Bush spies on Americans

Remove all ads!

This story still continues to unfold. One of the judges who oversees the NSA "appears to have resigned in protest" over the administration's grasping for questionable powers, that many feel it does not possess under current law. But it is reassuring to know that there are still judges of integrity who respect the law. Yet, it would have been better had he stayed on to roadblock this administration's possible illegal activities.

Of course, who needs the law when we all need to feel "safer."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

 

I wonder why he didn't resign when they first started four years ago! I have to question the integrity of a judge who only speaks out after the story broke in the New York Times.

Same thing with these Congresspersons (on either side of the spectrum) who are calling for an invesitgation as to the legality of the spying...when many of them have known for four years that it was going on. Looks to me that everyones trying to scatter and avoid any potential blame...like a flock of crows at a shotgun blast.

If it was OK to condone it in privacy...what's changed now that it's public?

Ah, politics...gotta love it when there's a ready-made career for people who lack all intestinal fortitude.

 

Where is it said that Congress knew about this. Bush's go ahead to the CIA to tap international calls without court orders was certainly not public information. Had it been he would have been dragged over coals by Rights organisations long ago. As it is White House had NYT sit on the story for over a year stating need for secrecy of identities.

The question will always be, why did Bush think it acceptable to exceed the power given to him. Perhaps he was just listening to the Voice of God.

 

Just log into Google Earth and then we can all spy on whoever we want to our hearts content. Look! I can see Aldeth's house.

 

And here I thought it was a career for those who enjoyed flying around n corporate jets and golfing in Scotland...

 

That's it! I'm calling NSA right now! Harbourboy is obviously plotting an attack in the U.S. - and just miles away from the nation's capitol no less. These are exactly the foreign extremists that Bush is trageting. Furthermore, given his comments on the ANWR thread he's probably one of those extremist tree-huggers to boot. HB is public enemy #1.

 

chandos , are you agreeing with the guy that is in your quote? please remember you do NOT have a RIGHT to fly ,this is a privilege. you can deny anyone the right to board your aircraft for any reason or for that matter for no reason at all. Very similar to the laws about selling alcohol in a store(grocery/conv.) you can refuse to sell to anyone you wish and don't have to give any reason whatsoever.

 

Hacken Slash said:

BINGO! Thanks for being the voice of reason!

BTW: Clinton did the same thing.

LINK 1
LINK 2

 

Sorry, I have no idea which post or which quote you are referring to here. Perhaps you mean my good friend, HS? I suppose since I'm not a Congressman on "the take" I wouldn't be flying around at no charge. I would have to pay like every other average American citizen. But if I'm a congressman who is owned by big business then I could fly at no charge, with only a cost to my principles, something that many Republcians in Congress don't seem to possess at the moment.


Also, I know my rights; they are in the Constitution and the Declaration. I also know that I cannot be discriminated against because of my race, religion or age. If you need a fuller explaination of my "rights" consult Thomas Jefferson.

[ December 22, 2005, 15:59: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Some more fascinating news about this spying business: apparently, the NSA does not spy on individual persons, but rather listen in on a large amount of conversations, in hopes of finding something suspicious. The relevant quote (buried in the middle of this WP article ):

Kind of tough to get a warrant for everyone, I realize that .

The next paragraph is also interesting

Really, this rule of law is so ... constraining.


But of course, why should we worry, Clinton probably did the same thing.

 

You see, this is exactly what I'm takling about. It seems like broad wiretapping in HOPES of finding something relevant HAS to be illegal.

 

I still don't see what is so wrong about that, Aldeth. They're trying to protect the country!

 

I agree with you on this, Klorox.

 

And that excuses everything? Why not go all the way then, and require that all communications (mail, telephone) are entered in a national database. Add to that everything you check out from the library/moviestore. Torture terrorism suspects. It's okay if you have nothing to hide/have done nothing wrong, and it would be done to protect the country, after all.

 

how about they have a government agent stand in the room with you and watch you have intimate relations with your wife?

after all... youve done nothing wrong, and invasion of privacy is just fine so that it may have the most minute chance of protecting the country... im sure they can come up with a reason

 

Shh. Don't talk about this! You'll all be bugged, and SP will be shut down cause it's a threat to the Bush administration.

 

We are not--- er, they are not "bugging" SP. Nothing to see here folks. Just keep typing away.

 

khaavern said:

Excuses everything? President Bush hasn't done anything wrong!

I have no problem with this. If some person I'll never meet knows that I checked out a movie, whether it be "Barney and Friends" or "Field of Reams" (I can't think of a dirtier title), I couldn't care less. If someone is not paid a visit after taking out books/movies about how to make bombs and fly planes, then I would be worried!

Okay, well I can agree with you there. I don't think torture is okay, nor do I think it will happen. Anything else you mentioned is "to protect the country" then I don't have a problem with it.

Shoshino said:

You have got to be kidding. Please, tell me you're joking! If you two don't see a difference between monitoring communications outside the country to scan for terrorist activity and the disgusting act you name above, you need a lot more help than a discussion on a message board.

 

It's OK, Ravynn...the Bush Administration already contacted me about SP and I told them they had nothing to be worried about...that SP is just a case study project on the liberally naive gamer community

With what we've learned post 9/11...that the terrorists used international cell phone calls and e-mail to communicate...we'd be stupid to not grasp the chance to monitor.

Of course, now that the terrorists know that they've been listened too, thanks to the New York Pravda...erm...Times, we may as well stop trying since they'll move on to "plan B".

Speaking of the New York Times...how come all of you Bush-bashers aren't beating up the Times for sitting on this story for almost a year? Is it more fun to "Bush-bash" than "Times-trash"?

**begins to rethink the whole "Bush-bash" phrase**...

 

Of course, any terrorist with any skill at evading detection already did those things and adopted defensive tactics against them (like paying for things in cash, using pre-paid disposable mobiles to avoid being traced/tapped, et cetera).

There should be provisions to do these things, yes - but they need to be accountable. I wouldn't trust anybody who wanted that kind of power to intrude on my privacy to do it without sufficient accountability provisions. I don't see why a retrospective warrant process couldn't have been introduced for those "moment of opportunity" situations, rather than just steam-rollering it with executive authority.

My problem isn't with the system as such - it's with the cowboy attitude on display. I'm guessing the Times sat on it because they were instructed to. The Australian Government has done similar things in the past, leveraging reporting with a threat not to renew a broadcasting license.

That said, I'm also guessing they ran it now because they were picking their time to do it.