Bush spies on Americans

Remove all ads!

Really.

 

Now to undermine some of my points...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/24/students_tall_tale_revealed/

Yep, it was a hoax. grr.

How fitting

Hmm, I'm having some serious doubts about the validity of nations as a way of organising things - even for people who want a state and such. Dividing blocks of land and people into nations seems inefficient (not in an economical sense) to me - they're too large an area to be governed effectively in a way that the people living in them are taken into account. Were nations to be abolished and the way people are grouped be shrunk down to a community level - those doing the governing (which I by no means see as a necessary part of such a community ) would be in touch with the people being governed. It is individuals that matter - not the bloated social structure which they live in. The social structure should be there to serve those having to deal with it. I do not consider that what we have currently is doing that.

Of course, you're saying (if I read you correctly) that it is security that is the essential function to the nation (which makes sense, I'm having trouble thinking up other justifications for a nation's existence). However, it seems to me that the reason we're in need of security is that the nation has done something to piss people off. If the nation wasn't there, the problem of terrorism wouldn't have come into being in the first place. Personally I'd be willing to sacrifice a large amount of this 'security' (a lot of the measures put in for security seem to just be a power-wank) for freedom to say what I think and be generally left alone.

For the last bit about living in the desert - well, no thanks Total freedom is a bit pointless if you can't actually *do* anything with it.

(Hmm, such waffle I have inside of me )

 

**pins a Vote for Goldwater button on Aikanaro's shirt**

You'd have loved Barry. Classic Republican sentiment.

But Nations do exist and must provide for the commons security of it's citizens because there are too many bullies out in the world who'd steal your lunch money.

 

Hmm. Well, I'm impressed that you have an answer, I'll give you that. It seems a bit too long term for extraordinary powers, though--we're talking the work of decades. I'm not convinced it's even achievable, either, but...*shrug*

Indeed. It has fallen by the wayside in recent years, however. More's the pity.

 

Yes, and some are just a bit "too close to home...."

And let's bring back Richard Nixon while we are at it. We already have Nixon 2.0.

 

OK...I know I've won a thread when Chandos has to quote me and can only offer a one line quip!

And here we are, teetering on the edge of Bush doing something illegal.

But the reason there's so little to say is because of this...We love Liberty and America just as much as you do. If the Administration has truly done something wrong, I'll pin their genitals to the wall faster than you ever could. I'm no Bush apologist, he's far too liberal for that, but dammit, he's a real person. What you see is what you get. Anyone wanna risk that on Jacques Chirac? Putin? Kim il Song? Speak up, anyone...**deafening silence**

George W. Bush is a buffoon. He can't speak the word "nuclear". He tries to exit through doors that are sealed for security reasons. He debates and makes John Kerry look smart! (my sperm sample makes John Kerry look smart). He looks away from the camera with the glowing red light and smiles as if he's made a point. He so hurts at the plight of certain Americans that he covers it up and looks "elitist".

America has never had a President who was closer to you and me.

Anywho...I digress.

I'll return to the basic point of this thread. When is the last time a global terrorist attack was succesfully launched on the continental US? Hmmm...9/11...OK...what has our intelligence community done to protect our shores since then? Hmmm...listen in to the international calls of suspected terrorists. It doesn't matter how many cases have been won...cases are won only against the incredibly stupid. I dare say that numerous threats have been defrayed by the quasi-legal actions of our intelligence operatives (or do I need to play back the complete selection of Osama's taped messages for you?)

Has anyone been able to step forward and confirm that their civil rights have been violated by our government? (anyone who doesn't turn out to be a hoax, anyway). If they were really there, they'd be as thick as fleas. Remember...this is the same media that thought that George W. Bush's military service was a viable story.

Sheesh. Go to bed. At least you can do so knowing that you'll wake up with a government that's willing to take a bloody nose for your rest.

[ December 29, 2005, 14:22: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

... Okay, I'm totally confused by that. You're going to have to explain it to me (being Australian and all).

And if that's a Rebublican sentiment - well ... *looks doubtfully at the Republican party which is encouraging patriotism, the great glory of America, etc.*

 

@ Aikanaro
Barry Goldwater was a Senator from Arizona for 5 terms and made an unsuccesful run for the Presidency in 1964. He's considered by many to be the first, modern Conservative Republican. Although he was a bit off on some of his social standings, he's known for encouraging free enterprise, personal responsibility and small (as possible) government. He always fought to reduce the federal government and put more in the hands of the local government. I was reminded of this when you made your comment about the inefficiency of big, national government.

I'd have answered you via pm, but then I figured you probably weren't the only one who didn't know what I meant.

Here's more info if you want some...

 

To continue with the one-liners:

Doesn't sound like any "modern conservatives" I know of...

 

So...you prefer neocons to Goldwater conservatives?

You crazy, Chandos. You just crazy.

 

...And you think I'm crazy? Actually I would not prefer either one.

 

Hmmm...I just saw this thread peaking out from the main BoM page...

So if you can hear me, Hi Bush!

If he and his 'spies' want to hear me fight with my fiance, then all I ask is that they put in their $0.02 to shut her up and take my side more often than not.

 

Um. I know I'm entering into this several pages late, but doesn't anyone realize that this 'listening in' activity of the NSA isn't really news?!?

This is what the NSA has ALWAYS done since their inception; monitor worldwide communications. And I'm sure the CIA does this with outside communications, as well.

C'mon, people - they're SPIES; it's what they do.


A lot of people I know *already* knew the 'open secret' that intelligence agencies have had an arrangement with the telephone companies as follows:

Any international phone call going into or out of the USA can have the phone company 'monitoring reception' (without either parties' consent). Sounds fine so far, right?

If certain 'key words' are uttered during the conversation and the telco is monitoring, the call gets recorded and passed to the spooks.

The statistics are that too many calls are made for the telco to monitor ALL of them, but I really don't care if someone listens to my boring conversations.


I took this to be such a given, every time I'd call my then-fiancee in the US, I'd start the conversation with "Terrorist Assassinate Nuclear Cocaine Revolution Smuggle. Okay, now that we've got an audience, honey - what're you wearing?"


And remember, this has been going on since BEFORE MANY OF US WERE BORN. (You seriously think nothing like this happened during the Cold War? I got some prime real estate you might be interested in...)

And here's another news flash: politicians lie nowadays, unlike ANY other instance in human history.

Now I'm sure GWB never had to give consent for any of these activities to be done, since the procedures were already in place probably since before HE was born! I'm no fan of dubya, but I'll absovle him of any blame here. Clinton, Bush I, Regean, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, etc.etc. are all equally to blame for the actions of these gov't agencies under their terms if Junior is.

Now his daddy, back when he was Director of the CIA is another matter...

(side note: does anyone find it amusing that CIA HQ in Langley was renamed to the 'Bush Center for Intelligence'? )


Oh, and Kitrax - why would they take the wrong side? {j/k}

 

This was exactly the point I was trying to make a few pages back before I gave up under the onslaught of all the civil libertarians on the Boards who seem to live in constant fear of being locked up by Big Brother.

 

Beat em down, ae.
Here's a cold one to both you and HB.

That's why I get such a kick to see this thread titled "Bush spies on Americans"...or elsewhere in this forum "Bush plans next attack"...as if spies are new to the Bush administration...as well as military contingency plans.

Seriously...replace the word "Bush" with the word "boogeyman" in the title of every Bush-whacking thread and you'll see what I mean.

 

Yeah, okay. Let me bring to your attention the quote in the first post of this thread:

So, the point is that now NSA spies on conversations taking place in the US, not only on international conversations. (which is apparently legal, right). Now, you might call this a double standard, but I am sure a lot of americans do not want the US government spying on them without a court order(regardless of it spying on citizens of other countries).

 

That's exactly right. Only someone who has not been paying any attention (or is in a strong state of denial) would believe that these guys are not using this "gathering of intel" for personal - political - reasons. You have to live here to understand that almost everything is driven by politics. Remember the Republican warcry of an intrusive government? Now, they would like us all to forget "the government" they have been ranting about for years.

On the political scene, both sides are trying to "get the goods" on each other, and their political enemies (they would like us to quickly forget the Clinton years - yeah, but nice try anyway).

It's all about power. Just look at what's going down with this scandal ridden govenment and all the payolla that's been going on for the last five years - at the highest levels of govenment. All these niave people keep going on about how they have nothing to fear from the government because they "have done nothing wrong." They keep missing the point: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE OR HAVE NOT DONE. They don't care. It's all about them. Get it now?

 

Good luck, Chandos.

People are also missing the point that what the government is doing is quite possibly illegal. When this happens it is not going to stop but only escalate. Listening in to international calls may be legal but I doubt it stops there.

Chandos is right.

 

Legal? *LEGAL*?!?

I'm sorry, did my "they've been doing it for decades and they've got the telcos in their back pockets" at any point imply legality of action, or again, did I miss something on the previous pages I perused...

My point is that they're SPIES, they BREAK THE LAW; that's their POINT and PURPOSE.

Sprint recording a phone conversation for the purposes of 'quality control' is fully within their rights, but then passing this recording to an intelligence organization is dubious at best.

However, any argument about the illegal actions of persons Webster's defines as "one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information " is rather moot.

These are the spooks, the ghosts, the phantoms in the night; the ones that misrepresent themselves to authorities, break into places and abscond with information and intelligence - they break laws as a consequence of their profession. Aye, a lot of intelligence gathering is done by simply talking to people, voluntarily, over a casual drink at the bar/pub/etc. but when needed, they break, enter and steal.

And I'm not going to pretend I like it in any way, but the fact of the matter is I cannot stop it, any more than I can stop the slow, eventual but certain demise of my loved ones by - if nothing else - old age.

So I'm gonna take a note that Gnarf would probably do well to remind us, and wish to be granted "the serenity to accept the things I cannot (change)" and go on with my life.

Sharks eat living things, rocks fall downhill, fire burns, and spies steal and watch and listen; that's what they all do.

And I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable about those aforementioned agencies directing their focii inwards, but it's already been proven that your enemies have been able to get amongst you, where else would you expect your beaters to start looking for the fox?

Oh, and on a final note:
Mr. Slash? Firstly I do not drink, so save the cold one. And secondly, do not confuse my desire to point out the complete 'mootness' of debating legality of the actions of SPIES, for defending an incompetent, semi-literate, bought-and-paid-for fratboy that somehow got re-elected. (I'm Canadian so don't blame me - NYAH! )

 

@ae...don't worry, I'd never confuse you for a Bush supporter, I was only applauding your pragmatic outlook which expressed a point that I had tried to cover in a earlier post. Besides...the drink was green tea.

I understand the concerns of Chandos et al, but until someone comes forward and makes charges that they've had their civil liberties violated...this all just a tempest in a teapot. Don't you know that every hotshot politico reporter from Geraldo Rivera to Al Franken is digging despartely to find that poor, housewife in Boise who was charged with a traffic citation as a result of an over seas call to her Uncle in France, Al Geada?

For your consideration...don't you think Al Queda (or any other terrorist org. for that matter) is doing or trying to do the same thing? Look, I've said all along that this probably blurs the lines of legality...but stays within the lines of being smarter and more aggresive than your adversary.

[edit]...found this and had to add it...AN IRANIAN DOUBLE AGENT IN CIA HEADQUARTERS!!! . Those of you who still think this is about domestic political power may now return your heads to the sand.

[ January 04, 2006, 16:05: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]