Big Brother is watching...

[theloniusfleabag]

With Republicans and Democrats in Congress calling for investigations into whether the secret surveillance violated laws protecting American civil liberties, a defiant President Bush said it is his duty to make sure the eavesdropping continues.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives," said President Bush. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the President of the United States."

from...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm

A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for.

[Guest eureka]

I don't recall the context, but did Bush not describe the Constitution as a "piece of paper?" Did he not also say something like that as President he is the Law?

[sharkman]

Wow, a reporter digs up a secret administration practice that menaces privacy rights! Oh wait, it's just a reporter trying to sell his book.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

Personally, I have no problems with authorities tapping phone lines of those they suspect might be blowing up another building. They probably prevented some terrorists from commiting more mayhem. And you can bet they didn't waste their time on little old ladies like security does at U.S. airports, asking leading questions about nail clippers.

And now, any such terror prone types in the U.S. know the gov. may be listening. Way to go book hawker. :angry:

[Montgomery Burns]

Why am I not surprised that TLFB is upset that President Bush is doing everything he can to protect US citizens from terrorist attacks (4 yrs with no attacks)?

Answer: TLFB wants to see American citizens killed.

No ifs and or buts about it.

The bloodlust of the far-left is insatiable.....

[PocketRocket]

Why am I not surprised that TLFB is upset that President Bush is doing everything he can to protect US citizens from terrorist attacks

Perhaps because you see only what you choose to see???

(4 yrs with no attacks)?

Do you seriously believe that GWB's actions are responsible for the fact that there have been no attacks in 4 years???

How often have attacks on US soil occured, and with what frequency???

This is hardly the first time that there has been a 4 year stretch with no terror attacks on US soil.

But of course, Bush WILL take credit for it, no matter what the reason.

But another attack could come at any time, despite all the White House rhetoric about how much safer they've made the country.

Answer:  TLFB wants to see American citizens killed.

Yes, I am SURE that all FLEABAG thinks about is how happy he'll be to see more Americans killed

No ifs and or buts about it.

There's room here for a joke about all the "butts" being in the White House, but I'll leave that aside.

The bloodlust of the far-left is insatiable.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is interesting from the guy who has mocked the left at least a dozen times with his "No blood for Oiiilllllll !!!!" jeers.

Well, if it's "no blood for oil", that would point to the left being NOT "bloodthirsty", and wanting to prevent any bloodshed.

Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

[PocketRocket]

Wow, a reporter digs up a secret administration practice that menaces privacy rights!  Oh wait, it's just a reporter trying to sell his book.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

If it's so "secret", then how come any old reporter can dig it up???

And, if the reporter is also a writer, then selling books is his trade.

Can't blame a fish for swimming.

In a stern radio address delivered live from the White House Roosevelt Room, President Bush said media reports of the existence of the secret program have given America's enemies information they should not have.

"The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," said the president. "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

How did this "classified" information get out???

Instead of blaming a reporter for doing what reporters do, he should be looking at finding out who leaked the information.

And now, any such terror prone types in the U.S. know the gov. may be listening.  Way to go book hawker. :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. Uh-huh. Blame the writer because the "security" of "classified" information is full of holes.

If this guy got his hands on all this information, then you can bet your a$$ that a lot of other people were also aware of it, and it would have come out one way or another.

[!!!]

In a stern radio address delivered live from the White House Roosevelt Room, President Bush said media reports of the existence of the secret program have given America's enemies information they should not have.

"The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," said the president. "Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."

Heh. I wonder if Dick Cheney got that spiel for spilling the beans about the CIA's secret detention facilities.

Personally, I have no problems with authorities tapping phone lines of those they suspect might be blowing up another building. They probably prevented some terrorists from commiting more mayhem. And you can bet they didn't waste their time on little old ladies like security does at U.S. airports, asking leading questions about nail clippers.

Cerrtainly we can trust the government to perform unauthorized and probably illegal surveilance. No government would ever abuse such powers and only the guilty need fear. Just put your trust in Dear Leader and everything is gonna be alright...

How hard is it to get a warrant, anyway?

[Shady]

probably illegal

Probably? Nice argument, why don't you go find out for sure. Anyways, we all know that the Patriot Act simply gave the same tools to authorities to tackle terrorists as they have against organized crime. It also is reponsible for tearing down the Gerelick wall that was erected during the Clinton Administration which prevented the sharing of intelligence within different government agencies.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

It also is reponsible for tearing down the Gerelick wall that was erected during the Clinton Administration which prevented the sharing of intelligence within different government agencies.

The 9/11 Comission Report pointed out the terrible 'protectionism' within the US intelligence communities, and suggested that it would be a good idea if they started to share info. As it stood, (and to some degree still stands) the FBI, the police, the military and the CIA are all diferent entities, and jealously protect their own budgets, sources and info. There wasn't anything manifest that prevented them from sharing, except for the fear that their contributions might not get the credit (and budget allocation) that they feel they deserve.

[Guest eureka]

It is about time some of you Republican wannabees took the blinders off your eyes about what has happened to the "Land of the Free."

Here are a few of the provisions of the Patriot Act the you might like to chew over with the Freedom they imperil noted.

Freedom of Association: The government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist in terror investigation.

Freedom of Information: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public record requests.

Freedom of Speech: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Right to Legal representation: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Freedom from unreasonable searches: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause tp assist terror investigation.

Right to a speedy and public trial: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without trial.

Right to Liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

The above from "Crossing the Rubicon" by Ruppert.

This is by no means exhaustive and talks only of the abridgement of Freedoms of Americans disregarding the activities against "lesser breeds."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

QUOTE(Montgomery Burns @ Dec 19 2005, 07:50 AM)

Answer:  TLFB wants to see American citizens killed.

Yes, I am SURE that all FLEABAG thinks about is how happy he'll be to see more Americans killed

Yes, thanks for noticing the epitome of 'false dichotomy'. I have decided to not waste my time responding to people whom I could out-debate whilst typing with my ass cheeks.

Yeah. Uh-huh. Blame the writer because the "security" of "classified" information is full of holes.

If this guy got his hands on all this information, then you can bet your a$$ that a lot of other people were also aware of it, and it would have come out one way or another.

Indeed. It seems to me, the author is merely chasing the dollar, which is what the american dream is all about. How can he be criticized when he is simply doing exactly what the military claims to be fighting to protect?

[!!!]

Probably? Nice argument, why don't you go find out for sure. Anyways, we all know that the Patriot Act simply gave the same tools to authorities to tackle terrorists as they have against organized crime. It also is reponsible for tearing down the Gerelick wall that was erected during the Clinton Administration which prevented the sharing of intelligence within different government agencies.

Swell. Also irrelevant. We're not talking about the PATRIOT Act. We're talking about Bush doing an end run around FISA, which allows the government to conduct the kind of surveillance they were undertaking, provided they had a warrant. So the question is: why did they decide to bypass the courts? FISA makes it a crime to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Furthermore, the Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled that compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment is required, even in cases of "domestic subversive investigations".

Based on these two pieces of evidence (FISA and the freaking Constitution), Bush's spying program is both illegal and unconstitutional. But hey: at least he didn't get a blowjob, right?

[BHS]

Dear Shady,

It also is reponsible for tearing down the Gerelick wall that was erected during the Clinton Administration which prevented the sharing of intelligence within different government agencies.

The 9/11 Comission Report pointed out the terrible 'protectionism' within the US intelligence communities, and suggested that it would be a good idea if they started to share info. As it stood, (and to some degree still stands) the FBI, the police, the military and the CIA are all diferent entities, and jealously protect their own budgets, sources and info. There wasn't anything manifest that prevented them from sharing, except for the fear that their contributions might not get the credit (and budget allocation) that they feel they deserve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's an interesting article that states there was indeed a wall, both legally and administerially, between agencies.

[BHS]

Probably? Nice argument, why don't you go find out for sure. Anyways, we all know that the Patriot Act simply gave the same tools to authorities to tackle terrorists as they have against organized crime. It also is reponsible for tearing down the Gerelick wall that was erected during the Clinton Administration which prevented the sharing of intelligence within different government agencies.

Swell. Also irrelevant. We're not talking about the PATRIOT Act. We're talking about Bush doing an end run around FISA, which allows the government to conduct the kind of surveillance they were undertaking, provided they had a warrant. So the question is: why did they decide to bypass the courts? FISA makes it a crime to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Furthermore, the Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled that compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment is required, even in cases of "domestic subversive investigations".

Based on these two pieces of evidence (FISA and the freaking Constitution), Bush's spying program is both illegal and unconstitutional. But hey: at least he didn't get a blowjob, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay?

FISA DOES NOT make monitoring communications between an American and a foreign correspondent illegal. Neither does the Constitution. Since communication across international borders in the nub the issue, it stands to reason that nothing Bush authorized was illegal. Quite the opposite - it iss both legal and required, if further terrorism iss to be prevented. The only ilLegality here is the leak itself, which judging by Bush's reaction should receive at least the same scrutiny that the idiotic Plame non-scandal did.

[Riverwind]

The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay?

And this is worse than deliberately lying to to American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq?

[America1]

The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay?

And this is worse than deliberately lying to to American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you think Bush "lied", then you must think Clinton lied as well b/c they have tapes of him saying over and over again that Saddam had WMDs as late as 2000.

Please, try to educate yourself on the subject that you're speaking on. To say Bush "lied" about WMDs make you look like a fool.

[!!!]

The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay?

I'll remember that next time you bang on about Valerie Plame's husband being the one who revealed her identity or some such rot designed to obscure the point about administration officials (ahem: allegedly) perjuring themselves...

FISA DOES NOT make monitoring communications between an American and a foreign correspondent illegal. Neither does the Constitution.

As a matter of fact it does. FISA bars virtually any electronic surveillance conducted without a warrant or court order. Warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information is only okay provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. So: spying on Americans without a warrant=illegal.

Since communication across international borders in the nub the issue, it stands to reason that nothing Bush authorized was illegal.

Based on your ridiculous coment asserting that FISA does not prohibit electronic surveillance (omitting the glaring fact that any such surveillance is always conducted with a warrant in hand), you're judgement on this matter cannot really be trusted.

The only ilLegality here is the leak itself, which judging by Bush's reaction should receive at least the same scrutiny that the idiotic Plame non-scandal did.

Mmmmm....love those right-wing talking points! And from Bush's mouth to your ear, no less!

[Riverwind]

Please, try to educate yourself on the subject that you're speaking on. To say Bush "lied" about WMDs make you look like a fool.

It is a well established fact from the various commissions that have looked into the issue. The only people who look like a fools are those who continue to insist on justifying the war in Iraq because of WMDs.

Clinton may have said that Saddam could have WMDs (as did France and other countries), however, Clinton would have recognized that intelligence reports are not necessarily accurate and committing to a expensive war based on those reports was a rash and irresponsible act.

[BHS]

The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay?

And this is worse than deliberately lying to to American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This has been repeatedly refuted. Bush DID NOT LIE in making the case for war to the American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq. You're suffering from false memory syndrome.

[!!!]

f you think Bush "lied", then you must think Clinton lied as well b/c they have tapes of him saying over and over again that Saddam had WMDs as late as 2000.

Please, try to educate yourself on the subject that you're speaking on. To say Bush "lied" about WMDs make you look like a fool

So both Clinton and Bush were full of crap. No surprise there. Clinton oversaw the illegal bombing of Iraq and allowed Saddam to smuggle billions of dollars worth of oil to help build palaces. Bush invaded in order to work out some long-standing Freudian daddy issues and make the country safe for U.S. oil companies.

Using bad policy as a defence for bad policy doesn't really work.

[Riverwind]

This has been repeatedly refuted. Bush DID NOT LIE in making the case for war to the American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq. You're suffering from false memory syndrome.

If you believe that then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. The Bush administration wanted to go to into Iraq even before 9/11 - they just needed a way to sell it to the American public so they told the CIA and others to find evidence of WMDs. The CIA obligied because saying that there were no WMDs would have got them fired. Unfortunately, for the American people, this evidence was so shaky that even the British questioned its usefulness. So if Bush was not lying then is guilty of unimaginable incompetance.

[BHS]

This has been repeatedly refuted. Bush DID NOT LIE in making the case for war to the American public about the presence of WMD in Iraq. You're suffering from false memory syndrome.

If you believe that then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. The Bush administration wanted to go to into Iraq even before 9/11 - they just needed a way to sell it to the American public so they told the CIA and others to find evidence of WMDs. The CIA obligied because saying that there were no WMDs would have got them fired. Unfortunately, for the American people, this evidence was so shaky that even the British questioned its usefulness. So if Bush was not lying then is guilty of unimaginable incompetance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The notion that the CIA complied with Bush's scheme to gin up evidence for war in 2002/2003 because they were afraid of getting fired is pretty weak, considering that none of them got fired after September 11, 2001, including Clinton's man Tenet. None. Not even as an example, for those who didn't wan to play along.

I thought the British were the ones supplying the questionable intelligence about WMD programs.

That last line about unimaginable incompetance is absurd. Where's Black Dog? I've just been handed the best example of a false dichotomy posted on this board to date.

[BHS]

f you think Bush "lied", then you must think Clinton lied as well b/c they have tapes of him saying over and over again that Saddam had WMDs as late as 2000.

Please, try to educate yourself on the subject that you're speaking on. To say Bush "lied" about WMDs make you look like a fool

So both Clinton and Bush were full of crap. No surprise there. Clinton oversaw the illegal bombing of Iraq and allowed Saddam to smuggle billions of dollars worth of oil to help build palaces. Bush invaded in order to work out some long-standing Freudian daddy issues and make the country safe for U.S. oil companies.

Using bad policy as a defence for bad policy doesn't really work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so from Bush's lips to my ears. Who's orifice are you pressed up against?

[!!!]

That last line about unimaginable incompetance is absurd. Where's Black Dog? I've just been handed the best example of a false dichotomy posted on this board to date.

Yup, that's a F.D. alright. The possibility does exist that Bush et al were labouring under the belief that they're intelligence was bang on. But, given the political interference in the intelligence gathering process, that possibility seems like a small one.

None of which changes the fact you're full of crap on this whole domestic surveillance thing.

Okay, so from Bush's lips to my ears. Who's orifice are you pressed up against?

Oh lookee! You didn't try to counter a single point! I look forward to your future scintillating contributions such as "I know you are, but what am I?" and the delightful couplet that begins with "I 'm rubber, you're glue."

[BHS]

The blowjob quip is getting staler every time I read it. The issue wasn't that Clinton had extra-marital relations and besotted the dignity of the Oval Office, it was that he perjured himself by denying it in court. Okay?

I'll remember that next time you bang on about Valerie Plame's husband being the one who revealed her identity or some such rot designed to obscure the point about administration officials (ahem: allegedly) perjuring themselves...

So, either you've been reading posts on this forum for a while without comment (unlikely, given your style), or you've taken the time to go through my old posts (possible, but damn, you're a quick reader), or you're a current member posting under a new pseudonym (which is a little fishy too) or you're a banned member posting under a new pseudonym, in which case you'll be making a lot of posts in a hurry before the powers that be discover your TCPIP address is blacklisted and ban you again.

If you haven't been following the story lately, it turns out that it wasn't Rove or Libby who outed Plame, at least not in a manner consistent with the timeline pieced together by Fitzpatrick. Regardless of Libby's perjury, some other, as yet undetermined source was responsible for reporters knowing Plame's secret. Since Joe Wilson is remembered to have been very casual when discussing among aquaintances the details of his wife's work before going to Niger, it remains a possibility that he himself was the original source of the leak.

FISA DOES NOT make monitoring communications between an American and a foreign correspondent illegal. Neither does the Constitution.

As a matter of fact it does. FISA bars virtually any electronic surveillance conducted without a warrant or court order. Warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information is only okay provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard. So: spying on Americans without a warrant=illegal.

My bad. Though "court order" is a little misleading - it's not the same scenario familiar to fans of Law & Order. And apparently the warrants can be obtained post hoc, so warrantless surveillance is permissible, in a sense. Oh well. That's what I get for half-reading breaking news at midnight on a work night.

Since communication across international borders in the nub the issue, it stands to reason that nothing Bush authorized was illegal.

Based on your ridiculous coment asserting that FISA does not prohibit electronic surveillance (omitting the glaring fact that any such surveillance is always conducted with a warrant in hand), you're judgement on this matter cannot really be trusted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who's being ridiculous? Why don't you finish your ideas before commenting about other people's judgement? FISA is all about setting up rules to permit electronic surveillance, and doesn't prohibit it. (Reread your quote.)

And again, your statement misconstrues the nature of the warrant required. Yes, a special court is convened to grant the warrant, and almost never refuses to do so. Yes, a warrant can be obtained post hoc. And yes, the President's legal advisors reviewed the powers granted to him after 911 and concluded the warrants weren't required in all cases. Yes, the President was dilligent in following all of the legal advice given and reviewed the situation every 45 days. Yes, members of Congress from both parties were informed about this state of affairs and saw fit to go along with it, as did the New York Times itself, for more than a year.

No, this is not an impeachable offence. (Sorry, Senator Boxer.)