Bush spies on Americans

Remove all ads!

Wow Hack, you're entirely right, except that its not the point of the thread at all!

I believe there was something about getting a legal court order first, no?

 

Exactly Art! (Merry Christmas, btw). Just as "being at war" allows us to fly AWACS over Afganistan and Iraq to intercept transmissions...we can do the same with domestic international transmissions.

All one has to do is look at the history of Executive actions while at wartime to validate the actions of the current administration. I could never be called a "Bush apologist" (he's far too liberal), but he'll win this one. Do I need to remind you that the US Congress voted that we're at war?

In other threads we've had members comment on the sacrifices Americans have made during the Great War and WW2...this is no different. When we've made the "world safe again", we'll have a groundswell of civil rights movements to re-define the rights of the individual.

It's a cyclical thing. Stand with us as we exterminate the scum...then we'll settle (in a US court, no doubt) who needs to go to jail for what they did wrong.

Remember...this is America...everyone has a payday.

(sorry to be so blunt...but that's how the bread is buttered)

 

Hacken Slash: you're my freakin' hero.

 

Yesss, the war on terrorism. Nice excuse you got there. Always at war, so no need to bother about civil liberties.

If that's okay to you, then swell. However, it's not fine with me; moreover, I would be as bold as to say that most people in the US would agree with me. (maybe I'm fooling myself here, but oh well). Furthermore, I would say that what Bush did is in direct contradiction with the law, however much his lawyers might spin it. So the judiciary may not stand for it either. All in all, I do not think he'll easily get out of this one.

 

That I can deal with, so long as it comes full circle.

 

HS is my hero too. Even when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

Er - yes. He broke the law, and when he's in the position of President and is supposed to be upholding them or whatever - it's wrong.

So you support the idea of having people show up when, say, you borrow out a book on a political ideology that has nothing to do with national security in the slightest...?
How about if someone showed up after you borrowed "Field of Reams" - the Bush administration believes in having everything good and wholesome after all

The scary thing about dystopia is that it's so plausible - and taking away privacy and civil rights is generally one of the main points of a dystopia. America is becomming a dystopian society...

 

If I never see another 9/11, then I think he's doing the right thing. And I still don't see how President Bush broke the law.

 

I really don't get what's so terrible about getting a court order? They can make that process easier in law but taking it out alltogether makes the government lot less accountable for what they do and makes it easier for them to cover all traces. With court orders atleast there would be decent records about who's being watched for and for what reason.

In any case I do think the government needs to have the tools to fight terrorism, but these tools need to be used so that normal people don't suffer needlessly because of it. Furthermore all government investigations need to be traceable if their legality is put in question.

Around here there was a big scandal when SUPO (Protection Police, our very own FBI) abused their rights without court orders. They were accused of illegally aquiring private telenetwork information, and afterwards tried to keep it secret. As far as I know the trials are still on but a few convictions have allready been made. So quite frankly I'm not willing to give these people anymore freedom to cover their traces when they abuse their position.

 

So, when should it come full circle? After all, the war in Iraq has ended some time ago (mission accomplished, no? ) the one in Afghanistan also. And the war on terrorism: will it ever end?

and more relevant, who do you expect to make sure that things come full circle (i.e., you regain your civil liberties?) Do you expect the government will simply relinquish the powers it aquired without a fuss? History shows otherwise. Some people will have to fight for it (even if the fight consists of simply telling the truth and shining a spotlight on the abuses of those in power).

And lastly, do you think you have any responsibility in making sure the things come full circle? Or should we wake you up when all is finished ?!

 

That's a ridiculous statement. So you're saying the only way you would be willing to oppose these measures is if some screwball flies another plane into a building? According to your quote, that's exactly what it sounds like. Because if you never see another 9/11, then Bush is doing the right thing. Therefore, it stands to reason if you DO see another 9/11 then Bush may not be doing the right thing.

My personal opinion is that we probably won't have another 9/11, but that is more because of the airline security measures that we have put in place rather than monitoring phone calls.

Finally, Bush's actions appear illegal because he is wiretapping without obtaining a permit. This is almost exactly what happened with Nixon 30 years ago (except it didn't involve cell phones as they did not exist at the time).

 

Isn't that what the Russians kept telling their people once "they had defeated the evil capitalist empire." Yes, more of the same old song: The end is justified by the means. It's OK to sell out our liberties and those of others to achieve our noble ends - or for a little bit of perceived security - if that's really all that "noble."

I think I had read that in 1775, on a fine Spring morning in Virginia, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were at a meeting at a local chruch. There were spectators crowded about and outside the chruch, and the windows had been thrown open to let in the mild air of spring. Also attending were the Lee brothers. Patrick Henry, his heart pounding, rose from the third pew when it was his turn to speak. He stated that if he did not speak his mind he would be guilty of treason against his country. He went on about all the attempts that the British Empire had made to keep the colonists in the "chains of slavery." And that Liberty was a "holy cause" - the principle worth figting for, for it was greater than that of "life itself," and greater than that of "sweet peace." He raised himself to his full height and declared: "Give me liberty -" he said, and let the words die away - "Or give me death," he said thrusting his hand to his heart, as if struck with a dagger. There was no applause only silence among those present.

I'm not sure what Patrick Henry would make of such remarks about giving up liberty for a little security. I think he would say that it was liberty for which we should be fighting. The love of liberty is not "cylical," but constant. Anything less would be treason to our principles and our heritage.

 

@khaavern:
Exactly. It hasn't come full circle, and I wonder whether it ever will. (Or did you miss the skeptic smiley? ) Cyclical would be fine, but one must wonder when the cycle will start curving back around. Imagine it as the Earth's orbit, and we're heading for the asteroid belt at a surprising clip. That doesn't mean our orbit won't correct, but it is cause for a tiny bit of alarm.

Wake me up when you've got it sorted out.

 

@ Chandos

I don't really think you can equate this incident to the Revolutionary period...besides in 1775 Washington, Jefferson and Henry would've been considered the lawless terrorists .

But I agree completely with you and Henry...the love of Liberty should never weaken in our hearts. We all have to stoke it and fuel it so it can never be snuffed out. But there are times when our love of liberty drives us to defend that liberty (indelibly linked with Life and the Pursuit of Happiness) more aggressively. There are times when you take arms (as Washington, Jefferson and Henry did), times when you hit below the belt and don't play completely fair (as the snipers did to the Redcoats all the way back from Lexington and Concord)...even times when personal liberty is sacrificed for the good of the Liberty of a Nation (as in the conscription of troops).

We are in a state of declared war...Congress has authorized the President to act in such a manner. Unfortunately, wars don't end due to an unfortunate soundbite on an aircraft carrier intended to instill morale in the troops, but due to surrenders and armistice. This war continues.

My gut feeling is that these actions will be found legal...barely. When you combine the tenuous loopholes in FISA with the expanded power of the Executive Branch...they'll slip by. They're certainly sneaky and on the edge and hitting below the belt...but that's a sacrifice made by all when living in wartime. Consider it on par with not being allowed to purchase tires.

No...the love of liberty is never cyclical...but the manifestation of that liberty is.

Now, on the issue that suspects are being wrongfully assumed guilty...rubbish. All suspects are considered guilty, that's the nature of a criminal investigation...it's what drives the investigation. If suspects were considered innocent...there'd never be another arrest! True, the law can't assume guilt based on racial profiling (at least not with impunity post-Patriot act) or other biases...but any suspect can be assumed guilty and investigated to prove or disprove that assumption. If a cop sees a man with an odd "lump" under his coat, he has every right to act on the assumption that the lump may be a gun, bomb or a bag of stolen candy.

Maybe dmc, Beren or one of our other Legal Eagles here can confirm this, but that whole "innocent until proven guilty" applies to those who've been charged with a crime! You see, it's kind of a two step system...Law Enforcement assumes guilt, Judicial assumes innocence. Beautiful system...it usually even works.

Y'all just let me know when you surrender so I can stop talking

 

How about this. Define making the world safe again. Tell me how we'll know we've done it--realistically.

If you can't--and I seriously doubt you can--then we have a problem. See, it was easy to know when the need for wartime measures was over in the past; after we'd turned entire countries into moonscapes and utterly annihilated their capacity to wage conventional war, we didn't need to worry about them any more.

It's not easy to tell "when the crisis is over" so far as terrorism goes. In fact, if terrorism is the problem, the crisis will never end. Terrorism is, and always has been, a fact of life. Just like war, it's never going to go away, period, end of story, full stop.

If you want to give the government "extraordinary powers" long enough for them to become ordinary, that's fine. I don't.

 

Hacken Slash ... you scare me

I don't see how you can defend liberty by removing it. Yes, removing it may give a tactical advantage in a war - but in one that is *for* liberty ... what an oxymoron. We've been told all along that Bush wants to save us from 'those who would destroy freedom' - well if he's destroying it, shouldn't you be fighting him? This 'War on Terror' can drag on for eternity if the resources are there - and thus so can the suspension of liberty. How much do you trust your government to try and end the war and restore what you've supposedly been fighting for?

Personal freedom should never be sacrificed for a nation against the individual's will. Sacrificing yourself for a cause you don't believe in - ridiculous. If the cause means enough for people to want to fight in it, then they will. If the cause does not - they won't, and let them lose it (whether the cause be liberty or whatever - if they don't want it, they shouldn't be forced to it). Nations should be about the individuals within them, not for the sake of having a badarse nation, which is really not a very useful goal for anyone (well, except for the few people steering the badarse nation).

 

Now you're scaring me, Aikanaro

What you speak of isn't a Nation...it's Anarchy. We may not want to pay taxes...we may not want to drive on the proper side of the street...we may not want to refrain from selling drugs out of our garage...we may not want to drag our tired butts off to work everyday.

As distasteful as some things may be, we do them because we're part of a society that makes up a Nation. To enjoy the security of being part of a great nation entails a degree of sacrifice of personal will. The only time someone could live with the idealistic degree of total freedom you espouse...is if they had a solitary existence in the middle of the desert in a skin yurt (and then, they'd likely be a religious and ascribe to a more stringent set of laws).

As for the question of "when are we safe"...surprise! I can answer that too. I don't have as much time as I'd like to go into it, but I'll cover it briefly.

Yes, terrorism has always existed and it always will exist...it will never be stamped out entirely. It's been present alongside conventional warfare as long as humans have conducted war. What we (non-terrorist citizens of the world) saw post 9/11 was a frightening new breed of terrorism. For the first time even the most 'head in the sand' dove had to admit that terrorism was organized and was enjoying the support and succor of sovreign nations . This created a chilling reality that united virtually all Americans as we prepared to wage war on Afganistan.

Since then the road's been rocky. Support for the war has wavered in the face of death, carnage and expense...but it will continue until we're safe (or until America loses it's fortitude). We'll be safe when there is not a nation on Earth that will allow or support terrorism...and in spite of the ugly war, we've almost achieved our goals. Five years ago dozens of nations would have supported, or at least turned their back on "anti-Western" terrorism...now, who's left?

N. Korea? Syria? Libya? Iran? Terrorists no longer enjoy obvious training camps that we must try to take out with a cruise missile. They no longer are able to maintain computer banks to communicate and transfer funds. They no longer have schools were they train would-be killers to fly jets. They've been driven back underground into the snail holes they come from.

So...in answer to your question...the world will be safe when terrorism is no longer legitimized by the immoral actions of sovreign nations...and we approach that goal with every day we show grit, resolve and aggresively pursue those who would try to do us harm.

The actions of the Bush Administration that are the topic of this thread are only an extension of that grit.

 

That is sooo nooot truuueee. Every semi-decent sovereign nation has a record of supporting terrorism. It's reasonable foreign policy and a pillar of occidental culture. Only fools play fair and the Americas weren't conquered by fools. Otherwise, they wouldn't have ambushedkidnapped and held the local emperors for ransom. Wouldn't they ? Or the Germans wouldn't have inflicted Lenin on the Russians. Ever heard about the enemy of my enemy is my best friend? That dates way longer back than some 4 small years.

 

@Iago

I think your confusing the sponsoring of global terrorism with espionage / sixth column affairs in support of the goals of the sovreign nation.

btw, if you say that "only fools play fair"...does that mean you support the Bush Administration?

 

We're not even close to achieving your goals. Since 9/11, war on terror (5 and half years, this is quite a long war) there's been more large-scale "event" acts of terrorism than there was before, if there is a war on terror it has to be one of the worst fought wars ever.

You realise, by the way, that any useful definition of terrorism would count the government as terrorists. Scare tactics, forcing through social changes, they do it all.

There also seems to be a lot of apathy in this thread - "I don't mind the government watching me, I've done nothing wrong". That may be, but look at Stalin, Hitler, Give someone that too much authority to enforce right and wrong and what counts as right and wrong changes pretty fast. Bush is acting like the little kid with the magnifying glass ("whoah...look at them all burn").

Really?