Bush ok'd eavesdropping on Americans

[Clem D]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Espionage_and_Intelligence





I say you go George. I'm right with you on this as long as it is not used to arrest people on non terrorist issues. Such as gambling etc.

I know you boys thought I was going to take him to task on this. :scared

 

[djv]

Good point maybe gambling will become nat security problem and you and me will be first ones they will check on. LOL Maybe as paroned as W is I better not LOL.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Ya got me Clem
Hopefully regardless of press-politicians and whichever party is in power--they will do what is necessary to protect us--whether it be phone tap or water bedding a terrorist.

 

[Spytheweb]

Ya got me Clem
Hopefully regardless of press-politicians and whichever party is in power--they will do what is necessary to protect us--whether it be phone tap or water bedding a terrorist.

Protect Like the 5,154 dead Americans protected under Bush. Like the 3 or 4 troops being killed everyday in Iraq. Politicians Don't care about this law, they think they are above the law. Just like the military being hang out to dry, it's not their family members, what's the hurry to bring them back.

 

[pug]

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you Clem. These acts are ridiculous, unnecessary, and illegal. What you are failing to realize is that if the government needs a wiretap to protect the country, it could easily get one. There is no need to proceed to eavesdrop on countless thousands of people. The question should not be whether this makes us safer, but why could this eavesdropping not be done without a warrant. If you can't get a warrant for it, you can't do it. I have a hard time believing that the U.S. government would find it difficult to get a warrant with any kind of evidence of terrorism. What this is about is a president that wants to be a dictator and feels he is above and the law. With all the acts this administration has already done, I find it hard to believe that they would limit their eavesdropping to terrorists, and would not use the information they found for their own political gain. Wake up people! This type of activity is bringing the U.S. closer and closer to a communist state. To top it off, our president doesn't even think it's a big deal that he intentionally violated the 4th amendment. This is probably the most disturbing story I have ever seen. Bush should immediately be impeached.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Believe the by NYT'sprobable inflated # was 500 out of 295,000,000 not thousands as you say.
to begin with I don't believe the wiretaps were illegal but lets say for fact of arguement they were.
Do you have any adea how many illegal wire taps go on each year by civilians--consider this

"Did you know that the U.S. State Department estimates that there are over 700,000 eavesdropping devices sold each year. The State Department also reports that over 6,500 incidents of industrial espionage occur in the United States each year with an average economic impact of $1.25 million."

Add to that the 100 of thousands of legal wiretaps on criminal element "who are citizens"
-- makes the 500 on "citizens" with connections to terrorist that some are in a tizzy about look pretty siily--wouldn't you say.

 

[pug]

The only thing that is silly is that you are supporting a president committing illegal acts against the citizens of this country. If it's ok for Bush to break this law it's ok for Bush to break any law. There is no question this is illegal. Under FISA courts have been set up to approve warrants in these cases. The president made no attmpt to obtain any warrant whatsoever. There is absolutely no reason to not get a warrant if there is any shred of terrorist activity. The real reason the warrants weren't obtained is that the president is using the wiretaps for all sorts of reasons that don't necessarily involve terrorism. That is the only logical explanation why the warrants weren't obtained. Further, if it's such a minimal amount of eavesdroppint that is going on, then the burden for the president is less since very few warrants will need to be issued. I can't believe even one American finds this activity justifiable no matter how blind their support for Bush is.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"The only thing that is silly is that you are supporting a president committing illegal acts against the citizens of this country."

1st mistake is taking anything NYT puts up at face value--l who beside NYT ever said bulk of taps was against U.S. citizens?

Intelligence get U.S. phone #'s off computers and phones confiscated from terrorists--because they have U.S. # does that make them a citizen. Every non citizen terrorist in U.S. has local phone #.

"There is no question this is illegal."

There are a lot of questions on its legality--Have seen both sides argued on Fox at same time and I for one can't determine who is correct on that issue.

"There is absolutely no reason to not get a warrant if there is any shred of terrorist activity"

What about this one: They have system to scan calls and emails made to certain "terrorist areas" that look for key words that relate to terrorism. Once they get hit- they hone in on conversation to followup if it was random or actual terrorist communication-- What would you like them to do when they get one of these hits--turn off transmition and call judge to get order to continue hoping they might repeat what you missed last time.

I think what many fail to understand is these taps are not for most part intended for procesution in the future but rather to prevent terrorist attacks.

Now you may think -NYT-ACLU-Move.on-Air America and liberal elemnts are looking out for you but I'm here to tell you its pure political.

If you have any doubts let pose a few questions.
If you designated subways-trains-buses in NY with red dots and blue dots. Those with red screened passengers via profiling and those with blue had no checks--how many NYT and ACLU personell do you think would be riding the blue.
Planes same way--air marshals and those designated no air marshals.
Have each city vote on if they wanted these #s from terrorist cell phones and computers to people in their city tracked even if it ment without court approval--do you think there would be any?

If we do away with all these precautions and the shit hit the fan who's going to be the 1st to jump up and say this admin failed to protect them.

If you have any doubts consider last admin that with threat of terrorism not only did little but actual "CUT" intelligence- CIA and NSA to the bone.

"While human spying was downsized, the 1990s brought another adverse development for intelligence. The telecommunications revolution ? the Internet, cheap PCs, encryption software and explosive use of cell phones ? overwhelmed high-tech spying methods. Eight months before September 11, National Security Agency director, Gen. Mike Hayden, said NSA couldn't keep up with the global telecommunications revolution. Osama bin Laden, Gen. Hayden warned, had "better technology" than the NSA.
By the mid-90s, the deterioration was acute. The CIA had no high-grade assets or counterintelligence in Iraq. It did not even know the function of one of Saddam's security services. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's quip that "you do not know what you do not know" succinctly summarizes the intelligence dilemma confronting the Bush administration when it took office.
http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20030715-094950-2180r.htm

Now picture Peloski-Kennedy-Reid and the liberals whining about intellegence after 911--but who was responsible for intel cut??

Appears they are trying for instant replay again--wonder if people are smart enough to see through it THIS time around.

 

[djv]

To much power always leads to corruption.

 

[JT]

I agree with Clem here. Let's make this as simple as possible.

Monitoring phone calls from Afghanistan/Yemen/Iran to the United States = Good
Security Officials visiting College Student for requesting a book for a research paper = Very Bad

 

[djv]

I see they can listen first then go get warrant. A judge is on duty 24 hours a day. So no need not to follow law. And liberal budget cuts caused this to happen. Sorry it's been running since 98. Problem not to many payed attention. Whoops it was not just perfect as it is now in 98. If it even is perfect at all. But would it have mattered. No one payed attention to info they had about upcoming 9/11 attack the summer of 2001 anyway.

 

[dr. freeze]

we are at WAR and have identified ENEMY COMBATANTS as Al Quaeda

the Constitutional bill of rights does NOT apply to enemy combatants in a time of war PERIOD

whoever the snake that leaked this should be rotting in jail

funny how the leftists are on a witch hunt for some phantom that "outed" a former KNOWN CIA operative but are deathly silent on this issue

 

[ferdville]

I thought half the nation bitched that had we monitored the situation more closely, we might have prevented 9/11.

Now we are monitoring and it is suddenly a bad thing.

 

[IntenseOperator]

This whole issue is small potatoes to what REALLY goes on NO MATTER who's running the show. The feds must be getting a kick out of the public actually thinking they caught someone in the act and figured something out. I got a feeling what we don't know would blow this tiny crap out of the toilet.

Move on people.

 

[djv]

It's a good thing that is set up to be done the right way. We are not the land of Hitler yet. Hey it's a republican that is yelling for a look and see. I say do it all you want. No excuses not to. Go get your warrant the next day as you should. It's so easy why did they have to milk it.

 

[Chadman]

There really is no reason why a warrant should not need to be sought for this kind of thing. I think it's pretty common knowledge that the process - considering the stakes and subject matter - is pretty much a rubber stamp approval. The important matter here is that we have this system in place to protect us. It's what this country is based on. The Constitution, which most conservatives hold up when we are supposed to look at Supreme Court justice candidates - someone who literally uses the Constitution and protects it. This is a blatant misuse of powers, and one that should not need to be done, unless...

The President and his cabal feels they are above the law and does not have to follow it, or they do not want to leave a paper trail on who they are spying on. Most Americans would understand and support following the process we have all fought to uphold - it's what the soldiers are fighting for in Iraq right now, and why we left England and came here in the first place - too much power being in the hands of a select few.

There simply has to be a set of checks and balances. The President's new talking point is that he needs this power to react quickly to terrorist activities. This is a load of crap...you can get a warrant after the fact in many cases, let alone in a few minutes with a simple phone call.

If there's one thing Americans should have learned by now, this administration is not necessarily the best steward of additional (or illegal) powers.

Pug is dead on the money with his take on this issue. Wayne, you hold up all the illegal wiretaps in this country as a reason to diminish the 500 or so illegal wiretaps that the administration is admitting to as not being a big deal. Two wrongs simply do not make a right. You yourself use the word illegal in your description. And you are correct in doing so. It's wrong.

You guys gloss over the base issue and say that liberals are somehow weak on this or do not think monitoring or spying should go on. That is simply not the issue. Get the warrant, or for crying out loud, at least do it retroactively, which is done all the time.

Half of Americans (to put it mildly) do not trust this administration or this President. Insert your own number there, I just threw it out there. I think it's a fair number, half the people were not for him when he first ran, and I don't think he's made many friends of those people since then. I think it's fair to say that half the people in this country probably do not think it a good idea that this President and his inner circle are able to disregard this law, based on whatever reason they are giving today. If they do not have to seek a warrant, they simply do not have to answer to anyone, give justification or reasoning, and people won't even know it's going on. What is to stop them from spying on democratic candidates? Democratic donors? Anti-Bush commentators? Liberal talk show hosts? People who come up on posting boards with key phrases?

The answer is, nothing. There is nothing to stop them from doing whatever the Hell they want. And that is not what this country stands for. Most of us do not want another King George and his court. Supporting this is wrong, in my view. And contradictory, if you supposedly support Democracy, the laws of this land, and the Constitution.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Clem I will agree it borders being illegal . However so does outright torture and if used on terrorist and results in lives saved--which way should one do you want them to sway?
I really don't care and don't think many do if they listen in on who terrorist are conversing with.I more worried about those giving away intelligence data.
You saw months of demands from NYT for investigations on a mother (Plame)that hadn't been in field since birth of twins 5 years ago as some secret covert opp--yet haven't seen any demand for who leaked info from most secretive agency in country to them. Why is that?
Dems might think all this hoopla with wire taps and Patriot Act is help their cause but putting nails in their coffin.Election was won last time on who protects us best and if any had doubts back then they have removed all doubts. Notice you haven't seen Hilliary get on any of these issues. Too smart for that--but they will make it tough on her by association factor just the same.
In normal times I'd be right with you Chad--but these are far from normal times.

 

[Palehose]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Espionage_and_Intelligence





I say you go George. I'm right with you on this as long as it is not used to arrest people on non terrorist issues. Such as gambling etc.

I know you boys thought I was going to take him to task on this. :scared

Holy shit I agree with Clem ! and no they wont bust gamblers with this . They havent and they wont :clap:

 

[Chadman]

Just listened to a George Bush clip on Ed Shultz' show from a campaign trail stop in 2004. He was addressing this exact issue to an amazing degree. He said, in no uncertain terms that there are ongoing instances of wiretapping of individuals in this country. He went on to say, Now, when I talk about wiretapping, I'm talking about situations requiring a court order to undertake. He said we were following the letter of the law, and in each instance we have obtained court orders for all of these situations.

Truly amazing. I don't have a link or an exact quote on this at the moment, just listened to it. I'm sure there will be plenty of links soon enough.

What would you supporters of Bush on this say, if this is true? And I just heard him say it with my own ears. I know what I would say. An outright LIE.

 

[ferdville]

Big f'in deal.


CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER...

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER...

Go to Drudge report if you want to read about these and many more. It is hardly unusual.