

Or does it take the hindsight of having seen it happen before?

Since it's been reported in the story that leaders of both parties were aware of the plan before it was implemented, do you feel the same way about the Democratic leaders who agreed to this?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSigkid
...do you feel the same way about the Democratic leaders who agreed to this?
Absolutely.

The difference in my mind is that he had the final yes/no decision.

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.

Since I've been voting, starting when 18 year olds were allowed to vote in 1968, my guess is that I've voted for a nearly equal number of members of each party. (in the early years, most of them lost -- of which I was very proud)

Sorry, but this isn't a GOP vs. Dems thing with me. I just see too many things in President Bush that I have strongly disliked in other politicians in the past.

Again, this is my opinion. You certainly don't have to agree.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Absolutely.

The difference in my mind is that he had the final yes/no decision.

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.

Since I've been voting, starting when 18 year olds were allowed to vote in 1968, my guess is that I've voted for a nearly equal number of members of each party. (in the early years, most of them lost -- of which I was very proud)

Sorry, but this isn't a GOP vs. Dems thing with me. I just see too many things in President Bush that I have strongly disliked in other politicians in the past.

Again, this is my opinion. You certainly don't have to agree.

The thing is that this country isn't run by one person. Others have a voice. The idea of "The buck stops here" is great, but it doesn't reqlinquish other parts of our balanced government of responsibilities and credit. You didn't mention those other congressmen and didn't even include the quote.

And I have to ask this. Knowing it stopped 2 terrorist plots in the 2 years it existed, do you wish it had never existed?

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Absolutely.

The difference in my mind is that he had the final yes/no decision.

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.

Since I've been voting, starting when 18 year olds were allowed to vote in 1968, my guess is that I've voted for a nearly equal number of members of each party. (in the early years, most of them lost -- of which I was very proud)

Sorry, but this isn't a GOP vs. Dems thing with me. I just see too many things in President Bush that I have strongly disliked in other politicians in the past.

Again, this is my opinion. You certainly don't have to agree.

Fair enough - and obviously you're entitled to your opinion.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
And I have to ask this. Knowing it stopped 2 terrorist plots in the 2 years it existed, do you wish it had never existed?
That's a real hard question to answer -- even to myself.

There have been a number of times during the course of our history where difficult decisions have had to be made as to what is more important -- this kind of decision or the Constitution.

I will say this. 20/20 hindsight leads me to believe that this is possibly the tip of some iceberg -- that misuse of power begats broader misuse of power. (see Nixon, Richard M.)

Again, unfortunately, his attitude leads me to mistrust.

Clearly, it's good if terrorist plots are foiled, but if it leads to serious intrusions on our rights and liberties it's a very difficult ballance. I've seen it go unballanced, and it was bad.

[Xylochick216]

I've been against the Patriot Act since it was put into place by both parties. Too much "Big Brother is Watching" for my tastes. There have to be better ways out there to unfoil terrorism plots. I don't know what that better way is, but I think it's scary that people can track me at my local library or on my computer and use it against me when I've done absolutely nothing wrong. This is just an abuse of power, and this information could definitely fall into the wrong hands. Just think, terrorists could hack the system to cover themselves and find out information about people they have an interest in...

[James]

The idea in this country is rapidly becoming:

If you aren't doing anything wrong why would you care if we are monitoring you?

Lets say we launch a new government program to start putting passive visual surveillance in everyone's home, in every room. Its a secret program so you won't know.

The film from the cameras will never be looked at unless your name is flagged as a possible law breaker, or else some action occurs inside the house that satisfies the algorithm that is looking for questionable activities.

In that case the tapes will be reviewd by experts, and if nothing is determined to be in violation of the law, you won't know the tapes were reviewed, and no footage of the tapes will fgo further than the reviewers.

If you are doing nothing wrong, why would you have problem with that kind of monitoring?

Wouldn't the safety of everyone, especially our children, override any basic desire for a privacy that will only actively be violated if people have questions about you?

[DeltAlum]

From MSNBC...

"The US Senate on Friday blocked a final vote on renewal of the Patriot Act as senators reacted harshly to reports that President George W. Bush had authorised secret domestic surveillance of US citizens by US foreign intelligence agencies."

Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

From the above link:

"But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

NBC report on Pentagon database:

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after the report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel."

DA comment -- this sounds very much like what caused the furror after it was discovered that the FBI was infiltrating such rabid anti-war groups as the Boy Scouts of America years ago. The underlining is mine.

This may be part of that iceberg I was talking about a few posts above.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
From MSNBC...

"The US Senate on Friday blocked a final vote on renewal of the Patriot Act as senators reacted harshly to reports that President George W. Bush had authorised secret domestic surveillance of US citizens by US foreign intelligence agencies."

Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

From the above link:

"But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

NBC report on Pentagon database
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after the report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel."

DA comment -- this sounds very much like what caused the furror after it was discovered that the FBI was infiltrating such rabid anti-war groups as the Boy Scouts of America years ago. The underlining is mine.

The database has nothing to do with the Times story. That was a separate (very disturbing) problem.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Man, you're fast. I wasn't even finished editing the post before you responded.

You are correct, the post lists that part as being from an NBC report.

So, my thoughts haven't really changed.

This is Deja Vu all over again for me as they say.

The administrations appears to me to be circling the wagons.

Who knows how much the leaders of the Senate were really told post-9/11 about this?

In my opinion, this is an abuse of power by an administration that is masterful at that abuse and rationalization thereof.

If you don't think so, then we simply disagree.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Man, you're fast. I wasn't even finished editing the post before you responded.

You are correct, the post lists that part as being from an NBC report.

So, my thoughts haven't really changed.

This is Deja Vu all over again for me as they say.

The administrations appears to me to be circling the wagons.

Who knows how much the leaders of the Senate were really told post-9/11 about this?

In my opinion, this is an abuse of power by an administration that is masterful at that abuse and rationalization thereof.

If you don't think so, then we simply disagree.

I think that congressmen knew just as it stated in the Times report. I think that there is a system of checks and balances that allows for the proper legislation to go through. So yes, it does bother me but I don't think it's one person like you do.

The other aspect is that I worked with a couple former CIA guys who told me that no matter what, the NSA acts as a large global information vacuum. Whether or not we know it, I would think that all the emails and phone calls ever made have been sucked into that vacuum. They probably concentrate on certain emails and calls after leads come up. This coupled with the fact that it's not hard to get warrants for wire taps in the intelligence courts since 9/11 means there are 2 different problems. I may not like it, but I don't think it's possible to change it.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
I think that congressmen knew just as it stated in the Times report. I think that there is a system of checks and balances that allows for the proper legislation to go through. So yes, it does bother me but I don't think it's one person like you do.
I understand your thought process, but I'm going to copy the following from your post above. The second paragraph may be telling:

"After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls."

So, the White House called in the legislators, but did they tell them everthing?

And, of course this is bigger than one man -- but he's the one with the final go/no go power in this case.

There was more than one man involved in Watergate, and several went to jail.

But only one was nearly impeached and resigned from the Presidency.

[kstar]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
And, of course this is bigger than one man -- but he's the one with the final go/no go power in this case.

There was more than one man involved in Watergate, and several went to jail.

But only one was impeached.

Actually, Nixon resigned before they could impeach him. The only presidents to be impeached were Jackson and Clinton.

However, back to the subject, I believe a quote from Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by kstar
Actually, Nixon resigned before they could impeach him. The only presidents to be impeached were Jackson and Clinton.
You may be right. I thought he was impeached, but not convicted because he resigned, but it's been a while ago and my memory may be fuzzy. It may be that I'm confusing the Senate Watergate hearings with impeachment proceedings. In retrospect, that is probably right. I have amended my post.

Thanks.

For those who may not know, the point here is that impeachment does not mean removal from office, but rather the bringing of charges which are "tried" by the Senate. If the elected officer is convicted, he or she may then be removed.

With due respect to Mr. Franklin, to me it is a matter of how "a little liberty" is defined.

(ETA, and totally off topic, was it Jackson or Johnson, Lincoln's replacement, who was impeached? Damn, you forget so much. Didn't Jackson die in office? Or am I confused.)

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I understand your thought process, but I'm going to copy the following from your post above. The second paragraph may be telling:

"After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls."

So, the White House called in the legislators, but did they tell them everthing?

And, of course this is bigger than one man -- but he's the one with the final go/no go power in this case.

There was more than one man involved in Watergate, and several went to jail.

But only one was nearly impeached and resigned from the Presidency.

They didn't return calls. I am guessing they knew quite a bit.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
They didn't return calls. I am guessing they knew quite a bit.

Could be.

Or they feel stupid because they didn't ask the right questions and were hoodwinked.

Quite a bit is relative. Quite a bit of a lot might not be that much. Quite a bit of a little may be most of it. How's that for convoluted?

You may quote it if you like.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Could be.

Or they feel stupid because they didn't ask the right questions and were hoodwinked.

Quite a bit is relative. Quite a bit of a lot might not be that much. Quite a bit of a little may be most of it. How's that for convoluted?

You may quote it if you like.

I know you have a general bias against blogs, but this is pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/blogs-program.html

The general consensus on all sides seems to include anger about why the Times waited a year.

This sorta made me think about certain other things too:

This is a sick joke...
Submitted by Al on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 1:51pm.

First, I don't and wouldn't like being spied on and I'm weary of government spying, but this was hardly a secret. A few points:

1) They withheld it for a year because it's for the writer's new book! I didn't see this fact disclosed in the story. I saw that the book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke signed him to the publisher.

2) Then, the whole headline and tone is ridiculous. The article makes you think this was secret. Members of Congress knew about it. If Rockefeller knew about it, you can bet a lot of other Democrats knew about it.

"The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.”

“Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees.”

3) More quotes…

”After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law.”

“But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds ‘to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements’ protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, ‘is a very difficult one to administer.’
You’d think that this information should be near the top of the piece to help readers judge the merits of a program.

4) This is just a hit piece. Isn't it funny how it came out on a Friday, while the Patriot Act is being discussed and in time for dominating the Sunday news shows???? Dan is surprised; the people who watch the MSM operate aren't. I understand Dick Turbin used this hit piece in the Senate today. And you wonder why people think the New York Times and much of the rest of the MSM is in cahoots with the Democrats. The NYT should have come out with this a long time ago and in a way to foster debate on the subject.

5) Now, who leaked this? Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald should be given the additional task of tracking down who leaked this? Also, isn’t it funny how the author doesn’t seem to have any curiosity on who knew about this? Sure, the Administration knew, but who else? Again, this is just a hit piece on Bush. Thank you, Dan, for sticking to the template.

As I said, I don't like government spying, but if someone is calling Al Qaeda in southern Afghanistan, then maybe it's okay. As we all know, these terrorists are bent on blowing us up and crippling the economy. The Democrats have got themselves in a position where they a) offer no ideas on how to protect us, b) are against a war that is going well and c) attacking just about everything that we do. Look at this. Basically, the Democrats are proud that they don't have any solidarity on the war. These people are sickos.

We should be celebrating the historic election in Iraq. You know the other Arab peoples' who have never really voted are watching what is happening very closely. Even the recently oppressed people of Europe are watching. We’re at a very important point in Iraq (haven’t we always been at one?) and we should be doing everything humanly possible to help these people. With our help, the Iraqi’s are progressing nicely. All we get are defeatists and a phony piece from the New York Times.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by kstar
However, back to the subject, I believe a quote from Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Somerset Maugham summed it up better:

"She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit."

I'm not sure that Franklin's statements from over 200 years ago should be considered factual or even applicable to current times . . . not that I even disagree, I'm just saying.

[Tom Earp]

First, Impeachment is not throwing them out of Office. It is a tool trying to show just cause. This is the way for the Legislative Branch to show disdain for The Sitting President.:(

Nixon did Resign and The Chinese Loved Him!:rolleyes:

Now, there is a Super Computor that is Keyed into Certain Hit words or phrases that will Red Flag and check to see who made the comment whether it be Computor or Phone, it is monitered. They/You will be monitered to make sure You are Not One Of Those Bad People!

Is this right to do under The Risk Management Laws of the USA?:mad:

FBI, CIA, NSA, and who ever else that We have no damn clue about are becoming more and more Big Brother!

Sublimial Messages on TV? Tell Me that isnt true!

Advertisers were doing this and The Federal Govt stepped in and said A Fowl/Foul or stinky chicken!:rolleyes: Cease and Deceast now!

Shits and Grins isnt it?:confused:

[RACooper]

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin.... I think he makes a very good point; in that you can't sacrifice your principles to perserve or save them.

[kstar]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
(ETA, and totally off topic, was it Jackson or Johnson, Lincoln's replacement, who was impeached? Damn, you forget so much. Didn't Jackson die in office? Or am I confused.)

Johnson and Clinton.

Haven't a clue why I typed Jackson. The nation tended to love Jackson, maybe as part of the "Hero of New Orleans."

Back to the subject, I don't think the age of a quote alone should determine its relevancy. I think that this quote sums it up perrfectly.

That said, I ordered a "disapearing Bill of Rights mug." It's awesome, you fill it up with hot water and your civil liberties disapear. Just like in real life, the US is in a bit of hot water, and we lose rights.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
Johnson and Clinton.

Haven't a clue why I typed Jackson. The nation tended to love Jackson, maybe as part of the "Hero of New Orleans."

Back to the subject, I don't think the age of a quote alone should determine its relevancy. I think that this quote sums it up perrfectly.

That said, I ordered a "disapearing Bill of Rights mug." It's awesome, you fill it up with hot water and your civil liberties disapear. Just like in real life, the US is in a bit of hot water, and we lose rights.

Those of us who live in remote Oklahoma would consider it "a bit". This is you.

Those of us who live in metropolitan cities that are hubs in all regards for this country, consider it "a lot". This is me.

The people loved Jackson not just because of his "Hero of New Orleans" background but because he was a man of the people. There are anecdotal stories of how he brought "lower class" people into the white house and destroyed the furniture. The people rewarded Jackson for the fact that he brought wholesale slaughter to thousands. He decimated Indian populations (Creek and Seminole), stole land without government approval (Creek and Cherokee), and murdered free blacks (Florida) and then enslaved the remaining blacks. The Trail of Tears (Cherokee) was Jackson's doing. So for that the American people rewarded him. Congress didn't; they censured him and it led to the elimination of certain radicals that would later allow Grant to win over Wade. The censure was almost as bad as impeachment. The hero lost a lot of popularity in New Orleans after he jailed some people under martial law. Johnson had doubts about reconstruction which went against pro-reconstructionist congress. But the doubts weren't the reason; Johnson decided to sack certain people like the secretary of war (tenure of office-later found to be unconstitutional after repeal) and increase the power of the President at the expense of Congress.

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

Doesnt it first start with Subversive Groups and then lead to a larger Population such as You and Me?:(

[AnchorAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Those of us who live in remote Oklahoma would consider it "a bit". This is you.

Those of us who live in metropolitan cities that are hubs in all regards for this country, consider it "a lot". This is me.

The people loved Jackson not just because of his "Hero of New Orleans" background but because he was a man of the people. There are anecdotal stories of how he brought "lower class" people into the white house and destroyed the furniture. The people rewarded Jackson for the fact that he brought wholesale slaughter to thousands. He decimated Indian populations (Creek and Seminole), stole land without government approval (Creek and Cherokee), and murdered free blacks (Florida) and then enslaved the remaining blacks. The Trail of Tears (Cherokee) was Jackson's doing. So for that the American people rewarded him. Congress didn't; they censured him and it led to the elimination of certain radicals that would later allow Grant to win over Wade. The censure was almost as bad as impeachment. The hero lost a lot of popularity in New Orleans after he jailed some people under martial law. Johnson had doubts about reconstruction which went against pro-reconstructionist congress. But the doubts weren't the reason; Johnson decided to sack certain people like the secretary of war (tenure of office-later found to be unconstitutional after repeal) and increase the power of the President at the expense of Congress.

-Rudey

You're correct about Jackson. He was a bigot, pure and simple, and his antics would have driven him from office in our time, assuming he'd have had the temerity to even run. We've had political figures whose careers have been ruined for plagiarism in recent years, and I can only imagine what someone with Jackson's beliefs would suffer today.
On the other hand, we do have Harry Byrd...:confused:

[DeltAlum]

Being of Cherokee Ancestry, I'm not much of a Jackson fan, but in the early years of our country, military leaders were held on pedestals.

[Rudey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/opinion/17giuliani.html?hp

Taking Liberties With the Nation's Security

By RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI
Published: December 17, 2005
YESTERDAY the Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, as a Democratic-led filibuster prevented a vote. This action - which leaves the act, key elements of which are due to expire on Dec. 31, in limbo - represents a grave potential threat to the nation's security. I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties. They willingly kill themselves in their effort to bring death and suffering to as many innocents as they can, here in this country or anywhere in the world where freedom has a foothold.

In October 2001, after six weeks of intense scrutiny and debate, Congress passed the Patriot Act overwhelmingly (98 to 1 in the Senate and 356 to 66 in the House). We had already received clear signals about our enemies' intentions, in the first attacks against the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the Navy destroyer Cole two years after that. Despite the abundance of warning signs, it took Sept. 11 to wake us to the dangers we face.

The central provisions of the Patriot Act allow law enforcement and the intelligence community to share information. This might seem elementary, but for years law enforcement had been stymied by a legal wall that prevented agencies from sharing information. For four years now, inter-agency collaboration, made possible by the Patriot Act, has played an important role in preventing another day like Sept. 11. The act's provisions helped make possible the investigations in Lackawanna, N.Y., and Portland, Ore., in which 12 people were ultimately convicted for attempts to aid Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

So what happened in Washington? The House voted on Wednesday to renew the act; it stalled in the Senate. If the Senate fails to approve the extension, the government will be forced to revert in many ways to our pre-Sept. 11 methods. Sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire on Dec. 31, including the key information-sharing ones.

It is simply false to claim, as some of its critics do, that this bill does not respond to concerns about civil liberties. The four-year extension of the Patriot Act, as passed by the House, would not only reauthorize the expiring provisions - allowing our Joint Terrorism Task Force, National Counterterrorism Center and Terrorist Screening Center to continue their work uninterrupted - it would also make a number of common-sense clarifications and add dozens of additional civil liberties safeguards.

Concerns have been raised about the so-called library records provision; the bill adds safeguards. The same is true for roving wiretaps, "sneak and peek" searches and access to counsel and courts, as well as many others concerns raised by groups like the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Given these improvements, there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism. Perhaps a reminder is in order. The bipartisan 9/11 commission described a vivid example of how the old ways hurt us. In the summer of 2001, an F.B.I. agent investigating two individuals we now know were hijackers on Sept. 11 asked to share information with another team of agents. This request was refused because of the wall. The agent's response was tragically prescient: "Someday, someone will die - and wall or not - the public will not understand why we were not more effective."

How quickly we forget.

Rudolph W. Giuliani was mayor of New York from 1994 through2001.

[Rudey]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-Bush.html?hp&ex=1134882000&en=719655d6f644e5fd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used ''consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.'' He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have ''a clear link'' to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated.

The president contended the program has helped ''detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad,'' but did not provide specific examples.

He said it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaida operatives overseas.

''The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9-11 hijackers will be identified and located in time,'' he said.

''As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have,'' he said. ''The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.''

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Being of Cherokee Ancestry, I'm not much of a Jackson fan, but in the early years of our country, military leaders were held on pedestals.

Military leaders will always be held on a pedestal.

-Rudey
--Aside from Bush Jr. and Clinton.

[hoosier]

Dog Debate
You've gotta love this!!!!

G. W. Bush and Osama bin Laden decided to settle the war once and for all.
They sat down and decided to settle the whole worldwide dispute with one
dog fight. They would each have 5 years to breed the best fighting dog in the
world and whichever side's dog won would be entitled to dominate the world.

Osama found the biggest, meanest Doberman and Rottweiler female dogs in
the world and bred them with the meanest Siberian wolves. They selected
only the biggest and strongest puppy from the litter, and removed his
siblings, which gave him all the milk. After 5 years, they came up with
the biggest, meanest dog the world had ever seen. Its cage needed steel
bars that were 5 " thick and nobody could get near it.

When the day came for the dog fight, Bush showed up with a strange-
looking animal. It was a 9 foot long Dachshund. Everyone felt sorry for
Bush because there was no way that this dog could possibly last 10
seconds with the Afghanistani dog.

When the cages were opened up, the Dachshund came out of its cage, and
slowly waddled over towards Osama's dog. Osama's dog snarled and leaped
out of its cage and charged the American Dachshund --- but when it got
close enough to bite, the Dachshund opened its mouth and consumed
Osama's dog in one bite.
There was nothing left of his dog at all.

Osama came up to Bush, shaking his head in disbelief, "We don't
understand how this could have happened. We had our best people working
for 5 years with the meanest Doberman and Rottweiler female dogs in the
world and the biggest, meanest Siberian wolves."

"That's nothing," said Bush.

"We had Michael Jackson's plastic surgeons working for 5 years to make
that alligator look like a wiener dog."

[AnchorAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
Military leaders will always be held on a pedestal.

-Rudey
--Aside from Bush Jr. and Clinton.

Hmm. If so, would you agree that General Custer's stay was on a temporary dais, rather than a real pedestal...?!
Chivington?
And as a Southerner here, I must oh so graciously disagree, Rudey - Sherman?

Oh, to explore a nice bottle of wine on a rainy Saturday evening...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AnchorAlum
Hmm. If so, would you agree that General Custer's stay was on a temporary dais, rather than a real pedestal...?!
Chivington?
And as a Southerner here, I must oh so graciously disagree, Rudey - Sherman?

Oh, to explore a nice bottle of wine on a rainy Saturday evening...

Custer: At what point? After him and four members of his family died or before?

Chivington: He was not a soldier. Chivington was a disgusting lunatic and a war criminal. He used race baiting to get ahead in politics. He didn't just massacre the Cheyenne (who were unarmed - including women and children), he and his soldiers took body parts as souveniers. They cut off the genitals of children, fingers, and everything they could get their hands on. He couldn't be court martialed but he lost all respect and never could run for office. If Americans were to love Chivington, then they would have to start loving Hitler.

Sherman: I'm sure Southerns dislike Sherman because he was one of the main reasons the confederacy lost the "War of Northern Agression" (Civil War). Atlanta burned and so did everything else during the march to the sea. But that's the way wars are fought - you make the civilian population and their economy suffer. Sherman never took pleasure in it though - War is hell. So the South doesn't put him on a pedestal, so what? The North won the war because of him and he is now legend. Johnston surrendered to Sherman and he was also at Sherman's funeral (doesn't sound like the southern general hated him). The Republicans wanted Sherman to run for president but he refused. I can't remember why. Sounds pretty popular to me.

And these days, Iraq war veterans are running for office and getting impressive results. One ran in heavily Republican Ohio and got around 45% of the vote. There is a woman who served on a helicopter in the war and lost both legs and she is about to run in Illinois for the house. On the other side of the coin are those that didn't serve in the military and how the public saw them. Bush and Clinton suffered for it. They made Kerry suffer for it (as illegitimate as that was).

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by kstar
Back to the subject, I don't think the age of a quote alone should determine its relevancy. I think that this quote sums it up perrfectly.


Oh do you? That's fantastic!

Perhaps then you should provide some reasoning or rationale, rather than spouting off the quotation as quasi-factual?

[Betarulz!]

What bothers me the most, is that this is just another symptom of the overall pathology of this administration (yes, I'm in med school, this is how I am beginning to see things in every day life constantly...). It's not just about the warrants or the Patriot Act extension.

There is an arrogance that so permeates this administration that it almost seems like they do shit like this just to see if they'll get caught. As Rudey said earlier, the warrants almost always get approved and warrants are usually obtained eventually. Well if that's the case, then why not just go get them to begin with!?!

If the people under surveilance are known or suspected members of Al Queda, then that seems like probable cause enough to justify a warrant. Then you get the warrant, and you don't have to worry about these repurcusions. I just can't believe that something happens in a wire tap case with a terrorist so quickly that getting a warrant impedes our ability to stop the threat. I mean seriously, the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches? Doesn't sound like one of those things you think up on a Tuesday afternoon and are doing on wednesday morning.

[Betarulz!]

Oh, and also I think the appropriate quote for this situation is:

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission." ~Grace Hopper

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Betarulz!
Oh, and also I think the appropriate quote for this situation is:

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission." ~Grace Hopper

But what do they have to gain if the results are the same?

Bad publicity?

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

Maybe Tromping on more and more Civil Libertys!

Once something like this is accepted, it will be spread more and more.

As each thing is accepted, then, it is onward to some other thing.

Pretty soon, there will be a Dictator State as Laws are set aside to accomadate more of the leaders who say it is for Mine and Yours Good!

[DeltAlum]

Amount of information mined from wiretaping not OK'd by court much deeper than White House had admitted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?th&emc=th&oref=login

[hoosier]

Just another attack by the Bush haters and their media allies.

IF/when another 9/11 type event happens, the investigating committee afterwards would find:

1 - Bush and Karl Rove had the technology to intercept calls from Bin Laden to his US team

2 - Bush and Rove ignored US law and court decisions allowing them to use this technology

3 - The bombers who toppled the Sears Tower in Chicago could have been stopped easily, if the technology had been used.

NY Times headline: Bush negligent; didn't use easily available info


To summarize: Bush is the Commander in Chief - he has to use all available means to protect us, and to defeat bad guys.

The Dems are the opposition politically. If they think the only way they can regain power is to help Bin Laden succeed, the voters will again tell them "No".

[Tom Earp]

Didnt know The Sears Tower was gone?:) :D

Isnt this what Hitler did without the Technology We have today?:rolleyes:

Isnt G W doing things withour the approval of the Legislature as it is Legal?

of Course, Our Duly Elected Legislatures have their own damn agenda and it isnt for the Betterment of The Citizenery! These Plicks have their own worrys, how to get more $$ in pocket.

It always amazed Me that some Legislatures did not Vote for Their Pay Raises and touted that point. Funny, when they abstained, it was a No Vote, but they still got it as a Pussy Way OUT and Some People Beleived them! Shame on Us as Voters to beleive this Crap!:rolleyes:


Watch Out For Sam Brownback of Kansas, I will not Vote for Him!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
To summarize: Bush is the Commander in Chief - he has to use all available means to protect us, and to defeat bad guys.
Even if it's illegal? I don't think so. The courts may end up deciding this one. Or Congress.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Even if it's illegal? I don't think so. The courts may end up deciding this one. Or Congress.

If the courts are deciding this then it hasn't been determined to be illegal yet.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
If the courts are deciding this then it hasn't been determined to be illegal yet.
Doesn't mean it isn't either.

Then there's Congress, where even some Republicans are backing away.

We'll see.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Doesn't mean it isn't either.

Then there's Congress, where even some Republicans are backing away.

We'll see.

All the "Hoo hah" from congress means nothing.

All the "Hoo hah" from the White House in 2004 also meant nothing.

What do they have in common? A bunch of people running for re-election.

Also from AP:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday supported government eavesdropping to prevent terrorism, but said a major controversy over presidential powers could have been avoided by obtaining court warrants.

Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President George W. Bush authorized a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance operation after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Powell said he sees "absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions" to protect the nation.

The New York Times reported on its Internet site Friday that the NSA has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States. The program bypassed the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Powell said Congress will need to judge whether Bush is correct in his assertion that he could approve eavesdropping without first obtaining court orders.

Powell, who also is a former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, had no reservations when asked whether eavesdropping should continue.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Powell is a former Army officer.

Is he also a Constitutional scholar?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Powell is a former Army officer.

Is he also a Constitutional scholar?

Constitutional scholars didn't stop 9/11.

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

No they didnt, but is this still the right to take away Constitunional Privileges of Citizens?

Wait till there are people walking down Your Street wanting to know what Your Thinkings art and do You have Weapons?


Do You really think that The US Govt. is really going to stop Terriosts?

Hell someone said they monitored Osams CP, so He quit using it to transmit information!

So much for secret shit! DAH!

US Govt. has more leaks than a seive!

Do You really think Our Govt. is on the side of Us the Private Citizens?

[DeltAlum]

I read this morning that the reason for most of this domestic surveilance is so "W" can find out in advance who will be the next American Idol.

Hey, I read it on the web, so it must be true.

[Tom Earp]

You are actually Correct and do not ever forget it!:D

Kinky is as Kinky Does!:)

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I read this morning that the reason for most of this domestic surveilance is so "W" can find out in advance who will be the next American Idol.

Hey, I read it on the web, so it must be true.

I heard it was the fault of FoxNews. They're responsible for everything bad in this country.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSigkid
I heard it was the fault of FoxNews. They're responsible for everything bad in this country.
American Idol is on the FOX Network (the entertainment one, but still...)

Think about it.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
American Idol is on the FOX Network (the entertainment one, but still...)

Think about it.

I'm visiting the trophy store today to buy you an award for the corniest joke on Greekchat.com.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
I'm visiting the trophy store today to buy you an award for the corniest joke on Greekchat.com.
Just don't send it "postage due" like the last time...

[hoosier]

Cock-a-Doodle-Doo
The chickens are coming home to roost on West 43rd Street, Reuters reports from Washington:

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating who disclosed a secret domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," an official said on condition of anonymity.

Earlier this month, Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times "a shameful act." He said he presumed the Justice Department would investigate who leaked the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation to the newspaper.

The Times, as we noted in February, has of late been a strong proponent of such investigations. When Joe Wilson charged that someone in the administration had "leaked" the name of his wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame, who he falsely implied was a covert agent, the Times urged the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate what it called an "abuse of power."

The Times got its wish, and more than it bargained for. The paper somehow expected prosecutors not to compel testimony from the recipients of the "leak," the beneficiaries of the purported "abuse of power"--that is, journalists. But it's hard to see how you can investigate a crime (or, in the case of the Plame kerfuffle, a "crime") that consists of giving information to journalists, without questioning journalists.

One of the Times' own reporters, Judith Miller, went to jail rather than reveal her source. No, scratch that. She went to jail, spent three months there, then revealed her source. As Mickey Kaus noted in October:

The message sent to every prosecutor in the country is "Don't believe journalists who say they will never testify. A bit of hard time and they just might find a reason to change their minds. Judy Miller did."

If we were James Risen or Erich Lichtblau, who broke the NSA story for the Times, we'd be nervous.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

[Rudey]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The National Security Agency acted on its own authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to declassified documents released Tuesday.

Those who knew at that time were: Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia.

DeltAlum, are you angry at them?

I still don't see how this is different from past NSA activities. Their Echelon program was designed to collect all communications info so I don't understand how they got around the warrants issue. It was this reliance on technology that many blame Tenet, Clinton, Bush and the CIA for overlooking all the clues for 9/11.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
DeltAlum, are you angry at them?
You bet!

[DeltAlum]

There is concern now that some CNN folks, including Christiane Amanpour, have had their conversations listened to. (Important to point out that this is speculation at this point)

The NSA says no.

If history really does repeat itself (Vietnam/Watergate/Civil Rights eras), someday we will find out the real answer is yes.

[hoosier]

Ole AC sums this up pretty good:

"The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia."

[RACooper]

Ah yes the wonderful '1984' sentiment of: "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".

So, what proof of this citizen's involvement with a threat to US security is there? Does the NSA have to submit to evidence or proof in advance, or after the fact? Or does this fall under the: "We can't tell you for reasons of national security"?

What would be my main concern (if I was a US citizen) is that such a broad definition of "national threat" is used - and there doesn't seem to be any credible oversight of the security monitoring (wire taps, emails and such). The thing is even in the past, ie. WWII, there had to be judical oversight of the spying or monitoring of US citizens - either by a civilian judge or a military judge... the US was in a full blown world-wide war, and yet they were still able to follow due process... why not now?

Now please keep in mind that I'm from a country where half of what has allegedly been done is perfectly legal, and has been happening ever single day for the last 70 years... the monitoring of any international phone or electronic communications entering Canada - even then all cases have to be undergo judical review. However the spying on a citizen without full authorization, and review, by judicial authourities is strictly prohibitted.


Final thought - wasn't is BuSh himself that said that they are fighting the "enemies of freedom", people who hate the US for it's high values and rights? If so why sacrifice these freedoms and rights - doesn't that accomplish exactly what Bush said he is fighting against?

[hoosier]

Pretty simply:

1 - we're at war (most of today's Dem critics voted to go to war)

2 - Bush is the commander in chief, directing the war

3 - we've already lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11

4 - if somebody in the US is communicating with the leaders of the 9/11 attackers, I'm glad Bush is listening in and taking action to keep us safe.
If he needs more listeners, and asks for volunteers, he wouldn't be disappointed.

5 - every war brings some limits on rights, as a lot of Japanese-heritage people in WWII learned during their days in internment camps out in the desert.

6 - the FISA court, supposedly set up to monitor intelligence efforts, has jumped the track. Prior to 9/11 for 20 years, the FISA court did not modify or reject a single warrant request. In 2003/04, the court did "substantive modifications" to 173 requests for warrants, and rejected six outright. Now FISA court judges are granting anonymous interviews to the NYTimes and WashPost involving themselves in upcoming events/requests/briefings.

7 - as long as Bush is president, I'm confident we will not sit around waiting for the next terrorist attack.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
Pretty simply:

1 - we're at war (most of today's Dem critics voted to go to war)

The US has been at war in the past, and yet at least made an effort to respect the rule of law and judical procedures then... why not now?


2 - Bush is the commander in chief, directing the war


Gee I never knew that that infalibility was a trait confered upon the Commander in Chief during his swearing in :rolleyes: Just because he's Commander in Chief doesn't mean that he is infalible or above the law....


3 - we've already lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11


Yes, yes, I realise that... and I do realise invoking 9/11 is a favourite Administration debate tactic; but what does that have to do with circumventing US laws? Others have died in the past, what is so very different this time that rights and freedoms are subverted?


4 - if somebody in the US is communicating with the leaders of the 9/11 attackers, I'm glad Bush is listening in and taking action to keep us safe.
If he needs more listeners, and asks for volunteers, he wouldn't be disappointed.


I think you missed the point - I have no problem with the monitoring of people that threaten a nation's security... but I do have a problem when oversight is taken out of the hands of judical or legal authorities - you know checks & balances.


5 - every war brings some limits on rights, as a lot of Japanese-heritage people in WWII learned during their days in internment camps out in the desert.


Yes, yes... and the vandalization and burning of German owned establishments in WWII and the Great War - and yet Germans weren't sent to internment camps enmass were they?

I have serious doubts about how much was motivated by security concerns and how much was motivate by racism...


6 - the FISA court, supposedly set up to monitor intelligence efforts, has jumped the track. Prior to 9/11 for 20 years, the FISA court did not modify or reject a single warrant request. In 2003/04, the court did "substantive modifications" to 173 requests for warrants, and rejected six outright. Now FISA court judges are granting anonymous interviews to the NYTimes and WashPost involving themselves in upcoming events/requests/briefings.


So the fact that the judical oversight system rejected or modified warrants is grounds for not going along with it any more? I gotta say that is a distrubing vien of logic you're following... perhaps there were very sound legal reasons why FISA rejected/modified warrant requests. The fact that these things did happen should not be the reason to circumvent judical proceedures or oversight - in fact I'd wonder why FISA was concerned about the rejected/modified warrants... and moreso about the ones not brought before them.


7 - as long as Bush is president, I'm confident we will not sit around waiting for the next terrorist attack.

Fair enough... but there are legal ways to go about it without sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of "security"

[KillarneyRose]

Originally posted by RACooper
Ah yes the wonderful '1984' sentiment of: "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".


That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this subject, even though I'm not an Orwell fan :) Could be I'm a good little Prole, or maybe I just don't talk about anything much steamier than when the winter yoga sessions are starting!

[Optimist Prime]

Bush=Hitler.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
Bush=Hitler.

Seriously. Shut up. Please just shut up.

-Rudey

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper


The US has been at war in the past, and yet at least made an effort to respect the rule of law and judical procedures then... why not now?

[/b]

Gee I never knew that that infalibility was a trait confered upon the Commander in Chief during his swearing in :rolleyes: Just because he's Commander in Chief doesn't mean that he is infalible or above the law....

[/b]

Yes, yes, I realise that... and I do realise invoking 9/11 is a favourite Administration debate tactic; but what does that have to do with circumventing US laws? Others have died in the past, what is so very different this time that rights and freedoms are subverted?

[/b]

I think you missed the point - I have no problem with the monitoring of people that threaten a nation's security... but I do have a problem when oversight is taken out of the hands of judical or legal authorities - you know checks & balances.

[/b]

Yes, yes... and the vandalization and burning of German owned establishments in WWII and the Great War - and yet Germans weren't sent to internment camps enmass were they?

I have serious doubts about how much was motivated by security concerns and how much was motivate by racism...

[/b]

So the fact that the judical oversight system rejected or modified warrants is grounds for not going along with it any more? I gotta say that is a distrubing vien of logic you're following... perhaps there were very sound legal reasons why FISA rejected/modified warrant requests. The fact that these things did happen should not be the reason to circumvent judical proceedures or oversight - in fact I'd wonder why FISA was concerned about the rejected/modified warrants... and moreso about the ones not brought before them.



Fair enough... but there are legal ways to go about it without sacrificing rights and freedoms on the altar of "security" [/B]


You make some interesting points.

Most of the politicians and commentators making similar points are not concerned with American security, though. They are simply interested in making Bush look bad, in electing Democrats, and in getting more liberal justices appointed.

Their motives, and previous statements, make their "privacy and security concerns" seem frivolous.

P.S.: Bush = great American leader

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
Most of the politicians and commentators making similar points are not concerned with American security, though. They are simply interested in making Bush look bad, in electing Democrats, and in getting more liberal justices appointed.
Many, myself included, may remember the illegal wiretaping of domestic groups during previous administrations and be as outraged now as we were then.

Personally, I think that President Bush (the present one) will be viewed as more of a divider than a leader. History will decide that, though. I can't recall many times when politics has divided the country as badly as it is now.

[positive14]

The perception of opposition to the recent wire tapping issue has been over-stated.

The recent Democratic criticism of President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps might lead one to conclude that the opposition party is genuinely concerned with protecting individual rights and, concurrently, restraining executive power. But when it comes to wiretaps, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been equal partners in expanding the scope of federal power; the present Democratic objection is limited to the absence of pro forma judicial oversight.

This past October, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would vastly expand the ability of the Justice Department to spy on American businesses via wiretaps. Not a single senator rose to speak against this bill. Even the most rabid Democratic critic of the White House's warrantless wiretapping, Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold, embraced an unprecedented expansion of unsupervised, albeit warrant-enabled, wiretaps.

The actual official opposition to this brand of domestic spying is almost non-existant.

[Honeykiss1974]

Google rebuffs feds over access to search data
Bush administration wants details of what users look for
Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/?GT1=7538

[Rudey]

This is for something different. It's about pornography. The Supreme Court already struck this down. I have no idea what the heck they are pursuing it for. The Supreme fricking Court already said no so how can they?? I bet it's because Bush just wants to see if Cheney is looking at animal porn or something strange like that. I'm happy that google is saying no to them.

-Rudey


Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Google rebuffs feds over access to search data
Bush administration wants details of what users look for
Associated Press
Updated: 8:24 p.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/?GT1=7538

[Tom Earp]

GOOD FOR GOOGLE.COM!

It is starting to get just a little to damn scarry with this along with a so called minor tapping directive.:confused:

Once it starts My friends, just where will it stop?

Hell, there are listening stations all over the World that have a Main Frame looking for Key words that will allow the US Govt. to listen to and watch phone calls and cyber messaging.

[hoosier]

Kerry waffles again:

Reuters reports:

Kerry, who endorsed former Vice President Al Gore's call for an independent investigation of the Bush program, said on ABC's "This Week" that some Republicans like Bush adviser Karl Rove are trying to equate Democratic opposition to warrantless spying as weakness.

"What he's (Rove) trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer."

So he's for spying! Er, hang on a second! Here's the Washington Times:

Kerry yesterday called the National Security Agency's program to eavesdrop on terror suspects illegal, but he said he will continue to support its funding.


-- OJ