Big Brother is watching...

[PocketRocket]

See, a lot of people still point to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent as a blemish on the record of the nation and F.D.R.'s presidency. I guess it all depends on who you talk to. But the thing here is that the president breaking the law is a big deal. It's an even bigger deal when this same president has authorized torture, illegal confinement and started an uneccesary war that is still getting a lot of people killed. And those failures are just on the foreign policy front. It's hard to see how Bush will be remembered as anything but a dud, if not an outright embarrasment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As much as I may agree with your opinions of Bush, I tend to disagree with your apprisal of how history will view Bush.

(Again with apologies to America1)

It seems that the USA loves a winner as a president.

It also seems that America loves a president who will take them through a successful military campaign.

Bush's spin-people have successfully de-fused every attack against his policies and actions in the public eye.

The high number of people who are still rabidly faithful to Bush are testament to this, and make it extremely likely that Bush will be hailed as a great president who led the country through one of it's biggest crisis ever, and took the country into a necessary war, which, of course, the USA won in a glorious campaign which brought democracy to an oppressed people.

Not that I agree with any of it, but I can see it all very easily unfolding that way.

[Biblio Bibuli]

As much as I may agree with your opinions of Bush, I tend to disagree with your apprisal of how history will view Bush.

It seems that the USA loves a winner as a president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WE DO TOO!!

That's why Canadians never fell head over heals over losers, such as Diefenbaker, Mulroney & Joe Who.

[PocketRocket]

Now BB, how can you NOT love Mulroney when you live in Canada.

The need for good snow-removal is absolutely critical in this country.

And with that snow-plow that Mulroney calls a chin.....well, if he lived in Toronto, they never would have had to call in the army to help clear out that snowfall a few years back.

[Renegade]

You've made a leap here that I can't let pass without comment. This thread is about protecting the privacy of American citizens from potentially illegal intrusion. The prisoners at Guantanamo are enemy combatants (illegal or otherwise - let's not get into the legal status issue here) of foreign nationality, captured in foreign countries and kept in a detention facility on foreign soil. The American President is under no obligation to respect their rights or freedoms.

I'm stunned by your statement that "The American President is under no obligation to respect their rights or freedoms." If Hezbollah kidnaps an American citizen, can we also say that they are "under no obligation to respect their rights or freedoms."? An American President should have the common sense to respect human rights of both American citizens and foreign nationals to the same extent he expects American citizens to be treated elsewhere. As you say it is not useful to split hairs and determine if it is legal (by American law). Legal or not, it is characteristic of this president's attitude that he allows it to happen.

I object to the word torture being used to describe interrogation techniques that until the McCain amendment were legal under both American and International law and which do not result in serious injury to the detainee.

If you don't consider total deprivation of sleep, food and water, exposure to extreme heat and cold, up to 20 minutes in stress positions, up to 2 hours listening to white noise to be torture then your definition of torture is different than mine. It is a telling sign that the McCain amendment was even necessary. It is interesting that it was not necessary before to have to spell out the limits for interrogration techniques till now.

Why exactly do you think Guantanamo Bay was picked? It is because U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over the claims of detainees held on the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, because the base in on sovereign Cuban soil. So do you think they are protected under Cuban law?

It's true that many people were "detained", some for extended periods of time, immediately following 911. I'm sure you'll agree this couldn't be helped and that no administration, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise would have acted any differently. Perhaps it's my persistent naivete showing through, but to my knowledge only Jose Padilla is still being held. I don't know of the friends or families of other detainees coming forward to ask why their loved ones are still being held, and I can't believe that if there was a story there the New York Times et al wouldn't be all over it, unless they'd been privately convinced of the merits of keeping certain people locked up.

I'll agree in the aftermath of 9/11 any administration had to act quickly and detain suspects, both for retribution and to prevent any future attacks. However you should also acknowledge that due process was suspended. People were detained unbelievably long periods of time without charges or access to counsel. The list of abuses goes far beyond what an administration which respected human rights and freedoms would do. Read them for yourself Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees

As has been mentioned by others in this forum, Canada is no slouch in monitoring communications, except that up here it's all completely legal and no one has ever really made an issue out of it.

Just because CSE comits some of the same privacy violations as the US doesn't excuse the US. Personally, I'm just as unhappy about the Canadian actions, they just haven't had the same scope and publicity as the US.

My contention since the 2004 election has been that Bush has more or less expended his party's political capital as far as the Presidency is concerned. I firmly believe that if the Dems nominate Hillary or a governor of similar stature and politics they won't have a problem reclaiming the Presidency. I'm interested to see how a Democratic President will act in the job post 911.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally if I were an American I'd be in a quandry on who to elect. I would characterize myself as a fiscal conservative and so I would lean toward the Republicans (though their excessive spending on the military hardly characterizes them as having fiscal restraint!!!). On the other hand, I am also strongly libertarian, and this administration scares the daylights of me from a human rights perspective. I'm only glad that there is a two-term limit.

[Argus]

As much as I may agree with your opinions of Bush, I tend to disagree with your apprisal of how history will view Bush.

It seems that the USA loves a winner as a president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WE DO TOO!!

That's why Canadians never fell head over heals over losers, such as Diefenbaker, Mulroney & Joe Who.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By what possible reasoning would you term Diefenbaker and Mulroney, who both enjoyed multiple, massive majorities as Prime Minister - losers? Even Joe Clark, who I always thought was an idiot (still do) managed to lead a major political party, become Prime Minister, and then stay in politics and become a long-serving and respected cabinet minister. Compared to you and I this man, despite being an idiot, has had a rather succesful life.

[Montgomery Burns]

I'm not going to bother to post links showing that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did the same thing, because I suspect you all know this, and know that is yet another attempt by the MSM to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

However, I do believe that whoever leaked this to the NYT should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. BTW, where are all the lefties who were screaming about Valerie Plame being "outed" at her desk job at the CIA?

I have a prediction.

This will hurt the Dems badly. They already have a deplorable reputation for protecting the US public, and I can only hope that they run on this platform during the 2006 mid-term elections.

I'm extremely confident that the American public is not concerned that the Bush administration is spying on Al Qaeda operatives in the US.

Indeed, I saw an online poll from the liberal-left CTV a few days ago (28,000+ votes) that agreed - 70% to 30% - that Bush is justified to spy on Al Qaeda operatives in the US.

Please Democrats. Please make this an issue in the next election. It's a sure winner for you.

[Shady]

Also, here's some more interesting information related to this topic:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own

NR

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

EO 12139

23 May 1979

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and

104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.

1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this

chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for

foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Executive Order

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution

and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,

et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for

the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes

as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Executive Order

[I Miss Trudeau]

Also, here's some more interesting information related to this topic:

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own

NR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is this relevant to the fact that GWB did, and likely still is, violating the law of the land?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Gay kiss-ins are a "credible threat" of terrorism...

According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

I wonder if Bush illegally approved spying on any of these people for reasons of national security?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Even Joe Clark, who I always thought was an idiot (still do) ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for helping, Argus!

He may be on meds now, but we'll get him yet.

[Shady]

How is this relevant to the fact that GWB did, and likely still is, violating the law of the land?

Um, because he's not.

[I Miss Trudeau]

How is this relevant to the fact that GWB did, and likely still is, violating the law of the land?

Um, because he's not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Every argument that has been offered to support that conclusion has been destroyed in this thread or elsewhere. Care to try another one?

[BHS]

Every argument that has been offered to support that conclusion has been destroyed in this thread or elsewhere. Care to try another one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love it how liberal types are so often wrong about everything these days, that they are debased to claiming total victory just because their arguments haven't all fallen apart in the first 48 hours.

This "illegality" is of a piece with the "illegality" of a President sending troops into battle without a declaration of war. In both cases there are laws, congressional declarations and certain readings of the Constitution arguing against the actions being taken. In both cases, the actions have been taken in the past without political or legal repercussions, because both sides of the aisle want to preserve the Presidential powers being legally (that's right, legally) assumed. (Keeping in mind that the final arbiter of American law, the Supreme Court, has always sided with the current and Clinton administrations' views for both of these issues.)

[Black Dog]

  Also, here's some more interesting information related to this topic:

Shady, Shady, Shady: do try and keep up. The difference between the Clinton and Carter executive orders and the current domestic surveillance program were already dealt with in this very thread (fyi: neither covered electronic surveillance of U.S. persons).

Indeed, I saw an online poll from the liberal-left CTV a few days ago (28,000+ votes) that agreed - 70% to 30% - that Bush is justified to spy on Al Qaeda operatives in the US

Notwithstanding the fact that online polls are completely useless as a reliable means of guaging public opinion, I'm sure if the question was phrased in such a way that spoke to the issue (that is, if it asked if Bush was justified to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant, rather than the leading "Al Qaeda operatives") the results would be quite different.

[BHS]

How is this relevant to the fact that GWB did, and likely still is, violating the law of the land?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just to keep things clear here, it's the NSA that's doing the actual violating. Mkay?

[PocketRocket]

Gay kiss-ins are a "credible threat" of terrorism...

That is the most silly, yet somewhat disturbing, thing I have ever read.

It would be hilarious if it weren't true.

I wonder if Bush illegally approved spying on any of these people for reasons of national security?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, no, it's all legal because he's the president, remember???

[Black Dog]

t to keep things clear here, it's the NSA that's doing the actual violating. Mkay?

Sure. But the President personally authorized the program, which, if used to eavesdrop on U.S. persons, is a violation of a standing Congressional statute.

[Montgomery Burns]

Just as I said earlier on this thread (not only is it legal--Clinton and even Carter did the same thing)...the public would support Bush on this matter.

I'm not a huge fan of polls, however the latest Rasmussen poll states:

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree....Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Even half the Donks, plus 4 out of 7 Independants support Bush on this matter.

Common sense wins again and another "brilliant" political strategy by the Dems falls apart. First there was Kerry saying he wouldn't use US troops to defend America unless "it passed the global test" and now they are running around screeching (with the help of the MSM) that they won't eavesdrop on suspected terrorists....and btw vote for us.

Until the Dems purge their party of the far-leftists who have hijacked their party, the ones who continually undermine US national security and continually demoralize the troops for pure partisan political purposes, they will never get back in power.

Look at their top leaders: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and others like Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, and Cynthia McKinney. Would you trust these clowns to protect you when your country was at war?

Centrist Democrats appear to agree this is a losing strategy:

Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security.

Gee, ya think?

"I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.

"I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it," said Mr. O'Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is "good legislation."

But the Patriot Act allows intelligence to be shared by different agencies, which helps protect America, which is a bad thing in Liberal Land.

"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses.

Nervousness among Democrats intensified earlier this month after Democrats led a filibuster against the Patriot Act that threatened to block the measure, followed by a victory cry from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, "We killed the Patriot Act."

Go Harry. Go Harry. Go Harry.

After Mr. Bush sharply attacked Mr. Reid, saying lack of the Patriot Act "will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers," Senate Democrats dropped their filibuster and accepted a six-month extension. A Republican-backed five-week extension was adopted last week by the House and Senate.

[Black Dog]

Just as I said earlier on this thread (not only is it legal--Clinton and even Carter did the same thing)...the public would support Bush on this matter.

I'm not a huge fan of polls, however the latest Rasmussen poll states:

Well, you're as full of crap as ever. In addition to transmitting the lie about Carter and Clinton doing the same thing (they didn't, for reasons explained below), you rely on a poll that, again, asks a question that doesn't speak to the issue at hand.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.

Considering the government already had the ability to do so under FISA, it's good that the public suports the existing, sensible legislation. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the substance of this issue, no matter how much spin you try to put on it and how many lies you peddle to muddy it up.

Just to clear the air, I want to outline why the claim that Clinton and Carter authorized program's similar to Bush's domestic spying program is a lie.

The Carter Claim: President Carter's Executive Order of May 23, 1979 authorized to electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order or warrant.

Why It's a Lie: Carter's order only applied to communications where there was no substantial likelihood of any communication to which a United States person was a party being intercepted. Bush's program, on the other hand, has no such safeguards to protect U.S. persons from government eavesdropping.

The Clinton Claim: In 1995, Clinton authorized physical searches, without a court order.

Why It's a Lie: For starters, at the time FISA's warrant provisions did not apply to physical searches, a loophole which was subsequently closed by Clinton administration. Furthermore, Clinorn order also required the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Again, Bush's program doesn't appear to have any of the safeguards protecting U.S. persons from warrantless eavesdropping, which is, again, the heart of this matter.

[Montgomery Burns]

I realize, BD, that it is only a poll, but 64% to 23% is a huge difference; almost 3 times more.

I'm sure you agree that it is a good political strategy for the Dems to whine about Bush eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

And you continue your long streak of lies when by denying that Carter and Clinton authorized eavesdropping.

Jimmy Carter signs Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.

Bill Clinton signs Executive Order on February 9, 1995: Attorney General allowed to do searches without court approval.

Washington Post, July 15, 1994: Administration backing no warrant spy searches:

Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant. Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified."

Typical Black Dog.

Carter does it: Good

Clinton does it: Good

Bush does it: Bad.

[Black Dog]

Mb, I've gotten used to you being obtuse, but there's no excuse for wilful stupidity.

I realize, BD, that it is only a poll, but 64% to 23% is a huge difference; almost 3 times more.

I'm sure you agree that it is a good political strategy for the Dems to whine about Bush eavesdropping on suspected terrorists

You do realize, of course, that "eavesdropping on suspected terrorists" isn't the issue. That's a capability the government already had. The issue is spying on U.S. persons without a warrant in violation of standing federal law.

And you continue your long streak of lies when by denying that Carter and Clinton authorized eavesdropping.

I explained, in great detail, why the Clinton/Carter situatiouns are not analagous (shit: Clinton's X.O. dealt with physical searches, not eavesdropping, as you say).

Clearly, it's still beyond your grasp. Should I try smaller words, maybe? Or perhaps act it out in a puppet show? Or could it be that you are being deliberately ignorant? Waiting for the latest marching orders/talking points from Drudge or LGF?

[Black Dog]

More "moonbats" weigh in.

"The executive order is, according to Mr. Bush, based on classified legal opinions stating that the president's authority derives from his Commander-in-Chief power and the post-911 congressional authorization for the use of military force against Al Qaeda. That pernicious rationale, carried to its logical extreme, renders the PATRIOT Act unnecessary and trumps any dispute over its reauthorization. Indeed, such a policy makes a mockery of the principle of separation of powers."

This can only come from those wacky leftists over at the Cato Institute.

[Black Dog]

Oh and Burnsie:

However, I do believe that whoever leaked this to the NYT should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. BTW, where are all the lefties who were screaming about Valerie Plame being "outed" at her desk job at the CIA?

It is illegal to classify information for the purpose of concealing unlawful acts by the Government. Therefore, if the "classified" doemstic spy program is, in fact, a violation of the law, then classifying it to conceal that fact is an illegal act. Which makes whoever disclosed the informationa whistleblower on par with Felt or Ellsberg.

[I miss Reagan]

BD give this a read. At least you'll like the source...

NSA acted on its own

Typical Black Dog.

Carter does it: Good

Clinton does it: Good

Bush does it: Bad.

That's good.

[Black Dog]

BD give this a read. At least you'll like the source...

NSA acted on its own

Hmmm. So the N.S.A. apparently violated FISA on its own accord. Bush "merely" approved a continuation of this illegal program. And this supports your position...how?

Typical Black Dog.

Carter does it: Good

Clinton does it: Good

Bush does it: Bad.

That's good.

Are you people so dumb that you can't grasp the very specific differences between the cases? I guess so.