Bush Backed Spying On Americans 1092
jb.hl.com writes "President Bush allowed security agents to eavesdrop on people inside the U.S. without court approval after 9/11, the New York Times has reported. The report says that under a 2002 presidential order, the National Security Agency has been unconstitutionally and illegally monitoring international communications of hundreds in the U.S. When asked about the programme on U.S. TV, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said, 'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken.'"
Something else to trouble you: (Score:5, Interesting)
"(It) basically says that if a person, a reasonable person, would feel that someone was acting under orders
Great quote (Score:5, Interesting)
"God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican.
Hell, why stop there, let's wipe with the constitution a little more and go straight to a Police State Act, then Sen. Kyl can argue "God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Police State Act before it was passed." Yeah, a prison could be real safe too.
If 47 senators are so for it, maybe they should just "opt-in" to giving up their rights, instead of passing another odious law that will apply to them too? Oh yeah, that's because it won't apply to them. They are elite. Their names will never be on a no-fly list. Their personal information will never be stored at a company like ChoicePoint (if you ran ChoicePoint, the first thing you'd do is create a blacklist so that no one who could mess with your business model could be affected by a scam). But they're oh-so-ready to shackle the common man to keep him safe.
Status of encryped Voice-over-IP and email? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how long it is before they use NSA intercepts to implement other authoritarian measures, such as drug/copyright/misc law enforcement.
And, is anyone surprised that Vice President Dick "Go Fuck Yourself, we're gonna invade Iraq and torture/kidnap people for my profit" Cheney is pushing the whole spy-on-american-citizens philosophy as well? The guy is the single greatest point of all things evil in the world, and must be removed from power & influence immediately.
NY times sat on this for a year (Score:5, Interesting)
"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
And how exactly is knowing that the NSA isn't under court-oversight, gonna help terrorists???? I guess Bin Laden is now gonna hold off on making all those phone calls to the States, now that he knows the NSA doesn't need to call a judge before starting the wiretap.
The New York Times simply cannot be stupid enough to believe that this knowledge will help terrorists. They are a bunch of sniveling, subservient, fart-catchers. They care less about informing the public, then in protecting their pathetic "access" to the powerful.
That the government removed the provision that wiretaps should be (effectively) rubber-stamped is shameful. That they kept the people in the dark about this decision is even more shameful. But that the supposed free press also kept this massive decision secret?? That's so fucked, I don't even know where to begin.
A vibrant democracy has a free press. In a democracy, you can speak your mind without fear. Your government is open, and their decisions are public and can be scrutinized. Heck, the public can even influence the decisions!
What America has is a vote every few years to choose between one of two figureheads. There are certainly places in this world, where they don't even pretend to live in a democracy, but this shouldn't give one much comfort.
America: Please. Do something. Your democracy is so shallow, it barely exists, except as some cheap idea evoked by your rulers to justify the invasion of other countries.
Why we aren't all at the barricades is beyond me.
Ooh geez, I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
Before you start lashing out against the government, notice that the article states that the monitoring activities are of individuals believed to have possible ties to terrorist networks, and no mention is made if they're even US citizens.
Of course, you can say that they could technically monitor anyone they want as long as they made it a 'national security' matter, but then again, you are probably wearing tinfoil hats and living confortably in your tempest cages, so you have nothing to worry about.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:5, Interesting)
W "Its only a GD piece of paper" Bush (Score:1, Interesting)
As you can see, it has been reported before [capitolhillblue.com]. The only news is that it finally made it into the mainstream corporate-censored news stream, a bit like Abu Graib.
What else to expect from Bush, whose desire to shred the constitution [capitolhillblue.com] is only barely hidden from public view.
Fuck You. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just one question. Why do you hate your freedom?
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:3, Interesting)
This brings up something that really bothers me; I wish that all references to legislation would simply be a number, instead of some (usually misleading) title. I keep waiting for someone to create the "Stop clubbing baby seals act" that in truth cuts funding for all public programs. It is too easy for people introducing legislation to avoid putting a spin on the name.
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:3, Interesting)
Even more sadly, looking back at our recorded history, we are acting like human beings. We haven't evolved much from the ape who first used a tool to club the crap out of the ape with the nicer foodstuff. Only the tools have changed.
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:1, Interesting)
Except that this part of the military, the National Guard, has long been used for disaster relief. We aren't talking about bringing in special forces units to hand out water.
As for the law governing this, the Governor of Louisiana had already gone through the proper procedures to request help from the President. The problem was that Bush was too busy taking his vacation out west and the people he left in charge were incompetent.
History repeats itself... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NY times sat on this for a year (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh crap, I want a firmer number here. Did they wait exactly a year? Was it a roughly a year? Was it maybe a bit more than a year? Was the article originally going to be printed before election day 2004?
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:5, Interesting)
Free press would be hardpressed to be free (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering how the US has treated other free press agencies like Al-Jazeer by "accidentally" bombing two of their buildings (the precise coordinates of which were specifically given to the military to prevent that sort of accident) as well as harrasing and possibly shooting some of their reporters, somehow I'm not surprised that no one over there has been too keen to start publishing the US's actions over there. Also, Iraq's government and our government's interest in it has nothing to do with democracy, do you really think if the Iraqis voted tomorrow for the US to leave that we would? Puppet governments aren't gone, just getting updates to the facades. Our government is not in the habit of respecting sovereignty or the press.
Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The truly amazing part is that we elected him.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:a Goddamned piece of paper, surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
If he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to hide.
Just have him answer whether he said it UNDER OATH.
(sound familiar???)
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:5, Interesting)
You're humorously short-sighted. If an Israeli attack hits Iran from Iraqi airspace, Iran will cross the border into Iraq.
"Either that, or the Israelis will be flying F-22 stealth fighters with full radar jamming and supercruise capability. In which case you'd never even see them coming."
Stuff blows up. People look up, see planes flying south by southwest. Iranians put 2 and 2 together, invade Iraq.
Heck, that's even worse: it allows the Iranians to assume the planes were US forces.
(By the way, if you're jamming radar, you are the exact opposite of stealth.)
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) I don't consider just raising taxes to cover every spending spree you go on to be "financial responsibility". Republicans regularly vote for smaller spending increases than Dems. And I can't think of the last time a departments budget was actually cut. ("cut" means CUT, not just reduce the increase).
(2) The reduction in the size of government that Clinton likes to take credit for consists almost entirely of military base closings that were voted into place during the previous Bush administration. How about we do the same thing for domestic departments that have long since outlived their function? I don't hear any of these responsible Democrats calling for such things. If they did, I'd vote for them.
(3) Most Republican voters as well as Democrats are "good" people. What confuses you is that you have been told that all Republicans are evil when in reality most Republicans have a distrust, that is well founded in history of governments that get too big and try to live people's lives for them. There is no instance of government "giving" money to individuals that does not come with strings attached. As "kind hearted" as many of those programs sound, they will, and have largely already, produce a population unable to think for themselves and such a society cannot sustain itself. Never has, never will.
If there were a "Leave me the Hell Alone" party that had electable candidates I would vote for them. Until then, I will continue to vote for the party that comes closest to that philosophy, even if there is only a hairs breadth of difference between the two existing parties.
Here is a quote from Jimmy Carter's new book "Our Endangered Values":
"Soon after arriving in Washington, I was surprised and disappointed when no Democratic member of Congress would sponsor my first series of legislative proposals -- to reorganize parts of the federal bureaucracy -- and I had to get Republicans to take the initiative. Thereafter, my shifting coalitions of support comprised the available members of both parties who agreed with me on specific issues, with my most intense and mounting opposition coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. (One reason for this was the ambition of Senator Ted Kennedy to replace me as president.)"
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?sto
When Carter took office, even though I hadn't voted for him, I thought he was a nice guy, and his statements on reforming government gave me hope that he would do the right thing. His presidency was one disaster after another, some probably beyond his control (the gas crisis), but his own party sabotaging him is not a reason for me to consider voting for another Democrat until the Democrat party does more to distance itself from people who for all practical purposes are extreme socialists. Again, the problem with the socialist philosophy isn't that the intentions are bad, it is that the system does not work.
As they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Maybe that should be the motto for the Democrat party.
Before everybody gets worked up... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.
It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the eavesdropping.
-- Mark Levin at NRO [nationalreview.com].
It really is a good idea to get out of the echo chamber on occasion and read some of what the "other side" has to say. The NYT isn't exactly notorious for giving you the full story, nor is the BBC who simply summarized the NYT article.
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, that's a big shocker. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Since the primary objective would be to wipe out the nuclear weapons, the nuclear part is intended to be removed from the equation. The Israeli backup plan probably includes something like "nuke them first".
2. Afganistan and Iraq are not wars. An occupation isn't the same thing as a war. Very few of our high-tech resources are actually in use at the moment. At least some ground troops can be redeployed as necessary. We can actually pull out of those two countries without exposing to the US to any immediate threats.
3. To have a war on three fronts, you have to have three fronts. These three countries are right next to each other. We'd actually be consolidating two fronts into one, allowing us to better deploy our resources. Plus, we can hit Iran from both sides if we need to.
Whether or not it was Israel doesn't matter: if it came from Iraqi airspace, US forces occupying Iraq gave them aid and comfort (by allowing them overflight), making them complicit in the attacks.
You know, you're acting as if we should actually be worried about the retalitory ability of Iran. That has never been much of a concern. Pretty much the highest tech stuff they have are 30 year old F-14s which have been serviced only through deals with Russia. (Which were probably disrupted by the fall of the Soviet Union.) Iran doesn't have a chance in hell of standing up to Israel, much less the US. That's why nuclear weapons are important to them.
With all our forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing left to galvanize.
I wasn't aware that all of the US Citizens were in Iraq and Afghanistan. Silly me, I thought I was talking about galvanizing public opinion against Iran. Right now public opinion is pretty low due to the issues with occupying Iraq.
It's not history, it's current events. We can have soldiers in:
* Afghanistan
* Iraq
* Iran
Pick only two.
Why? Pick only two, that is. We have more than enough resources to wage war. We just don't have enough resources to occupy Iran. Which would be a bad idea anyway. (No dictators being overthrown, or anything else like that.) There's no real reason why we can only have two. Especially if we can consolidate our theater of operations.
BTW, on the F-22, you may find this bit [wikipedia.org] of interest:
I gotta get me one of those!
Re:Wow, there's a shocker. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm so glad you tried to compare Kosovo and Iraq...that is so perfect and I love how bad you got the facts. First of, I love how the US is accused of attacking a country that never attacked us, when speaking of Iraq...interestingly I don't recall when Kosovo or Slobodan attacked us yet we still went into Kosovo. Interestingly also, the security council (including China, Russia, France, Germany) tried to block us going against an oppressor like Slobodan Milosovic. Not suprisingly, those same stupid countries were against us going into Iraq. And I don't know how you can miss the fact that WE WERE ATTACKED BY IRAQ!!!! We were attacked every day while our planes were flying over Iraq. We were shot at constantly, but that little tidbit escapes most of the Angry Democrat arguements. In addition, no one ever mentions the countless UN resolutions (supported by most countries) that were passed against Iraq and that Saddam and Iraq constantly broke.
Furthermore, we did NOT go into the war with Saadam only with Britain...that's insulting to all of the 30 other countries in the UN that agreed...again the only dissenting votes were China, Russia, France, Germany. Interestingly those dissenting countries stood to lose millions of dollars if the US went in and cut them all of from the illegal dealings in oil and weapons that had been going down under the watchful eye of the UN.
"Clinton never lied to the people..."...never? I seem to recall he lied about several things...blow job ring a bell? That's besides the point. Bush NEVER lied so why do you have to make up crap that he did. The intelligence that he presented to Congress was provided by the CIA which happened to be lead by George Tenet (A CLINTON APPOINTEE). That intelligence was confirmed by the British. That intelligence was confirmed by Spain. That Intelligence was confirmed by RUSSIA!!! Hello...Russia, who was opposed to us going, confirmed our intelligence...PUTIN was even quoted as saying so!!!!
So, please give me a freaking break and get of your damn soap-box and stop whining how your idiot Kerry got robbed and should be president. Go whine somewhere else. Saadam was an angry, evil, dangerous man who brutally murdered thousands of his own people..much less (likely) than have died in Kosovo. He attacked/invaded other countries. He attacked our troops. He developed weapons of mass destructions and USED THEM to gas his people. He had stockpiles of WMDs that have not all been accounted for....how disposes of various germs/chemicals/bombs/etc and does not provide proof to the UN inspectors? If I supposedly did that, I would generate false documents if necessary to show that I did destroy things. The Missing WMDs are likely in Syria or Iran by now and that transport was likely the result of us not going in to Iraq sooner and is a huge mistake on our part.
I can't write anymore because I'm sick and tired of arguing with angry Democrats that result to making up lies to suit their own agenda. I'm glad this country finally took a stance against an oppressor instead of waiting for millions more to be gassed or burnt alive like when the US and others waited for a long time before taking Hitler out...at least we saved some lives by going in early.
Re:Palpatine loses one (Score:1, Interesting)
Great, he'll get along well with the christians [wikipedia.org] then. Just replace "12th Imam" with "Jesus #2".
Re:Bush & Co. should not be above the law (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't stand either major political party, but I have a real hard time drawing a parallel between lying about getting a blowjob and sending 2000+ of your fellow citizens off to die because it fit your agenda.
Maybe you can shed some light on that for me.